Nebraska pondering a switch in the EV delegation

[Joe Republic]

If every state did what Nebraska and Maine does, it would take weeks, maybe even months, before a winner is declared.

So basically, it'd be just like the days when the electoral college was established?

Sure?

I had a suspicion that my point might be too subtle for you...

Anyway, you've yet to justify your belief that it'd take months to determine the outcome of a presidential election.

It's interesting how it's mainly Democrats complaining about this, since it would take a vote away from Obama. Democrats would be complaining about this system too if McCain had taken a vote from Obama in Maine.

Yeah, three people with red avatars have declared their disapproval in this thread.  Three.

[tmthforu94]

If every state did what Nebraska and Maine does, it would take weeks, maybe even months, before a winner is declared.

So basically, it'd be just like the days when the electoral college was established?

Sure?

I had a suspicion that my point might be too subtle for you...

Anyway, you've yet to justify your belief that it'd take months to determine the outcome of a presidential election.

It's interesting how it's mainly Democrats complaining about this, since it would take a vote away from Obama. Democrats would be complaining about this system too if McCain had taken a vote from Obama in Maine.

Yeah, three people with red avatars have declared their disapproval in this thread.  Three.

I'm just going off Nebraska. It took a few days for the state to determine who was awarded which votes. It will just take longer, and that isn't worth it. The winner-take-all method is perfectly fine, even though it has some flaws.

[Franzl]

If every state did what Nebraska and Maine does, it would take weeks, maybe even months, before a winner is declared.

So basically, it'd be just like the days when the electoral college was established?

Sure?

I had a suspicion that my point might be too subtle for you...

Anyway, you've yet to justify your belief that it'd take months to determine the outcome of a presidential election.

It's interesting how it's mainly Democrats complaining about this, since it would take a vote away from Obama. Democrats would be complaining about this system too if McCain had taken a vote from Obama in Maine.

Yeah, three people with red avatars have declared their disapproval in this thread.  Three.

I'm just going off Nebraska. It took a few days for the state to determine who was awarded which votes. It will just take longer, and that isn't worth it. The winner-take-all method is perfectly fine, even though it has some flaws.

Ever consider that the reason it took a few days to determine the winner in NE-2 was because it was fairly close?

How long did it take the State of Missouri to declare? Much longer.

Whether you award electoral votes by winner-take-all or congressional district has absolutely nothing to do with how long it takes to declare.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It took NE-02 a hell of a lot less time than it took Florida in 2000.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For the record, I would only support every state doing this if gerrymandering was not longer an issue. So basically if every state moved to an Iowa-type system, or if there was a non-partisan national redistricting commission (which every other country in the world that has districts uses.)_

[Joe Republic]

For the record, I would only support every state doing this if gerrymandering was not longer an issue. So basically if every state moved to an Iowa-type system, or if there was a non-partisan national redistricting commission (which every other country in the world that has districts uses.)_

What about the suggestion I gave in my first post in this thread?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The problem with that is that it would basically just result in only states with an odd number of EVs mattering. There's only three states where the EVs are high enough for this to make a significant difference (Texas, California and New York) and none of them are swing states.

Ideally though we'd just abolish the electoral college and go by the PV.

[Joe Republic]

The problem with that is that it would basically just result in only states with an odd number of EVs mattering. There's only three states where the EVs are high enough for this to make a significant difference (Texas, California and New York) and none of them are swing states.

How so?  I've already given Maine as an example of a state with an even number of electoral votes that would in most cases split its votes 3-1 to the winner.

[Mr. Morden]

Any nationwide reform that divides up the electoral votes of states (either by CD or proportionally) would have the effect of tilting power more towards the small states than is currently the case.  That's because, on average, the %age victory margins in smaller states is larger than in the big states, so, under the current system, there tend to be more "wasted votes" in small states.  Dividing EVs would mitigate that, so that the electoral college skew towards smaller states would be stronger.

That's why, for example, if you apply any of the options for dividing states' electoral votes nationwide to the 2000 election, Bush wins by a greater margin than IRL, even though Gore won the popular vote.  It's because Bush did better in the smaller population states, and the smaller population states become more important if you divide the EVs within states.

[Erc]

One of the problems about proportionality methods along the lines of what Joe's proposing is that it has issues with third parties.  One of the 'nice' things about the current system (or one of the horrible things, depending on your view), is that there is generally a clear winner of a majority of EV's, regardless of how the PV divided up.

In a proportional method, third parties with any considerable showing would win EVs, and would likely throw the election to the House if no-one got a PV majority.  While it's perhaps a good thing that the plurality PV winner isn't automatically guaranteed the White House (2000 & 1888 excepting), our current method for doing it, votes by states in the House, isn't the way to go.

Thus, any more 'proportional' system would really require a Constitutional Amendment rather than individual state action.

Under a system in which you proportion all the state's EVs, for example, Clinton would have narrowly missed out on an outright majority in '96, which may have given Dole the election in the House.  Similarly, Bush would have won in the House in 2000.

In your proposed system, it works out a bit differently, as there's a bit of a winner takes all bias:  (This is using the simplest imaginable system for dividing up the EV's within a state 'proportionally'---things may change slightly for fancier methods, or if a 5% cutoff is imposed in states like California).

2008: Obama293[/B], McCain 245

2004: Bush 287, Kerry 251
Coincidentally, only one off from the actual numbers.  That Obama's blowout victory four years later only does 7 EV better is a pretty good demonstration that there's some bias here.

2000: Bush 272, Gore 258, Nader 7.
Florida still, of course, has 2 EV's under dispute, but even without them, Bush still has 270 EV, winning outright by the slimmest of margins.

1996: Clinton 278, Dole 225, Perot 34, Nader 1.
Clinton, despite a massive PV win, only barely squeaks by with an outright EV win.

1992: Clinton 255, Bush 203, Perot 89
No overall winner, perhaps as it should have been.  Clinton wins in the House, one presumes.  Bush's 3rd place in Maine is especially embarrassing, as he wins no EVs there.

1980: Reagan 312, Carter 197, Anderson 27, Browne 2
Reagan, with a large string of narrow victories in many states, performs quite well here.

1976: Carter 270, Ford 266, McCarthy 2
An extremely narrow outright victory for Carter.  A shift of only 7000 votes in either Minnesota or Tennessee from Carter to Ford (or any state flip) sends it to the House (where Carter, of course, would have won).

1968: Nixon 254, Humphrey 213, Wallace 71
This shows another one of the risks with the system...it is much easier for a third party to deliberately wreck the system---Wallace does indeed accomplish sending the election to the House, as he likely desired.  Humphrey presumably becomes President despite his loss, but it's very messy. 
Also notable here are some of Wallace's EV wins outside ex-slaveholding states: CA (3), IL (2), IN (1), MI (2), MN (1), NJ (1), NY (2), OH (3), PA (2), WA (1), WI (1).

1960: Nixon 267, Kennedy 260, Byrd 10
In a close race, it doesn't even require a serious movement, like Wallace's, to throw a wrench in the gears.  The Unpledged slate, winning 4 EVs in Mississippi, 2 in Louisiana, and, presumably, 4 out of the 7 total "Democratic" electors in Alabama, is just enough to deprive Kennedy of a victory here.

[Mr. Morden]

In cases where there's no outright EV winner, there's a good chance that the candidates would try to see if they could cut a deal for each other's electors before it even reaches the House.  For example, if Nader held the balance of power of the electoral college in 2000, there would have been strong pressure on him to cut a deal with Gore, so that Nader's electors vote for Gore, in exchange for some policy concessions from Gore....to prevent Bush from becoming president.  (Of course this wouldn't happen in cases like 1968 with Wallace, since Wallace would have been too politically toxic for either of the major parties to deal with.)

So that could actually make matters even worse (depending on your perspective).  Imagine if presidential elections tended to be decided by backroom deals between the major parties and 3rd party candidates.  I guess it would be similar to building a coalition government in multiparty parliamentary systems....but it would be more strange in this case, since the electors go away and have no more official function once they've cast their vote in the electoral college.

[pbrower2a]

Of course it is possible for a three-way split in electoral votes if (as was the threat in 1948 or 1968) the third party succeeds at taking enough electoral votes to ensure that in the event of a near 50-50 split of the rest of the votes, no candidate can win 270 electoral votes.

Let's take a look at how it can be done: take the 2004 Presidential election

Bush (R)  286 EV
Kerry (D) 252 EV

Now let's see what happens when some third-party candidate wins the states that  George Wallace won in 1968:

Kerry           (D)    252 EV

Bush            (R)    241 EV

(whoever)   (I)      45 EV

... or if it is some firebrand populist of the Rustbelt who "only" wins Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan:

Kerry           (D)    225 EV

Bush            (R)    266 EV

(whoever)   (I)      47 EV

... even though the third-party candidate has taken more electoral votes from Kerry than from Dubya.

... One cause exists for splitting the electoral votes, namely that constituencies that are significant minorities in several states might have little influence in Presidential elections eve though they are significant parts of the electorate. I think of southern blacks; northern blacks have far more power because their states are not so polarized.  Some of the urban areas that vote "wrong" (San Antonio, El Paso, Austin, Houston, Corpus Christi, Dallas, and the Lower Rio Grande Valley) get ignored.

[Beet]

Proportionality only works when all the states do it. When only a minority of states do it, it has distortive effects. In this case, Nebraska's majority is disadvantaged compared to 48 other states because it controls only a portion of its own delegation. This is why a similiar proposal failed in Colorado several years ago, and why national popular vote legislation only takes effect if states comprising 270 electoral votes have signed on. National popular vote is still the fairest solution.

[pbrower2a]

Yes -- but it made Omaha relevant to the 2008 campaign!

[Beet]

Yes -- but it made Omaha relevant to the 2008 campaign!

Which is why NPV would be a good idea. Contrary to assertions that politicians would only campaign in urban areas, they would spread their campaigning proportionately among the population, because the marginal benefit of visiting a place where you have already campaigned strongly in decreases over greater effort expended. Places like Nebraska would be more relevant under NPV than the current electoral college system, and they would be able to do it without putting themselves at a disadvantage.

[defe07]

One of the problems about proportionality methods along the lines of what Joe's proposing is that it has issues with third parties.  One of the 'nice' things about the current system (or one of the horrible things, depending on your view), is that there is generally a clear winner of a majority of EV's, regardless of how the PV divided up.

In a proportional method, third parties with any considerable showing would win EVs, and would likely throw the election to the House if no-one got a PV majority.  While it's perhaps a good thing that the plurality PV winner isn't automatically guaranteed the White House (2000 & 1888 excepting), our current method for doing it, votes by states in the House, isn't the way to go.

Thus, any more 'proportional' system would really require a Constitutional Amendment rather than individual state action.

Under a system in which you proportion all the state's EVs, for example, Clinton would have narrowly missed out on an outright majority in '96, which may have given Dole the election in the House.  Similarly, Bush would have won in the House in 2000.

In your proposed system, it works out a bit differently, as there's a bit of a winner takes all bias:  (This is using the simplest imaginable system for dividing up the EV's within a state 'proportionally'---things may change slightly for fancier methods, or if a 5% cutoff is imposed in states like California).

2008: Obama293[/B], McCain 245

2004: Bush 287, Kerry 251
Coincidentally, only one off from the actual numbers.  That Obama's blowout victory four years later only does 7 EV better is a pretty good demonstration that there's some bias here.

2000: Bush 272, Gore 258, Nader 7.
Florida still, of course, has 2 EV's under dispute, but even without them, Bush still has 270 EV, winning outright by the slimmest of margins.

1996: Clinton 278, Dole 225, Perot 34, Nader 1.
Clinton, despite a massive PV win, only barely squeaks by with an outright EV win.

1992: Clinton 255, Bush 203, Perot 89
No overall winner, perhaps as it should have been.  Clinton wins in the House, one presumes.  Bush's 3rd place in Maine is especially embarrassing, as he wins no EVs there.

1980: Reagan 312, Carter 197, Anderson 27, Browne 2
Reagan, with a large string of narrow victories in many states, performs quite well here.

1976: Carter 270, Ford 266, McCarthy 2
An extremely narrow outright victory for Carter.  A shift of only 7000 votes in either Minnesota or Tennessee from Carter to Ford (or any state flip) sends it to the House (where Carter, of course, would have won).

1968: Nixon 254, Humphrey 213, Wallace 71
This shows another one of the risks with the system...it is much easier for a third party to deliberately wreck the system---Wallace does indeed accomplish sending the election to the House, as he likely desired.  Humphrey presumably becomes President despite his loss, but it's very messy. 
Also notable here are some of Wallace's EV wins outside ex-slaveholding states: CA (3), IL (2), IN (1), MI (2), MN (1), NJ (1), NY (2), OH (3), PA (2), WA (1), WI (1).

1960: Nixon 267, Kennedy 260, Byrd 10
In a close race, it doesn't even require a serious movement, like Wallace's, to throw a wrench in the gears.  The Unpledged slate, winning 4 EVs in Mississippi, 2 in Louisiana, and, presumably, 4 out of the 7 total "Democratic" electors in Alabama, is just enough to deprive Kennedy of a victory here.

Please explain how did Browne (you meant Ed Clark) and McCarthy both get 2 EV.

[Husker]

Not only are we unique with our splitting of votes, we are also the only state that has a non-partisan, unicameral form of government. It's efficient and has probably helped keep down corruption.

Anyhow, not one single senator (out of 49) introduced a bill that would repeal this method. That's not to say it couldn't happen in the future, but I actually don't see it happening. I'm not certain, however, if this will become a normality in our state or if this was just an anomaly.

[Erc]

Please explain how did Browne (you meant Ed Clark) and McCarthy both get 2 EV.

I did mean Ed Clark, thanks for the catch. 

In large states, the threshold for winning a single elector is not that high...so Clark was able to win EVs in CA & NY.  McCarthy won EVs in CA & OH...the one in OH mainly due to the closeness of the Ford-Carter race, so that he benefited from rounding errors.

Note that other systems of apportionment would give different results--I used the simplest (round the fractions to the nearest elector, adjust appropriately, aka the Hare method); under something like the D'Hondt (or even Saint-Lague), the role of minor parties is suppressed, so Clark & McCarthy would have lost their seats (and Anderson would have have lost a few of his).  This would diminish this spoiler effect somewhat...Nader in 2000, for example, would only win 3 EVs under d'Hondt (2 in CA & 1 in NY), but someone like Perot would obviously win large numbers of EVs.

Presumably, there would be at least a 5% cutoff, as well, which would eliminate the risk of Nader-like candidates, though this could only make a difference in the 19+ EV states.

[muon2]

I think every state should do winner-take-all, therefore, I approve.
If every state did what Nebraska and Maine does, it would take weeks, maybe even months, before a winner is declared. Election Night would be no fun.

How does that make a difference?

It would take longer to declare who gets a districts votes. I'm not too big on waiting for 2 months to find out who won.

I repeat, why on Earth would it take 2 months to find out who wins a district? It doesn't make any difference on how long it takes.

Does it take 2 months to find out who wins control of the House of Representatives?

Nonsense.

I agree with Franzl. Every state already tally votes by district for Members of Congress. Tallying presidential votes in the same jurisdictions would not be any longer.

For the record, I would only support every state doing this if gerrymandering was not longer an issue. So basically if every state moved to an Iowa-type system, or if there was a non-partisan national redistricting commission (which every other country in the world that has districts uses.)_

I like the ME/NE system, since it still is winner takes all, just at a more local level. I do agree with comments along this line that gerrymandering works against widespread adoption of this system. It become more of a problem in the large states since the large number of districts increases the ability to skew the outcome through redistricting.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

National popular vote is still the fairest solution.

I'd have to disagree with that statement.  First off there is a marginal bias to states with looser voting requirements.  Imagine if you will, the effect if California chose to grant 17-year olds the right to vote.  That would probably add the equivalent of ½ to 1 EV right there.  In order for NPV to be fair, we;d have to have uniform voter registration rules and enforcement thereof.  It also would increase the chance of us have a lengthy mess in determining who is President like what happened in Florida in 2000 or in the Minnesota Senate race last year.  The electoral college, whether done on a winner-take-all, district, or proportional basis makes having an unclear election result less likely and reduces the cost and aggravation incurred when we do have a close result far less.

Of course, we could do even worse.  Imagine if the House of Representatives were elected in the same manner as the Israeli Knesset.