Electoral College Reform Idea

[A18]

Virginia has 13 EV. Give 1 of 11 to the guy that gets the most votes in each congressional district.

For the other two, both campaigns pick a 1st and 2nd statewide elector. If the winner of the statewide vote got >= 60% of the turnout, both his 1st and 2nd elector join the electoral college. If not, his 1st elector joins, and so does the runnerup's.

The point to this would be to take into account state-specific landslides and the interests of every congressional district.

Thoughts?

[MODU]

Interesting.  There have been similar ideas basing EV on Congressional Districts.  Basing EVs on State PVs isn't a bad idea.  The electoral college will still help with providing equal weight between the states, but would also be closer to the national popular vote.  We had done a test run of this idea a month or so ago to see how the election would have turned out, and Bush still won, but only by a few EVs (I think 3).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Very bad idea.
It would make gerrymandering worse.
With crazy gerrymandering, it would be even more likely for a loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote.
Hell, you could even have the guy who came in 2nd in a state getting the majority of the electoral votes in that state.

[A18]

The number of EVs each state gets is its representation in Congress (so congressional districts + 2 for senators).

You don't want to go all out on basing EVs on state PVs. The idea here was to make both parties campaign in, say, California. But it's just for that one extra vote--if you based it entirely on state PVs, then campaigns would spend all their funds in states that happened to be on the edge of rewarding one more vote. So, if a state had 10 EV, and it was 1 for every 10, they'd want to campaign in a 59-41% split, but not so much a 55-45% split.

It is true that the presidency would no longer be gerrymander-proof, though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The number of EVs each state gets is its representation in Congress (so congressional districts + 2 for senators).

You don't want to go all out on basing EVs on state PVs. The idea here was to make both parties campaign in, say, California. But it's just for that one extra vote--if you based it entirely on state PVs, then campaigns would spend all their funds in states that happened to be on the edge of rewarding one more vote. So, if a state had 10 EV, and it was 1 for every 10, they'd want to campaign in a 59-41% split, but not so much a 55-45% split.

It is true that the presidency would no longer be gerrymander-proof, though.

Who says that the states weren't admitted somewhat gerrymandered. Colorado and other states were admitted for the sole pourpose of giving the Republican party electoral votes in some close races in the latter 1800s.

But anyways, the last thing we want is up to date gerrymandering affecting the Presidential elections.

[A18]

No one gives a damn if you don't like how the states look, or how they were admitted. Which, BTW, is not gerrymandering.

"Up to date gerrymandering" would be no different from the house of representatives.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No one gives a damn if you don't like how the states look, or how they were admitted. Which, BTW, is not gerrymandering.

"Up to date gerrymandering" would be no different from the house of representatives.

Well, gerrymandering is a problem. It tends to screw the Democratic party. House seats in the Bronx are like 95% Democratic.

[A18]

It tended to screw the Republican party when Democrats were still the majority. It cuts both ways.

[muon2]

Virginia has 13 EV. Give 1 of 11 to the guy that gets the most votes in each congressional district.

For the other two, both campaigns pick a 1st and 2nd statewide elector. If the winner of the statewide vote got >= 60% of the turnout, both his 1st and 2nd elector join the electoral college. If not, his 1st elector joins, and so does the runnerup's.

The point to this would be to take into account state-specific landslides and the interests of every congressional district.

Thoughts?

Check out the threads on the Presidential Election Process board. There have been a number dealing with changes to the EC.

[Light Touch]

No reform necessary.

[Huckleberry Finn]

It would mean more difficult campaigns to both sides. The result would be impossible to predict.

[rockhound]

It tended to screw the Republican party when Democrats were still the majority. It cuts both ways.

I'll have to find the source for this, but I recall reading that before the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in 1992, that'd they'd actually had more total votes in the house races for something like the last 10-12 years.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It tended to screw the Republican party when Democrats were still the majority. It cuts both ways.

I'll have to find the source for this, but I recall reading that before the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in 1992, that'd they'd actually had more total votes in the house races for something like the last 10-12 years.

This year, the Democrats will probably get more votes, and fail to regain control.

[© tweed]

Can the damn thing.

How's that for reform?

[A18]

I'm okay with that too. Then Virginia can just always say 2 billion people voted in our state for X candidate, and get whoever we want elected.

But if you mean a national election, civil war.

[Nym90]

It tended to screw the Republican party when Democrats were still the majority. It cuts both ways.

I'll have to find the source for this, but I recall reading that before the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in 1992, that'd they'd actually had more total votes in the house races for something like the last 10-12 years.

I don't know the totals offhand, but I highly doubt that Republicans could have won more votes than Democrats in the 1980s in House races. The Democratic majorities at that time were much larger than the Republican majorities have ever been since. The only way this MIGHT be possible is if votes cast in unopposed races weren't counted (many states do not release vote totals for unopposed races, since they figure there is no point). This fact makes a national comparison of the two parties' vote totals difficult to do accurately.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

With regard to gerrymandering helping the Democrats:

Single-member geographic districts (districts that are most prone to gerrymandering) have a funny effect on party strength.

Such districts HELP:
- Small parties that are geographically compact (e.g. Canadian Bloc Quebeqois)
- Large parties that are geographically expansive (e.g. Canadian Liberals, American GOP)

These district HURT:
- Small & medium parties that are geographically expansive (e.g. Canadian NDP, British LibDems)
- Large parties that are geographically compact (e.g. American Dems)

Gerrymandering is hurting the Democrats now, but helped them through the 1980's...for two reasons.  First, the Democrats controlled most of the state legislatures, especially in the South, until the 1990's.  But more importantly, the Democrats have become more geographically compact while the GOP has become more geographically expansive.  

The Dems have lost strength in rural areas and gained stregth in cities.  This has made it easy for the GOP to draw a few districts with huge Democratic majorities, leaving the majority of districts with a moderate Republican lean.  As an example, Al Gore got 80% of the vote in about 20 CDs in 2000...Bush didn't get 80% of the vote in a single district, but won more districts overall.

[MODU]

Can the damn thing.

How's that for reform?

Unfortunately that wouldn't work if you still want to provide an equal voice for the states.  Now, if you wanted to switch completely to a Popular-only vote, I would then back the abolishing of the political parties as well.    Force people to decide who is best for them, not what party they represent.  hehehe

[zorkpolitics]

Since it seems that it is primarily Democrats who push for a change in the electoral college.  Let them lead by example:  Why not have the statres that Democrats most frquently win: MA, CA, IL, NY, NJ, CT all adopt proportional allotment of Electoral votes.  That would produce a more democratic result since EV would be allocated based on how all the people voted, not just to the winner.

[A18]

They could do better. If they believe the national result should decide the election, why don't they make all their EVs go to whoever wins the federal PV?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Since it seems that it is primarily Democrats who push for a change in the electoral college.  Let them lead by example:  Why not have the statres that Democrats most frquently win: MA, CA, IL, NY, NJ, CT all adopt proportional allotment of Electoral votes.  That would produce a more democratic result since EV would be allocated based on how all the people voted, not just to the winner.

So basically the Democrats must take a system that is rigged against them, and make it worse?

[zorkpolitics]

Since it seems that it is primarily Democrats who push for a change in the electoral college.  Let them lead by example:  Why not have the statres that Democrats most frquently win: MA, CA, IL, NY, NJ, CT all adopt proportional allotment of Electoral votes.  That would produce a more democratic result since EV would be allocated based on how all the people voted, not just to the winner.

So basically the Democrats must take a system that is rigged against them, and make it worse?

If they beleve in principles over crass politics, yes

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Since it seems that it is primarily Democrats who push for a change in the electoral college.  Let them lead by example:  Why not have the statres that Democrats most frquently win: MA, CA, IL, NY, NJ, CT all adopt proportional allotment of Electoral votes.  That would produce a more democratic result since EV would be allocated based on how all the people voted, not just to the winner.

So basically the Democrats must take a system that is rigged against them, and make it worse?

If they beleve in principles over crass politics, yes

So we should just roll over for the election-stealing Republicans?  no.

[A18]

Just make it so whoever wins the national PV gets your state's EVs.

[zorkpolitics]

Well if you won't to act on principles, how about a scheme?

All the above Democratic states (and you can throw in CT, VT, RI, MD, DC, DE, WA etc. if you want) can change their laws so they assign their EV to the National Popular Vote winner.  However, this provision would only go into effect if collectively states with at least 270 EV have adopted this method. That way the Electoral college would be meaningless and the winner would always be the popular vote winner.
And this can be done without a Constitutional amendment.