Opinion of Electoral Vote Allocation by Congressional District

[Slander and/or Libel]

I often hear people claim that abandoning the Electoral College for the popular vote would be bad because then candidates would just focus on large population centers. First, no they wouldn't. At least, not necessarily. Both parties don't get equivalent turnout from those places. Second, and more important, so what if they did? If they're reaching out to more people, and to do that they're reaching out to the places where more people live, isn't that a good thing?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That article explains perfectly why the popular vote would be a preferable system to the Electoral College. Candidates would focus on campaigning and advertising across the entire country, instead of just in swing states. The vast majority of America is currently ignored in Presidential campaigns, and the incentive to tailor policy positions to swing states would be removed.

I can't see where the policies adopted to appeal to voters would differ significantly from swing at the state level versus that at the federal level. The only semi-exception would be policies of importance only in a few swing states might get extra attention, if it's share of the swing state EV were significantly greater than its share of the national EV, but I can think of any for which that is the case right now. Ethanol gets excess attention not because Iowa is a swing state, but because Iowa has the first caucus.

[DS0816]

It’s about as sensible as making change by giving up two $10s for a $5.

People who seriously think this are welcome to DIAF.

[Figueira]

I often hear people claim that abandoning the Electoral College for the popular vote would be bad because then candidates would just focus on large population centers. First, no they wouldn't. At least, not necessarily. Both parties don't get equivalent turnout from those places. Second, and more important, so what if they did? If they're reaching out to more people, and to do that they're reaching out to the places where more people live, isn't that a good thing?

Not to mention, most swing states are heavily urban anyway. Probably moreso than the country as a whole, if anything.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The ways things currently are is fine enough.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

incredibly stupid. Enabling Presidential gerrymandering? No thanks...

[Bojack Horseman]

Republicans were salivating over this five years ago. They've gerrymandered the House to be out of reach for years to come, if they'd done this to the electoral college, then we'd be out of the White House for years and years and years. That's the same reason they were talking about repealing the 17th Amendment for a hot second there.

[Hilldog]

Well if it went by congressional district, Democrats would have a much harder time.  I'm not in favor of it but the presidential election isn't a popularity contest either.  If it's that close and the candidate with less votes comes out on top then it shouldn't matter.  Our system was set up like this to prevent the majority from becoming a mob and because our founding fathers didn't think the average voter was sophisticated enough to decide who should be president.  The Electoral College is a nice compromise.  Only a few times has it not favored the winner of the popular vote.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Well if it went by congressional district, Democrats would have a much harder time.  I'm not in favor of it but the presidential election isn't a popularity contest either.  If it's that close and the candidate with less votes comes out on top then it shouldn't matter.  Our system was set up like this to prevent the majority from becoming a mob and because our founding fathers didn't think the average voter was sophisticated enough to decide who should be president.  The Electoral College is a nice compromise.  Only a few times has it not favored the winner of the popular vote.

If the system was set up to prevent the majority from becoming a mob, why would the system be perfectly fine with an arbitrarily geographically entrenched minority becoming a mob?

[Gary J]

It is equivalent to how district-based parliamentary systems (such as Canada, UK, and Australia) choose their PM.

Not quite. The equivalent in a US type system would be for a joint session of Congress to elect the President (with one vote for each Senator and Representative or one vote for each state delegation). That was an option that the Constitutional Convention considered, but ultimately rejected.

A group of specially chosen persons, for the sole purpose of electing a President, would not be so subject to the necessity for acting in party groups that the members of a legislature are.

[muon2]

It is equivalent to how district-based parliamentary systems (such as Canada, UK, and Australia) choose their PM.

Not quite. The equivalent in a US type system would be for a joint session of Congress to elect the President (with one vote for each Senator and Representative or one vote for each state delegation). That was an option that the Constitutional Convention considered, but ultimately rejected.

A group of specially chosen persons, for the sole purpose of electing a President, would not be so subject to the necessity for acting in party groups that the members of a legislature are.

But in the case of the EC the electors are chosen by the state parties and are typically party insiders. The electors are more likely to function in party groups than legislators.

[J. J.]

How is a presidential gerrymander different than a presidential gerrymander? 

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

How is a presidential gerrymander different than a presidential gerrymander? 

The EC is at least nominally "neutral" (even though it's screwed Dems 4 times and Reps once, and even that once (1960) is debatable). State houses are decidedly not so.

[bagelman]

It would only work if the redistricting for the house and the EV is done by a FEDERAL, and COMPLETELY NEUTRAL, redistricting committee.

[Mr. Morden]

It would only work if the redistricting for the house and the EV is done by a FEDERAL, and COMPLETELY NEUTRAL, redistricting committee.

But even if the redistricting is neutral, doesn't it give the Republicans an advantage because of the natural packing of Dem. voters into dense urban environments?  That's why even if the CD lines were drawn in a fair way, the GOP would have an advantage in the House due to the geographic distribution of their voters.  And for the EC, that would come on top of the small state bias that already exists, because the EC tally includes the number of senators for a state as well.  And that also benefits Republicans, because they're (on average) stronger in small states.

[muon2]

It would only work if the redistricting for the house and the EV is done by a FEDERAL, and COMPLETELY NEUTRAL, redistricting committee.

But even if the redistricting is neutral, doesn't it give the Republicans an advantage because of the natural packing of Dem. voters into dense urban environments?  That's why even if the CD lines were drawn in a fair way, the GOP would have an advantage in the House due to the geographic distribution of their voters.  And for the EC, that would come on top of the small state bias that already exists, because the EC tally includes the number of senators for a state as well.  And that also benefits Republicans, because they're (on average) stronger in small states.

The urban packing advantage isn't as big as people think, but it does depend on the specific geographic rules used. Packing has the biggest impact in states with cities large enough to contain whole CDs. But those same cities typically must have VRA mandated districts that would require at least the same level of Dem packing. States with mid-sized cities where the whole metro area is only about 1 or 2 CDs in size may tend to benefit Dems since the city will pick up the suburbs but not the rural surroundings.

[jamestroll]

Well, in theory, I am opposed to it.

But I am glad it will wake Democrats up and make them realize they can not abandon large groups of voters.

Electoral college was lost just due to Democrats depending on Demographics to save them. Florida was lost.. we couldn't win the Senate.. and we won't win the house without reaching out to white working class voters.

[Mr. Morden]

One interesting question is, if it were to switch to the CD level, would that increase or decrease the number of voters being targeted by the campaigns?  On the one hand, there are only so many competitive districts.  Presumably fewer voters would live in true "swing districts" than live in "swing states".  On the other hand, this election showed that even state level polling can be problematic.  CD level polling is presumably even worse.  So campaigns would have to go after some districts that are seen as more of a reach, because there's always the possibility of an upset.

Plus, they'd have to go on the air in more TV markets, since any big metro area is going to have at least one competitive district in the region.  And they'd do rallies in competitive districts that are adjacent to uncompetitive districts, drawing in voters from the uncompetitive places as well.

[muon2]

There would be a lot of money spent in media markets with target districts. For example both parties had the money to compete for state house districts this year in IL. As one example, $4.5 million was spent on one state rep race in the St Louis area. Most of the population is in MO so it was expensive to target the IL side. The big prizes would be competitive CDs in competitive states with the bonus 2 EVs up for grabs.

However, more and more money would shift to cable and online in the future if this CD-based allocation were used. As video moves towards streaming even more would go into targeted online.

[MAGA]

Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that do not have a winner-take-all electoral vote allocation method. Instead, each congressional district gives an electoral vote to its winner and the two leftover electoral votes are given to the statewide winner. The only time that one of these states actually did split its electoral votes was in 2008 when Obama won NE-2 while losing the rest of the state.

Best system ever

[Adam Griffin]

Horrible system. The rubes are already over-represented enough as it is.

[SingingAnalyst]

I'd like to see each state allocate their EVs like ME and NE. I expect especially going forward this plan would have strong support in Philly, Pitt, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Madison, at least compared to the status quo.

[Cashew]

Horrible system. The rubes are already over-represented enough as it is.

[Mr. Morden]

I'd like to see each state allocate their EVs like ME and NE. I expect especially going forward this plan would have strong support in Philly, Pitt, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Madison, at least compared to the status quo.

Why would it be popular in big cities?  The CDs in big cities are heavily Democratic, so those districts wouldn't be competitive under such a system, and the candidates would ignore them.  The voters in Philly have far more power in the current system, since Pennsylvania is a swing state.

[DPKdebator]

I think the EC is fine the way it is, but if it has to change then I think it would make the most sense to do a proportional system with the winner getting the two Senate EC votes- e.g. Trump won Florida and gets 14 EVs derived from the CDs, and gets the two EVs from the senators.