QandO

I'll give it a qualified thumbs up for now. It would help to enfranchise a lot of voters in the sense that their votes would count for much more (if you're a republican living in new york for example, or some other liberal state). It may actually drive more people to vote.

On the other hand, what we have now is working quite well, why change it :)

Posted by: shark at August 4, 2004 10:13 AM

Apportionment would make the Electoral College redundant. You might as well go to a direct popular vote.

Posted by: lex at August 4, 2004 10:14 AM

Thumbs up, but only if done on a wider scale. If only done in Colorado, it would only benefit the D's.

I have to disagree with lex. The electoral college would still serve an essential function for federalism's sake.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 4, 2004 10:23 AM

If states would do it in blocs, I'd be in favor of it. Otherwise it seems that it could just lead to unearned disproportional representation for one party.

Posted by: Elliot Fladen at August 4, 2004 10:32 AM

Depends on the implementation. If the electoral votes are a direct ratio to the statewide popular vote, then no. Its worse than popular election and destroys the districting of the electoral college.

On the other hand if you apportion the electoral votes geographically then maybe. Lets say winner of the congressional district gets that one electoral vote and the winner of the state as a whole gets its 2 senatorial electors. On the whole I think this will make presidential elections less interesting though since its going to largely reflect the makeup of congress.

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at August 4, 2004 10:33 AM

I have to agree with Lex, if the electoral votes are all apportioned according to the popular vote, we might as well just go with the popular vote. I think Jeff the Baptist's idea is an interesting one, though.

But, IIRC, don't the electors (in theory) get to vote for whoever they want, regardless of their state's election results? They're supposed to vote for whoever wins their state, but are they obligated?

Posted by: Wacky Hermit at August 4, 2004 10:37 AM

Living in California, the system I would favor is that every Congressional District elect its own Elector, and two at-large Electors for the two Sentors based on the total statewide vote.

Posted by: wobots at August 4, 2004 10:43 AM

Apportioning electoral college votes is direct election by another name. You can be certain the enabling legislation would be gamed that way. There's no altruism in Congress.

Posted by: EddieP at August 4, 2004 11:02 AM

Keep the system as it is. It's the last bastion of federalism in the system, and it's the only reason that the middle of the country sees certain presidential candidates.

If it's apportioned by total votes, eventually all branches of the government will be in the hands of the populous states, and if you think the federal government is bad now, wait until its pandering exclusively to large voting blocs in large states, paid for with things like "gasoline taxes" and "acreage taxes" and "flannel taxes" paid for by those of us lucky enough to be born out of sight of an ocean.

The Senate and the Electoral College are our only checks on the coastal powermongers. Funny how the ideas to eliminate one or the other usually comes from those who would benefit most by tyranny by majority.

Posted by: Brian J. at August 4, 2004 11:19 AM

Apportionment of electors within each state is okay.

The best answer would be coupling it with the repeal of the 1929 Apportionment Act (amended in 1941) which froze the number of Representatives in the House at 435.

Until then, after each decennial census (mandated by the Constitution)the number of representatives increased as the population increased.

If we repealed the act - or modified it to allow for 500 seats, an additional 65 - then the Electoral College would automatically be adjusted.
The electoral college would then better reflect population distribution nationwide.

ALSO: These would be open seats - hence the intial contrests for them would be WIDE OPEN.

ALSO: Committee assignments for each Rep would be reduced, and each district made relatively smaller and therfore the Representatives would be able to maintain a better connection to their constituients.

Posted by: dan at August 4, 2004 11:40 AM

This is a really, truly, awful idea. Electoral college votes tend to enhance the stability of governments by turning 1% popular vote victories into EC blowouts. They also tend to disenfranchise 3rd parties, and in this case it's a good thing.

GHWB would have likely won a 2nd term in December if Perot was apportioned EC votes and they sold their vote in exchange for a couple of Reform party posts, probably running finances and trade policies. I hated the Clinton years but I don't think that he should have been kept out of the presidency by a backroom deal in a smoke filled room and the prospect of Perot (possibly as VP) attaining significant national power would have been even more disturbing.

Remember, folks, there are two rounds of votes. You go for proportional representation in the EC and this sort of thing will happen between November and December.

Finally, it would increase the temptation of corrupt jurisdictions to ramp up the voter fraud to new heights as they no longer have to do the minimum to win, they have to maximize their percentage of the vote.

Posted by: TM Lutas at August 4, 2004 12:27 PM

Disenfranchized?

You're disenfranchized because your side lost the election?

So tell me, when you choose between two gubernatorial candidates, does the fact that the winner gets the whole office of governor and all the powers and responsibilities that go with it mean that everyone who voted for the losing candidate was "disenfranchized?"

McQ and shark seem to have the same operational definition of "disenfranched" that the Democrats had after the 2000 election.

Posted by: Terry at August 4, 2004 02:09 PM

Terry: Its a discussion. No need to cast aspersions. Just trying to get and idea of what others feel on the subject. I've always been of the opinion that can be done without resorting to denigrating the other view.

Disenfranchisement, as the Democrats use it means not getting to cast a vote. As I've used it, the term would mean not having your vote count after you've cast it. IOW, you're vote isn't represented by the electors which go in an all or nothing bloc.

I was thinking of a apportionment more along the lines of almost parlimentary representation, where third parties would at least have some chance at a minimal representation and their issues would have to be more closely considered by the big two.

Posted by: McQ at August 4, 2004 02:16 PM

Brian, I made the same point earlier today, just not as coherently. Also, if you'll forgive me for just pasting in part of my earlier comment (I'm too pressed for time to re-word):

Democracy is something of a sacred cow (I started to type 'scared', which may have been more accurate as well as more amusing) in this country but another word for Democracy is mob rule. It tends to be the Dems who blather on about "the will of the people" - these are the same people who load junkies who have never voted onto buses, convey them to the polls, and then complain they've been disenfranchised when they can't follow directions and fill out a ballot properly.

I think it was nothing short of brilliant for the Framers to temper the mob rule aspect via the electoral college, thus recognizing that it is not only individuals who have interests that should be protected.

The interests of the polity as a whole (in this case, the state) are also at stake, therefore the state should have a voice in the election process.

TM also makes an interesting point I had not considered re: voter fraud.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 4, 2004 02:21 PM

The electoral college made sense when the Constitution was written: in todays world of high tech, and easy travel, basing elections on popular vote makes a whole lot more sense. Scrap the electoral college completely.

Posted by: Porter at August 4, 2004 03:50 PM

McQ and shark seem to have the same operational definition of "disenfranched" that the Democrats had after the 2000 election

LOL, no, it maybe wasn't the best word choice but read my point and you can get the gist of what I say. Don't get caught up in trying to score zingers.

Posted by: shark at August 4, 2004 04:01 PM

GHWB would have likely won a 2nd term in December if Perot was apportioned EC votes and they sold their vote in exchange for a couple of Reform party posts, probably running finances and trade policies. I hated the Clinton years but I don't think that he should have been kept out of the presidency by a backroom deal in a smoke filled room and the prospect of Perot (possibly as VP) attaining significant national power would have been even more disturbing.

Rember, folks, there are two rounds of votes. You go for proportional representation in the EC and this sort of thing will happen between November and December.

Well, the obvious thing is that couldn't happen. EU style proportional representation isn't for the Presidency itself- it's for seats in the governmental assembly (or whatever they call it) and the party with the majority of seats chooses the leader. Or different pluralities cobble together a coalition govt.

In the hypothetical case we're discussing, that isn't the case. Whoever gets the majority of EC votes would win (or whoever reached a set number, etc)- there would be no back room deals or cobbled together govts. Legislative branch would still be elected the same way.

Posted by: shark at August 4, 2004 04:08 PM

Good Lord, NO!

As it is, states like California and Texas are important, but not overwhelmingly so, as they are going to "go" a certain way unless it's a blowout.

Now, break California up into 54 (?) districts. Some of those will come darned close to 50-50. So, we'll need a recount on those districts. Instead of 1 Florida, we'll have 50.

Going by total popular vote is even worse. Right now, no matter how many votes are stolen in Chicago, that doesn't affect the way Wisconsin and Indiana go. If you go total popular vote, then you will see even more reason to cheat everywhere and recounts everywhere.

But of course, we can just do this scheme to the states that have a small but reliable Republican edge and keep the winner-take-all for the states that have a Democrat edge. Note that they selected Colorado, not New Mexico.

Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds at August 4, 2004 04:15 PM

Which leads to a question....how can this change be made in the individual states? Is it as simple as amending the state constitution, something that can be by the state along, or is this approaching the federal level?

Posted by: shark at August 4, 2004 04:27 PM

how can this change be made in the individual states

Quite simply: the states can do it themselves. They can pass legislation (or amend their state constitutions if their voting rules are governed there) and nothing is required of the federal government.

I like the idea of basing the EC on the individual congressional districts and allocating the EC votes based on Senators via state majority. The idea about increasing the House size is good as well, and only requires legislation to implement. However, I would never allow it without first implementing a line-item veto. There are already too many earmarks.

Posted by: Robert Prather at August 4, 2004 05:31 PM

The allocation of votes in the electoral college is part of the great compromise which allowed both large and small states to feel their interests were considered sufficiently, a condition without which there would have been no union. Many things have changed, but most of us in less populous states would not be pleased with a national government dominated by California without the (admittedly weak) protection of a Senate in which our representation is as numerous as that state's, and a formula for presidential selection which is a skewed compromise between equal weight per voter and equal participation per state.

Regarding the great compromise:
Note that with popular election of U.S. senators replacing selection by legislative representatives since the amendment in 1914, the people of each state determine part of the membership of BOTH houses, but an element of federalism is lost: the states themselves as entities are not represented. Can anybody imagine Congress imposing speed limits, determining what blood alcohol concentrations should be outlawed, or other matters traditionally governed by states if members of the Senate depended upon legislators for re-election?

Posted by: Pat Burke at September 9, 2004 06:50 AM