Vermont Senate votes to change the way electoral votes are cast

This would be a great idea, but only if all the states sign in. The big electoral states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois must get in this mix, or the electoral college results will wind up being even more flawed than they were in 2000. And you can bet that those states historically dominated by one or the other major party don't have much interest in doing so. Do you really think Texas Republicans would cede some degree of electoral success to minority Democrats? They'd love to see California do that for minority Republicans, and there has been such an effort there, but Texans ain't by God about to reciprocate.

If they want to get rid of the electoral college, why not propose an amendment and do it the right way? Why this end-run around the rulebook?

That said, this strikes me as more rearranging of the deck chairs.

Because this doesn't require a process of a Constitutional Amendment, and thus can be undone far more easily should it prove a bad idea.

CDS and DZ are both correct in regards to changing the apportioning of Electors. But to jettison the Electoral College altogether would require a Constitutional Amendment. That is as far out of the realm of probability as me beating Anderson Silva in a street fight.

The real downside of this is that it will encourage lots of "third" parties. In itself that is not bad.

How do these proposals define "winning the popular vote"? Clinton won the election in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote. Is that enough to win the Vermont electoral votes?

So in a multi field race, a candidate with 26% of the popular vote could win the election.
Is this good? Nobody knows.

It shouldn't be a winner takes all system. It should be purely proportional, with maybe the senate votes being winner takes all (plurality of the vote).

Under Dommo's system, this is how it would work in a state that had 8 Reps and 2 senators.

50% Dem, 40% Repub, 10% Green. of the 8 reps, 4 would go to the democrats, 3.2 to the repubs, and .8 to the green. The dems by virtue of being the plurality, would get 2 bonus votes for winning the state, and would leave with 6 votes.

So why would this matter?

1. It makes it easier for 3rd parties to be fairly represented.
2. It would more accurately reflect the way people actually vote (e.g. A state that is 51% democrat won't get 100% of the electoral votes).
3. It would still provide a bonus for going after territory by awarding 2 electoral votes to the winner of any given state.
4. It would be virtually impossible for someone to win the electoral vote, without winning the popular vote.
5. It would fit in reasonably well with bassackward electoral college system.

blacbird said:

CDS and DZ are both correct in regards to changing the apportioning of Electors. But to jettison the Electoral College altogether would require a Constitutional Amendment. That is as far out of the realm of probability as me beating Anderson Silva in a street fight.

Click to expand...

I have no idea who Anderson Silva is, but I think you're selling yourself short.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I have no idea who Anderson Silva is, but I think you're selling yourself short.

Click to expand...

Anderson Silva is a professional MMA fighter, and pretty much the meanest most nastiest and unbeatable martial arts combatant on the planet. I ain't about to challenge him to a street fight.

My level of competition would maybe be Justin Bieber.

The Electoral College has its merits. I've heard it argued that it may or may not have been the intended purpose but it did have the effect in the early years of protecting urban vs rural voting blocks. It used to be that rural far outnumbered urban votes. Now it's the reverse. Look at Illinois where politicians have won state seats by simply stating, "I only care about Chicago. We don't need to listen to the rest of the state. Let's raise rural land taxes to city rates (and in effect kill all family farms)." If the states opt out of the Electoral College it will disenfranchise rural voters.

GeorgeK said:

The Electoral College has its merits. I've heard it argued that it may or may not have been the intended purpose but it did have the effect in the early years of protecting urban vs rural voting blocks. It used to be that rural far outnumbered urban votes. Now it's the reverse. Look at Illinois where politicians have won state seats by simply stating, "I only care about Chicago. We don't need to listen to the rest of the state. Let's raise rural land taxes to city rates (and in effect kill all family farms)." If the states opt out of the Electoral College it will disenfranchise rural voters.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.
Without the Electoral College, states like Wyoming and Montana will have little voice in Presidential elections. Even "swing " states like Wisconsin or Missouri will lose their influence. All the campaign money will be concentrated in high population areas - both coasts, Chicago, and a very few select cities.

Gregg said:

I agree with this.
Without the Electoral College, states like Wyoming and Montana will have little voice in Presidential elections. Even "swing " states like Wisconsin or Missouri will lose their influence. All the campaign money will be concentrated in high population areas - both coasts, Chicago, and a very few select cities.

Click to expand...

Which would delight some people no end.

Don said:

Which would delight some people no end.

Click to expand...

True, and therefore piss others off to no end. The urban vs rural rift is already noticeable, usually it's fairly mild, but it would be dangerous to widen it. I think the system as is works about as fine as it can.

Plus all the Hayseeds out there are the ones with the food and the guns. Do you really want to be pissing them off?

GeorgeK said:

True, and therefore piss others off to no end. The urban vs rural rift is already noticeable, usually it's fairly mild, but it would be dangerous to widen it. I think the system as is works about as fine as it can.

Plus all the Hayseeds out there are the ones with the food and the guns. Do you really want to be pissing them off?

Click to expand...

And the hayseeds know what they've got -- and they're waking up to what they've been getting, which is already widening that gap.

In our travels, we regularly spend time in two relatively rural communities in two different states. Neither of the communities are hotbeds of subversion, but in both I've heard casual discussions of the chokepoints between them and the nearest big cities, and how they could be closed off in case of really bad times.

Don said:

Neither of the communities are hotbeds of subversion, but in both I've heard casual discussions of the chokepoints between them and the nearest big cities, and how they could be closed off in case of really bad times.

Click to expand...

Those were just discussions purely for literary purposes though.

GeorgeK said:

Those were just discussions purely for literary purposes though.

Click to expand...

That's true. Every hayseed is a frustrated novelist.

Don said:

Which would delight some people no end.

Click to expand...

Isn't that really the point of this movement?

blacbird said:

This would be a great idea, but only if all the states sign in. The big electoral states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois must get in this mix, or the electoral college results will wind up being even more flawed than they were in 2000. And you can bet that those states historically dominated by one or the other major party don't have much interest in doing so. Do you really think Texas Republicans would cede some degree of electoral success to minority Democrats? They'd love to see California do that for minority Republicans, and there has been such an effort there, but Texans ain't by God about to reciprocate.

Click to expand...

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). Then, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The elections would then be run in all 50 states and DC, based on the national popular vote deciding the winner.

3rd Party Candidate Realities

Gregg said:

The real downside of this is that it will encourage lots of "third" parties. In itself that is not bad.

How do these proposals define "winning the popular vote"? Clinton won the election in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote. Is that enough to win the Vermont electoral votes?

So in a multi field race, a candidate with 26% of the popular vote could win the election.
Is this good? Nobody knows.

Click to expand...

As in virtually all other U.S. elections, the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes. In this case, in all 50 states (and DC).

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system encourages regional candidates. A third-party candidate has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for states that he or she can win or affect the results. Minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). Candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states. Extremist candidacies as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won a substantial number of electoral votes in numerous states.

If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with 15% of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured apocalyptic outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections.

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

Proportional is flawed

Dommo said:

It shouldn't be a winner takes all system. It should be purely proportional, with maybe the senate votes being winner takes all (plurality of the vote).

Under Dommo's system, this is how it would work in a state that had 8 Reps and 2 senators.

50% Dem, 40% Repub, 10% Green. of the 8 reps, 4 would go to the democrats, 3.2 to the repubs, and .8 to the green. The dems by virtue of being the plurality, would get 2 bonus votes for winning the state, and would leave with 6 votes.

So why would this matter?

1. It makes it easier for 3rd parties to be fairly represented.
2. It would more accurately reflect the way people actually vote (e.g. A state that is 51% democrat won't get 100% of the electoral votes).
3. It would still provide a bonus for going after territory by awarding 2 electoral votes to the winner of any given state.
4. It would be virtually impossible for someone to win the electoral vote, without winning the popular vote.
5. It would fit in reasonably well with bassackward electoral college system.

Click to expand...

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state's bonus of two electoral votes. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

CDSinex said:

Under the pre-1984 system in Vermont the answer would have been yes, although I haven't been able to find the text of the current bill.

Click to expand...

The National Popular Vote Bill

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php#exp_st-agree

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).



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 in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in 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 smaller 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%, VA -- 74%, and WV – ‘81%; and in other states polled: CA -- 70%, CT -- 74% , MA -- 73%, MN – 75%, NY -- 79%, OR – 76%, and WA -- 77%.


The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts, successful candidates will continue to find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support It would no longer matter who won a state.

Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.

Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections-- NH NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 of the 22 (8%) medium-lowest population states' total 166 electoral votes.

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates' attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split -- five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004. A "big city" only campaign would not win.

For example, in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.