The Electoral Vote Scheme that Lets State Legislatures Decide the Presidency
An effort underway in California would change the way that state would pick its choice for President. The plan would be to scrap the current system that awards all 55 of California's electoral votes to the statewide winner to a system where the winner in each of the state's congressional districts would be awarded one electoral vote for each district carried while the remaining two electoral votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.
Forget that this scheme would be a major benefit to the Republicans (who would gain 19 electoral votes from the Democrats if their presidential candidate won the vote in each district that currently has a Republican representative) if only California adopted this plan (though Nebraska and Maine currently employ this way of awarding electoral votes). What would happen if this were the method adopted by all 50 states?
Although many voters cast split ticket votes, with their vote for president being of one party and their vote for the congressional representatives being from the other, as well as votes for "their guy" for Congress regardless of the presidential vote, the probability that the party that takes the congressional district would also take that district's vote for President is fairly high.
The probability of such a thing happening is even greater with the many congressional districts that are gerrymandered into place along partisan lines. Therefore, the battles over redistricting every ten years become even more intense as the prizes, congressional seats and then electoral votes, become greater.
Thus, there is a great chance that the electoral votes for President will be dependent on the votes for members of the House of Representatives. Only 103 (50 statewide winners plus Washington, D.C.'s 3 electoral votes) of the 538 total electoral votes would be independent from the House results and gerrymandering. The House is to only determine the President should no candidate receive the majority of electoral votes and even then, only the existing House decides, not the new one voted in on Election Day. Further, the presidency should be independent of the Congress as the head of the executive branch and not beholden to the House of Representatives nor the state legislatures (which themselves are often gerrymandered) that determine congressional districts.
Additionally, if presidential candidates only mainly focus on swing states currently, what is to happen when candidates focus more on swing districts? Although this will include more time spent in more states with swing districts, the efforts to turn out statewide votes will be diminished as they only win two electoral votes per state instead of all of each state's votes. The presidential election then becomes focused on even fewer potential voters than before. At best, in close elections, swing states and areas with numerous swing districts would be targeted and the far majority of seats that are safe one way or the other would be ignored unless the state's remaining two electoral votes are critically needed.
Simply put, this would be a poor substitute for the current way electoral votes are awarded. Not only would the far majority of electoral votes be dependent on gerrymandering, but the national election would be reduced to certain districts with even less emphasis on certain states as it is today.
Forget that this scheme would be a major benefit to the Republicans (who would gain 19 electoral votes from the Democrats if their presidential candidate won the vote in each district that currently has a Republican representative) if only California adopted this plan (though Nebraska and Maine currently employ this way of awarding electoral votes). What would happen if this were the method adopted by all 50 states?
Although many voters cast split ticket votes, with their vote for president being of one party and their vote for the congressional representatives being from the other, as well as votes for "their guy" for Congress regardless of the presidential vote, the probability that the party that takes the congressional district would also take that district's vote for President is fairly high.
The probability of such a thing happening is even greater with the many congressional districts that are gerrymandered into place along partisan lines. Therefore, the battles over redistricting every ten years become even more intense as the prizes, congressional seats and then electoral votes, become greater.
Thus, there is a great chance that the electoral votes for President will be dependent on the votes for members of the House of Representatives. Only 103 (50 statewide winners plus Washington, D.C.'s 3 electoral votes) of the 538 total electoral votes would be independent from the House results and gerrymandering. The House is to only determine the President should no candidate receive the majority of electoral votes and even then, only the existing House decides, not the new one voted in on Election Day. Further, the presidency should be independent of the Congress as the head of the executive branch and not beholden to the House of Representatives nor the state legislatures (which themselves are often gerrymandered) that determine congressional districts.
Additionally, if presidential candidates only mainly focus on swing states currently, what is to happen when candidates focus more on swing districts? Although this will include more time spent in more states with swing districts, the efforts to turn out statewide votes will be diminished as they only win two electoral votes per state instead of all of each state's votes. The presidential election then becomes focused on even fewer potential voters than before. At best, in close elections, swing states and areas with numerous swing districts would be targeted and the far majority of seats that are safe one way or the other would be ignored unless the state's remaining two electoral votes are critically needed.
Simply put, this would be a poor substitute for the current way electoral votes are awarded. Not only would the far majority of electoral votes be dependent on gerrymandering, but the national election would be reduced to certain districts with even less emphasis on certain states as it is today.
posted by Will at 9:00 PM
1 Comments:
As long as 70% of the people disapprove of the current system of electing the President, proposals to divide electoral votes (either by congressional district or proportionally) will continue to pop up in states selected for partisan reasons.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal, and to guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill would not take effect piecemeal, but only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes --- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has 364 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. Since its introduction in February 2006, the bill has passed by 11 legislative houses (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).
See www.NationalPopularVote.com
Post a Comment
<< Home