I understand the history and reasons of the Electoral College but would further information about reform...?

Question

For example: can anyone tell me a good and logical argument why a State's Electoral College Votes could not be distributed in proportion to the popular vote polled by each candidate in that prticular state.

i.e., if the Republican candiate polled 50%, the Democrat 40% and the Green candidate 10% why could that states ECVs be ditributed in the same proportion ?

Surely such a system would be fairer and more representative. It would also encourage participation as surely the present system acts as a disincentive to vote. For example: if you are a GOP supporter in New York or a Democrat in Utah - whatis the point in voting or the President when you know it will make no real difference.

Answer 1

Each state can decide how to select their electors. So yes, they could be done by %%.

More accurate would be what Nebraska and Maine do already -- assign the electors based on who wins each congressional district, with the two extra going two the overall statewide winner.

But the problem with that is that it takes away the importance of the 'several states' and focuses electoral power in the big cities.

Actually I think it is a pretty good idea for larger states. California, New York, Texas, Florida, etc have very diverse populations and will attract candidates no matter what. And such a system empowers the individual voters in such states since even the most solid red/blue state has about a 30-40% minority of the other party.

For smaller states they dont have enough votes to attract attention if they get distributed. With only 4-8 electorial votes they become more powerful -- and their voters more important overall -- by concentrating the votes. If it is a close race then neither party can take the smaller states for granted -- because 6 votes might make the difference. But it those 6 votes were divided it would be an easy decision to ignore the state, figuring you will pick up at least 2, maybe 3 at best.

Now the large states will never distribute their votes. Because while it empowers the large political minority it takes power AWAY from the state politicians who are vested in the attention they get from their national party in return for delivering ALL of those electorial votes. It guarentees a ton of money and patronage to them.

Finally, a simple popular vote is a BAD way to elect the president. Consider that they modern science of demographics can very closely track how people in an area will vote. And that the historic popular votes for each party are pretty close to each other. That means that the election would be decided by a few hundred thousand votes either way.... so politicians would only focus on those few areas that might bring in those votes. And everywhere else they would make even more wedge issues to keep the status quo in their 'dependable' areas.

With the electorial college as it is, there is great incentive to run a broad campaign across several battleground states because swinging one or the other can earn you 8-16 votes and the election.

Answer 2

Yes, if you distributed the electoral college votes in proportion to the popular votes, two things would be accomplished:

1) Smaller states would no longer have a say in national politics. We might as well scrap the state system and be one giant nation.

2) The electoral count would so closely mirror the popular vote count in proportion as to eliminate the purpose of the electoral college in the first place.

Remember, the U.S.A. is a "nation of nations", not just a single nation.

Answer 3

The Electoral College was established to prevent some dishonest self-serving carpetbagger from shopping around to become representative of a very populated state, like New York, hypothetically speaking, and directing million$ in pork just to buy votes when she (or he) decides to run for President.

The electoral votes should be a required to follow the states popular vote, however a states electoral votes should not be required to follow the nationwide popular vote as has been suggested.

Answer 4

The Constitution actually doesn't gaurantee that a general public election take place to elect the President. It states that the states choose their electors to cast votes in the electorial college. It had been assumed that the electors would cast their votes according to the etates wishes. Some states cast all their electors for one candidate that carries the state, others apportion them to the different candidates according to polling. This has fallen from favor in the last century , as more states tend to vote as a bloc.

Answer 5

I don't see why compartmentalization of the vote is such a terrible thing. In a sense, the individual states cast votes as-a-whole. This would seem to be a good thing for those who advocate states rights.
And don't forget that the individual citizens of each state vote on what that vote is going to be. So the idea that a voter shouldn't bother just because his state is likely to out-vote him doesn't seem all that convincing.

Answer 6

I agree. People say that we live in a democracy, but we really don't. A democracy means a direct vote and we don't have that. The electoral college was put in place to make sure the American public didn't totally 'f' things up...well we can see how far that has gotten us. I think we need to do away with the electoral college and go to a straight popular vote.

Answer 7

Any state can do that now. I believe Maine and Nebraska already do. I suggest you work strongly to get the big states to do just that. Smaller conservative states aren't about to do that until states like California and New York are willing to go that route.