A bone of contention these days is the Electoral College. The Democrats want to get rid of it because, well, Democracy. Republicans want to keep it, because it's one of the cornerstones that keeps the country together. The common mantra is that if we went to a direct majority wins election that New York and California would decide the president. That's a little bit disingenuous, but not far wrong. Texas and Florida would also get a say.
Currently in 48 of the 50 states, electors are chosen by a winner-take-all system. Which ever candidate wins the states gets all the electors for that state. Each state gets a number of electors equal to the number of congressional seats they have in the House, plus two representing the Senate seats for each state.
Sidebar: Electors for each party for each congressional district are chosen at the party state conventions. That elector gets to cast his vote only if his party wins the overall state election, even if the candidate lost the district that elector represents.
That's all the US Constitution says about the electoral college. How the electors are chosen by the states is entirely up to the State legislatures. There's no Constitutional mandate that states use the winner-take-all system.
The purpose of districting to determine a nationwide election is to actually increase the power of your vote. I won't go into the math about how it accomplishes this here, that was done very will in an old article by Will Hively in Discover magazine, called
Math Against Tyranny. The problem with this, though is it only works if the districts are roughly equal size -- like congressional districts. When your uber-districts are states, they no longer are equal size, and in fact dampen the effect of their constituent districts.
There seem to be a couple of different ways of dividing the electoral votes. The winner-take-all system is one. The problem with this is that it concentrates power in the urban areas of the largest states. Win those urban areas, and you win the state. By this method, California, New York, Texas and Florida together account for 28% of the voting power in the country, and much of that power is concentrated in some very small densely populated congressional districts.
Then there's Individual apportionment. Under this scheme, Each Elector is selected based on the winner within his own district, without regard to how the candidate did statewide. The two electoral seats for each state would then be apportioned to the statewide winner of the election. Under this scheme, you could easily have a minority of electors from a state that do not represent the candidate who won the state.
I suggested this recently on a public forum, and was shouted down by conservatives, who acted more like liberals do when you pee in their cornflakes. I was called all kinds of vile epithets, accused of being a liberal and had a whole lot of people who apparently didn't read what I wrote and thought I was suggesting abolishing the electoral college.
So I ran the numbers. I examined the 2016 election and calculated how the Electoral College would have voted if the Electors were selected by their individual districts, instead of winner-take-all. The results were interesting. Trump would have still easily carried the election with 291 vs 247, but not by as wide a margin. The overwhelming significance of New York and California would have been dampened. Florida's significance disappeared entirely, as it split pretty evenly between the two candidates. Texas' significance also diminish, counteracting the significance of New York and California, as many of the border district voted for Clinton.
Of most interest was Minnesota, whose 10 electoral votes for Clinton came up 5 and 5 for the two candidates. The pro-Trump districts were weakly for Trump, and the pro-Clinton districts were strongly for Clinton, giving Clinton the state, even though more districts voted for Trump.
| State |
Number
of districts |
Voted Trump |
Voted Clinton |
at large |
number of electoral votes |
winner take all |
independently apportioned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump |
Clinton |
Trump |
Clinton |
|
7 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
9 |
0 |
8 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
9 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
11 |
11 |
0 |
7 |
4 |
|
4 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
|
53 |
7 |
46 |
2 |
55 |
0 |
55 |
7 |
48 |
|
7 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
9 |
0 |
9 |
3 |
6 |
|
5 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
7 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
7 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
|
|
27 |
14 |
13 |
2 |
29 |
29 |
0 |
16 |
13 |
|
14 |
10 |
4 |
2 |
16 |
16 |
0 |
12 |
4 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
|
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
|
18 |
7 |
11 |
2 |
20 |
0 |
20 |
7 |
13 |
|
9 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
11 |
11 |
0 |
9 |
2 |
|
4 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
|
4 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
|
6 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
8 |
8 |
0 |
7 |
1 |
|
6 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
8 |
8 |
0 |
7 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
8 |
1 |
7 |
2 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
1 |
9 |
|
9 |
0 |
9 |
2 |
11 |
0 |
11 |
0 |
11 |
|
14 |
10 |
4 |
2 |
16 |
16 |
0 |
12 |
4 |
|
8 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
5 |
|
4 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
0 |
5 |
1 |
|
8 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
10 |
0 |
8 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
3 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
|
12 |
5 |
7 |
2 |
14 |
0 |
14 |
5 |
9 |
|
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
|
27 |
8 |
19 |
2 |
29 |
0 |
29 |
8 |
21 |
|
13 |
10 |
3 |
2 |
15 |
15 |
0 |
12 |
3 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
16 |
12 |
4 |
2 |
18 |
18 |
0 |
14 |
4 |
|
5 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
7 |
7 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
|
5 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
7 |
0 |
7 |
1 |
6 |
|
18 |
12 |
6 |
2 |
20 |
20 |
0 |
14 |
6 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
|
7 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
9 |
0 |
8 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
9 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
11 |
11 |
0 |
9 |
2 |
|
36 |
22 |
14 |
2 |
38 |
38 |
0 |
24 |
14 |
|
4 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
|
11 |
6 |
5 |
2 |
13 |
0 |
13 |
6 |
7 |
|
10 |
3 |
7 |
2 |
12 |
0 |
12 |
3 |
9 |
|
3 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
8 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
10 |
0 |
8 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
| DC |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
| Total electoral votes |
436 |
230 |
206 |
102 |
538 |
306 |
232 |
291 |
247 |
All in all, the net results don't change much. There are a number of red districts in the blue states that have no real say in the winner-take-all system. These are offset by the minority of blue districts in the red states, but there's a lot more red states with one or two blue districts.
The net result is a more even distribution of voting power, with the 100 at-large electors who vote according to the whole state creating a bit of a smoothing function. The dominance of the four big states is reduced, as their electoral votes will usually be split pretty decisively. The net result would be that candidates would have to court more widely and consider the rural vote more. Because of the way the electors were defined in the Constitution, I doubt the framers had in mind that Electors would be assigned on a winner-take-all basis from each state.
Click here for a map of the 2016 election by congressional district.
Unfortunately, there's no Constitutional prohibition from states casting their electors according to the national popular vote. It's an exceedingly idiotic thing to do, and essentially the states who pass this have disenfranchised themselves. I expect numerous court challenges based on lack of representation within the states who have passed this. I also expect that if Trump quite likely wins the popular vote this 2020 election, you'll see these states falling over themselves trying to roll back the National Popular vote movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment