I suppose I'd find the show amusing to a point.
I certainly don't think such a result would be good for our politics. Half the Presidential elections in the 20th century would be giving the Presidency to the person who received fewer popular votes. "Here, sir, the people rule!". Would we be able to say that with credibility?
I do think the Electoral College should be abolished, and the President elected by popular vote. I think there should be a whole lot of ballot access reform going with such a move.
What could help fix it is if all 50 states do what Nebraska and Maine do and split their EVs.
But that would require states to undo the gerrymandering that gives Democrats a structural disadvantage in House elections. If we went that way, then we might as well have the House of Representatives do the cote for President. I doubt that that would work well.
Gerrymandering would make a travesty of the electoral vote. In states with four or five electoral votes, but I am not sure where I would draw the line -- maybe eight, so that you don't start splitting urban areas?
If we are to split the electoral votes among the states, then I suggest that
1. the statewide winner receive the two electoral votes relating to the number of Senators.
States with three electoral votes -- it's still winner take all. You will soon see why.
States with four to eight electoral votes? Either go by district with the other electoral votes, or as I would do with larger states.
Here we go. For all but the two votes representing the Senate, divide the number of votes for President by the number of electoral votes left. To get even one electoral vote one would need a full fraction of the vote suitable for winning a whole electoral vote. Thus if the Libertarian nominee gets 1/53 or more of the popular vote in California, he gets at least that one electoral vote. If not, then votes for candidates not getting enough votes for a fraction of the electoral vote will be disregarded. Nobody will get a fractional electoral vote under any circumstances.
So the state is Ohio, with eighteen electoral votes altogether. The Republican wins the state 51-47 with 2% of the vote going to third-party and independent candidates. One would need 1/16 of the popular vote to get an electoral vote, so no independent or third-party nominee crosses that threshold. After discarding the rejected votes, the margin goes to 52.04% to 47.98%
Splitting the electoral votes proportionally, the Republican gets 8.32 shares of the 15 and the Democrat gets 7.68 (estimated to two decimal points).
But there will be no fractional votes. The Democrat is lucky to get seven electoral votes. What would be the fraction goes to the Republican, who gets nine electoral votes.
Thus the Democrat gets 7.
67 electoral votes as the fractional share of the electoral vote, the Republican gets two electoral votes for winning the state outright, eight electoral votes for full shares of electoral votes that he won, and the remaining electoral vote goes to the Republican because the overall winner takes the fractional vote.
Thus Ohio goes 11-7 Republican in a close election. Winning a state has value, but it is also a good idea that politicians address sizable minorities that now do not prove important in winner-take-all elections, like rural voters in largely-urban states and blacks in the South. We still respect the federal system,
Now -- what if this does not resolve the election? We have a second round -- the states vote on a winner-take-all basis, which has failed only twice in the last hundred-twenty years to get the winner of the popular vote. This applies if we have a strong third-party nominee.
OK. To get even one electoral vote in this form of apportionment one would need the plurality in any state with three or four electoral votes. Five electoral votes? One third. Most of the time just about any state (unless it has five electoral votes and splits something like 70-30 as Utah did in 2012) would split its votes if it apportions votes as I suggest. By district? Different story. Six? At least 25%. Seven? 20%, and to get two one would need at least 40% of the vote. Eight? one sixth, one third to get two, and getting three while falling short of a plurality would be impossible.
My proposal. Federalism is preserved, small states still get over-represented, but large minorities become relevant in the states. Gerrymandering to select the electorate for Presidential as for Congressional elections would be stopped in large states.
