 |
| This shows the one electoral vote that then Senator from Illinois Barack Obama got in Nebraska due to how that state awards it's electoral votes |
There have been numerous proposals to change how the Electoral College system works in each state, one of which was proposed by the Pennsylvania state senate majority leader Dominic Pileggi (he is from the Republican Party). He proposes that the state of Pennsylvania should change the way it awards it's electoral votes from the winner takes all approach (this means that which ever candidate wins the popular vote in that state also gets that states electoral votes) which is used in most of the fifty states with the exceptions being in the states of Maine and Nebraska to a system where by eighteen of the electoral votes would be awarded to which ever candidate wins a particular congressional district e.g. if you won the popular vote in nine of the congressional districts you would get nine of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. The remaining two would be awarded to the candidate who won the state wide popular vote. This Proposal by Pileggi is similar to the systems already in place in the two already mentioned states of Maine and Nebraska (President Obama got one electoral vote from Nebraska in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election). Another proposal to change how the Electoral College works comes from a person called Hal Nickle from California, they wanted it changed by getting the Secretary of State of California to determine the percentage of the popular vote received by each Presidential candidate down to the nearest one hundredth of a percentile and then multiply what ever the percentage is by the number of Presidential Electors California has which is 55, then if the number of electoral votes each candidate got did not equal the number of electors, the rest would be awarded to the candidate with highest percentage of the popular vote, (this proposal did not qualify to go on the ballot. The full proposal can be read here https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/13-0049%20%2813-0049%20%28Electoral%20Votes%29%29.pdf?). If this were how the electoral votes were awarded in California then in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election President Obama would have got 35 electoral votes and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney would have got 20. My personal opinion on this would be to leave the Electoral College as it is even if it is somewhat unfair.
Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.
ReplyDeleteFor states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ."
- FairVote
I'm not saying that’s what it should be changed to, all I'm doing is stating what some of the alternatives are to the winner takes all system in most states
DeleteThe National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE -74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc