On November 17, a Michigan House committee will hold a hearing on HB 5974. Introduced by Representative Pete Lund (R-Macomb County), it says the winner of the popular vote for president in Michigan will get nine electoral votes, and then for every 1.5% above 50%, he or she will get another electoral vote. The proposal seems designed to give both major party presidential candidates some electoral votes, but no one else. Here is a link to the bill. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
Haven’t had time to read the bill yet, but what if Michigan decreases in population and doesn’t have 9 electoral votes?
Not actually 9 in the bill, it is one half the total number of electors plus 1.
This bill would have resulted in a 12 to 4 split for Obamma and Romney in 2012. In 2000, when Michigan had 18 electoral college votes, it would have resulted in a 12 to 6 split for Gore and Bush.
If we are going to keep the Electoral College, then it at least in some way it ought to reflect the popular vote, although not sure if this would have been what the Founding Fathers wanted. For every action, there is a reaction. So if we change to any type of splitting, there will be times when one party will be rewarded for having such, and another time when the same party wished it was still winner take all.
But would definitely be against any bill that does not give the electors a proportional representation to any 3rd party or Independent who might poll enough votes to earn an elector or two.
I calculate it as 11:5.
Obama would get [(16+1)/2] = 8 electors for winning.
Obama had 54.80% of the Obama+Romney vote.
(54.8% – 50%)/1.5% = 3.20
8+3 = 11 for Obama.
16 – 11 = 5 for Romney.
Pass National Popular Vote. EC still exists, but electors vote for popular vote winner, rather than the winner of their particular state.
So, assume we have a 50-30-20 split. This law says A gets 9 votes, B gets 8, and C gets 0.
That seems open to a possible equal protection challenge. Moot question since no large state will ever adopt this tired old scheme (go national popular vote interstate compact!), but this is a particularly ill-conceived twist on the usual proposal to give each congressional district one elector.
(just realized that’s the wrong total number of EVs for Michigan, but the point is the same: a proportional system that disenfranchises the third-place candidate would make for an interesting legal fight.)
The Electoral College is not being used as our Framers envisioned. The presidential candidates themselves were never supposed to run for office individually. It is the Presidential Electors who should be running for office. The solution is to remove the party presidential nominee names from the ballots and put the presidential electors’ names there instead. Also remove all political party designations from the ballot thus requiring informed voters. The function of the parties is to promote the positions and philosophies of their candidates.
The result of this is that there would be 538 individual presidential elector races taking place on election day. Obviously this would require district election of presidential electors which Maine and Nebraska already demonstrate is quite feasible. Imagine that for each race, there would be half a dozen candidates (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution, Green, independent/other), so there would be over 3000 candidates for Presidential Elector. These would all be local races instead of multi-million dollar affairs. We The People would actually be voting for our representatives in the Electoral College with the purpose of THAT BODY actually vetting presidential nominees. No more Barry Soetoros with sealed records getting into the Oval Office.
Make it easy on everyone. Go by percentage. 16 votes equals 6+ percent per electoral vote.
Jeff Becker:
A good presentation and explanation about the Electoral College. Sadly, most voters to day don’t understand its function and still think they are voting for the actual candidate.
I taught American History on an adjunct basis for several years at a community college in addition to my regular discipline. Sometimes there would be heated discussions with some of my students who were so “gunho” for a particular presidential candidate, and just could not believe they were actually voting for a slate of unknown persons who might or might not cast that state’s elector votes for the candidate the student was supporting.
I’m slightly inclined to argue for the total abolition of the Electoral College, as for all practical purposes, it has served its original purpose. Some might disagree and point to the 1968 General Election, where if George Wallace had carried 2 or 3 more states won by Nixon, there could have been a no-majority of Electoral votes and could have resulted in a “behind closed doors” deal where we would have had either a “Nixon-Wallace” ticket or a “Humphrey-Wallace ticket.
Image a Nixon-Wallace ticket being sworn in, the Nixon still resigning, and Wallace becoming President. There may have been riots and Wallace as President might have had to place those armed military personnel with pointed bayonets every 100 feet around the White House as he threatened he would do if necessary to bring about “law and order.”
Still, more emphasis should be placed on allowing all serious candidates to be give ballot access; to be publicly financed, and to be allowed to participate in the Debates. This will strengthen turnout, and will put many profession politicians on guard when their opponents have opportunity to embarrass them over positions they have taken and votes cast.
Most Major party candidates – as a rule – have a “gentlemen’s agreement” to not talk about certain subjects in the Debates. A 3rd party candidate or Independent has less to lose and won’t mind backing an otherwise powerful member of Congress into the corner over an issue which can effect that congressmen’s re-election chances. This is what voters like. Good ole fashioned “Questions” type debates similar to what happens on the floor of the House of Parliament in England.
I’d love to see that come to America.
The bill is being dictated by the Elephant HQ in Devil City — to try and get PERMANENT minority rule gerrymander control of the USA regime for the Elephants.
Think CONSPIRACY by the EVIL oligarchs.
ABOLISH the super time bomb Electoral College.
See 1860 — and the result – about 750,000 DEAD Americans on both sides in 1861-1865.
—
Const Amdt –
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
—
US regime- add having ELECTED U.S.A. Marshals and District Attorneys and ALL USA judges — to all watch each other and the Prez/VP.
While I am philosophically in favor of elections reflecting the will of the people. However, sometimes these people includes “mobs” whose will does not need to be reflected.
Just don’t know really how to handle the Electoral College. If we abolish it, then there is a potential that a mob of voters could affect the outcome for the best of the majority. But it does have the tendency to protect the voice of the small states. In a close election, a state like Delaware with its 3 electoral votes could determine the outcome. I tend to think the opinion of the people of a small state would be more prudent and not be persuaded by the demands of the mob which one usually finds in a largely populated state.
Making sure 3rd parties and Independents have equal access to the ballot and to the Debates, can also help to prevent the influence of any mob from controlling the outcome of an election.
Again, a hard decision to make.
The usual system disenfranchises the 2nd-place candidate. I don’t think you are going to get anywhere with an equal protection claim.
If this bill does pass into law, I hope all the 3rd parties in Michigan will join together and challenge such in Court on its constitutionality, based solely on the fact that it knowingly and deliberately does not provide for a 3rd party or Independent candidate for President to win any electoral votes under the provision of this legislation.
I can’t see how the Court could not strike it down as un-constitutional, but we’ve seen the Courts rule in similar ways before.
Supposedly the USA regime is a FEDERAL regime with LIMITED powers — created by the States – see Art. VII of the nearly DEAD USA Const.
Thus – IF the States fiction continues
– then the votes should ONLY be by the States
i.e. At large elections in each State.
Get a majority of the States —
i.e. 26 of 51 (DC = fictional State) — regardless of total popular votes.
i.e. the hacks would try and win in the small States and totally ignore the larger States.
Gerrymander math – 1/2 votes x 1/2 States = about 25 percent minority rule.
With the 12th Amdt math there is about 30 percent minority rule math for each Prez/VP election.
Around 7 marginal States in recent elections.
Rest get ignored.
Pure two-party tyranny, and so brazen: The statewide popular vote for the top 2 candidates for president of the united states shall be added together.
Top two added together.
Everything else doesn’t properly exist.
Creates incentive to participate among top two. Compounding serial injury to alternative candidacies.
If America’s public infrastructure got the constant stability improvements that the two party system gets like this inescapably political, intentional act, the major parties might be worthy of some credit.
There used to be a chicken in New York City’s Chinatown who would take on all human comers in a game of tic tac toe. It didn’t do too badly, either. Calvin Trillin tells the story that he would bring visitors to the city down to Chinatown to play the chicken. If they would lose, their first complaint would be that the chicken got to go first. Trillin would respond by observing that their opponent was, after all, only a chicken. To which they would often retort “But the chicken gets to play every day…I haven’t played since I was a kid.”
If the Michigan state legislature decided to allow that chicken to choose their state’s electors for the presidential election by pecking at a mockup of the ballot, that decision would be perfectly constitutional.
That is how ridiculous the electoral college systems is, folks…at least in the 21st century when many of the concerns of the FF’s are no longer relevant…and we can debate all we like about what we think the the Founding Fathers really “intended” in creating the EC. But all we really have to go on are the words they left for us, and those tell us that the state legislatures can allocate their state’s electors in whatever manner they may choose. So, while I personally would prefer implementing the NPV scheme, which would be constitutional, and I don’t like allocating electors by Congressional Districts as ME and NB do, or proportional allocation methods either, those latter two methods are perfectly permissible under our Constitution. The state legislatures have, as the USSC has previously decided, plenary rights in this matter.
Would you like to give an example of a “mob” in a “large state?”
Any mob.
And would you like to tell us how that “mob” might influence the outcome of a national popular vote without actually acting like a large number of voters and voting for a particular candidate?
Thanks.