During August, a proposed California initiative to alter the way California chooses presidential electors has garnered considerable publicity. The proposed initiative, backed by Republican Party leaders, would provide that each U.S. House district would choose its own presidential elector. Since California normally casts all its electoral votes for the Democratic nominee, and since this plan would presumably produce approximately 34 Democratic electors and 21 Republican electors from California, Democrats have already begun to attack the idea.
However, both sides may have overlooked the broader ramifications. 23 states have the initiative process (Illinois’ so-called initiative can’t be used for almost all topics, so Illinois is not included). Of those 23 states, 18 of them voted for Bush in each of the last presidential elections. If Republicans could do an initiative in California, Massachusetts, Maine, Oregon and Washington, then Democrats are free to do similiar initiatives in the other 18 initiative states, which include Ohio and Florida.
Furthermore, there is no reason the proposed initiatives need to give each US House district its own elector. Another alternative would be one similar to that defeated in Colorado in 2004, to divide each state’s electors proportionately to the popular vote. In this manner, even the 5 Republican states with only a single US House district (North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska) could end up with plans that would normally result in 2 Republican electors and 1 Democratic elector.
A broader implication for these initiatives might be a final revulsion with the electoral college, and a push for either the National Popular Vote plan, or a constitutional amendment to end the electoral college.
>However, both sides may have overlooked
>the broader ramifications.
I disagree. I think that both parties are aware
of the ramifications and that they can get partisan
advantage by pushing for a non-winner take allocation
of electors within states that normally go to the
other party. They wil cynically claim that their reform is to better represent the views of voters in the state, but unfortunately this is insincere – they are just working for partisan advantage.
I don’t favor those policies although I would support
moving away from the electorial college towards a
national popular vote.
As for the National Popular Vote (NPV) compact-based approach that is currently being pushed by some:
I am unsure of how it copes with the fact that it needs to know what the national popular vote was. In particular I am not sure of how they would cope with a state that is not in that compact switching to a voting system (such as approval voting) that does not collect plurality-style data. A compact cannot force states not in the compact to provide plurality-style data.
Getting rid of electoral college could take over 200 years, that’s how long the last amendment took to pass. What is funny is NPV would make worse the exact problems it aims to fix. Except for 2000, we would have to go back to the 1800’s for an example of a Prez carrying the electoral college and not the popular vote.
The CO. proportional approach is certainly the way to go. With IRV the issue is resolved because all votes are counted.
Leave it alone. The Founders were not the jerks they are portrayed as today. While we’re at it let’s go back to having US Senators elected by state legislatures. Power to the people? As long as they can vote themselves benefits from the treasury… I don’t think so!
If we chose electors the way the Founders intended, that would be an idea worth considering. As long as each state chooses its own method of selecting electors, and as long as partisan interests choose that method, proportionality would be a better reform than nothing.
NPV is the best way to fix the current system.
The latest splitting the electors idea in California will not pass there (and neither would the same idea get approved in Texas). The intent of it is laughably obvious.
I don’t know, it’s quite possible the folks here whose presidential votes count for nothing – that is, every republican – might turn out in droves for the chance to actually count.
I propose that instead o voting for a “block of electors”; ballots be cast for “Individual Electors”, based on the Congressional method.
Under this proposal voters would vote for three Electors, and could theoretically vote for 3 separate Presidential candidates. Electors would be either “Congressional” (for a specific district) or “At-Large” (being statewide). The Elector to receive the most votes from a Congressional District would be that districts Elector, the two with the most votes Statewide would then be the “At-Large” Electors.
Lets just get an amendment introduced.
Does no one read the Federalist Papers these days?
National Popular Vote? Are you people insane?
God save us from democracy…