Would a proportional Electoral College be better? - Split proportionally among the popular vote instead of winner take all

[d12]

This is reflective of an idea that I've been stewing on for the last couple of weeks. We're all aware of the hub-bub of the electoral college from the last election and with the current political climate I predict that it will be another close one. We all remember the myriad of articles railing against the Electoral College system that followed the 2016 election and I think that the College will be in for another round of attacks should the election swing in the same way it did last. That being said, what would you think of the idea of having the electoral votes split proportionally among the state's popular vote? As in, if California were to vote 90% for the Dems and 10% for the Reps then their votes would be submitted as 50 votes blue and 5 votes red? I think it would greatly help balance the field of the votes instead of each election being won in the swing states as well as encourage political minorities to vote in the Presidential election. I believe that the winner take all system is a form of tyranny of the majority and still mainly focused on major urban centers, which the Electoral College was designed to protect against. I know it's a bit to expect this kind of change given the political elite benefit from the College system as is but I was wondering what people here think about the idea.

 

[Lemmingwise]

There are deeper problems with voting in the US, from dead voting, voting machines to things like this

 

[whatever I feel like]

I believe that the winner take all system is a form of tyranny of the majority and still mainly focused on major urban centers, which the Electoral College was designed to protect against.

The EC wasn't actually designed to do that, the US was 75% rural in the 1790s and thus nobody even thought about it. It was meant to protect against the people picking a charlatan/thief/undesirable.

I don't see how doing this would be in any way better than just having a direct popular vote. As a matter of fact, if you are worried about "focus on urban centers" aka Democrats, I think this system would do way more to guarantee them a win. Republicans currently win a bunch of states by reasonable margins, a few small western ones by big margins (and the inland south) and then Democrats just rack up vote share in the northeast and California. You could argue that it helps Republicans out because they'd get an extra vote out of their 3 vote small states, but there are only a few of those (and 2, soon to be 3, of them vote reliably Democratic.) Losing any sort of win in their 4 vote small states would more than cancel it out.

 

[Coleslaw]

I think it should be proportional.

 

[UncleTusky]

I think it should be proportional.

I do not think that would be beneficial.

If we used this approach, smaller swing states like Nevada and Iowa (6 votes each) would reliably split either 3-3 or 4-2 depending on whether you round up in favor of the popular vote winner. Either way, that's one added vote and the next cutoff (2/3rds majority for an extra vote) is so high that it's worthless to either party. By comparison, states like Texas (38 votes) and California (55 votes) are so large that just a 2 to 3 percent change in the state vote would move an EC vote, so you'd probably see a move to high density suburbs in large states.

So you don't solve the problem of some areas being overrepresented or candidates focusing on a relatively small number of states, we're just talking about swing counties now instead.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

It might help a bit in getting more people in states that have a clear bias to vote regardless. But there's a question of how to split the votes (will it be full numbers? Using fractions?).

 

[Orion Balls]

I live in a reasonably populated swing State that often sees very close margins in our National elections. The middle of the State varies from light red to heavily red, and the cities and their surrounding counties on either end go from heavy blue to light red. So, it generally comes down to how many people actually show up for an election and is one of the candidates an asshole? I wouldn't mind a proportional electoral college, because it often turns out that half of the State feels unheard.

 

[UncleTusky]

I live in a reasonably populated swing State that often sees very close margins in our National elections. The middle of the State varies from light red to heavily red, and the cities and their surrounding counties on either end go from heavy blue to light red. So, it generally comes down to how many people actually show up for an election and is one of the candidates an asshole? I wouldn't mind a proportional electoral college, because it often turns out that half of the State feels unheard.

If you are willing to accept that candidates will end up spending less time in your state, then I agree. Unless the swing state you are talking about is Pennsylvania Ohio or Florida the popular vote margin needed to flip an electoral vote under a proportional system is so large that it makes more sense to campaign in high-density swing regions over entire states.

But on the issue of not being heard, it might help to change how we apportion House seats/electoral votes: Right now they're based on everyone in a district including children, inmates, permanent residents, even illegal immigrants. Since non-citizens and felons can't vote but still count towards House/Electoral College apportionment, a voter in a state with a large illegal population (so Florida and the Southwest mainly) is going to have an outsized voice relative to a voter in, say, New Hampshire.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I think we should raze the cities and kill their inhabitants to create Pol Potian Libertarianism.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

It might help a bit in getting more people in states that have a clear bias to vote regardless. But there's a question of how to split the votes (will it be full numbers? Using fractions?).

By congressional district like Nebraska and Maine do

 

[Dread First]

The electoral college should've always been proportional. The founding fathers did quite a fantastic job in regard to creating a constitution that actually works a few centuries down the line, but it still baffles me to this day how they never had the hindsight to make the electoral college proportional, especially considering how George Washington himself was vehemently against the idea of political parties in the first place.

If the college itself was actually proportional, then we'd probably be seeing much healthier voter turnouts. More conservatives in blue states like California and New York would be turning out to the polls considering how their vote actually matters. The inverse would also be true as well. Not to mention that third parties would actually stand a viable chance at winning the presidency.

I might have voted Trump in a blue state, but I did so under the notion that my vote for the president ultimately didn't matter so it would've been much more worthwhile to go out and vote for municipal things.

 

[Coffee Shits]

No. Quit fucking with it.

 

[2WokeB4BrainPills]

Voting should have proportional weight to the taxes you pay. This is a flawless plan that would instantly solve basically every problem with democracy.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I think it would make more sense to keep the EC if there was more than two parties with a realistic chance of winning.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

As in, if California were to vote 90% for the Dems and 10% for the Reps then their votes would be submitted as 50 votes blue and 5 votes red?

Maine and Nebraska already do this, so my impression was that how states handle their electors is up to them, for the most part.

I think it would make more sense to keep the EC if there was more than two parties with a realistic chance of winning.

This is for you:

 

[UncleTusky]

Maine and Nebraska already do this, so my impression was that how states handle their electors is up to them, for the most part.

It is. The Constitution does not actually say there has to be a popular vote for electors, it says the state legislature appoints them without specifying how they are picked. Pegging electors to the popular vote only started in the 1820s and we still had proportional splits in larger states until the early 1900s. Apparently the early popular vote even put electors' names directly on the ballot rather than candidates' so it really was not meant to be a direct vote for President.

I think proportional state wide (or maybe 2 votes for the statewide winner then the rest proportional) is better than winner take all by House seat-even in states that are not gerrymandered, # of house districts won is a lousy stand-in for popular vote share. For example, Iowa has nonpartisan redistricting but Trump's 10 point statewide margin still translated into winning all 4 House districts.

 

[Cool Dog]

After we stopped using the EC and went proportional this country went from the top10 richest to a laughingstock, every major city has a "slum belt" of poor retards that vote for scraps by the same corrupt fucks that put them there in the first place

Its an endless loop, you cant get out from this shit because the only way is to improve the lives of the same retards who wont vote for you because you dont give them handouts, so the cycle of corruption stays the same

You can already see this shit happening in democrat-controlled shitholes like baltimore, so dont think it cant happen over there

 

[Kosher Dill]

I don't see how doing this would be in any way better than just having a direct popular vote.

Because of two words that should scare everyone down to the marrow of their bones: national recount.
If you're going to have a system that more-or-less directly tracks the popular vote, you still need some sort of "election districts" to firewall off recount shenanigans and limit their scope. Otherwise every close election will just degenerate into bureaucratic siege warfare as both sides keep shaking the tree for votes in corrupt big cities.