Should America’s biggest state California join the move to dismantle the electoral college system? In the article, California Initiative Proposal to Alter Electoral College, Ballot Access News writer and election expert Richard Winger talks about the possible ending of the US electoral college with the most populous state in the country seeking to change the way its 38 million citizens’ votes are counted for President. Right now California has a system where all of it’s 55 electoral college votes go to one candidate (usually the Democrats) but changing this rule would allow the votes to be split.
In theory, this change encourages Presidential campaigns to pay more attention to states like California, Texas, or any other state that has been ignored in the past because it was clear that one of the two major parties had no chance. This has not been without some pushback from dissenters as it would have major implications. From Ballot Access News:
Hal Nickle has filed a proposed statewide initiative measure. If it got on the ballot and passed, California would apportion electoral votes according to the share of the popular vote within California. If this measure had been in force in 2012, the California electoral vote would have been: Obama 34, Romney 20, Gary Johnson 1. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Also, you can see the from the proposed initiative itself, titled ‘Request for Title and Summary for Proposed Initiative’, this is a citizen supported proposal that needs popular support to even get on the ballot:
California is largely taken for granted by Presidential Candidates because of its “winner-take-all” system of awarding its electoral votes. In recent elections, Presidential candidates have spent more time trying to win the votes of just a few thousand voters in a couple of smaller states, while largely ignoring millions of voters in California. Moreover, the “winner take-all” system of awarding electoral votes does not reflect the vast diversity of our state and the regional differences of our citizenry and also impedes any credible third party or independent candidacy for President. Once California enacts the Make Our Vote Count Act, Presidential candidates will have an incentive to appeal to every voter and to address the unique problems faced by Californians.
This state-led effort to reform the Electoral College system follows actions by several other states but none would have more impact that giant California. One could see however, in the best possible scenario, that enough states sign on to this type of reform to open up the Presidential election system so that candidates campaign outside of the few ‘swing states’ and pay more attention to places like New York and Texas.
US Attorney General Eric Holder is warning that attempts by states to change the electoral college system’s vote allocations for Presidential elections would endanger democracy itself. From the article, “Eric Holder slams electoral vote tinkering“ by Josh Gerstein on Politico:
“Recent proposed changes in how electoral votes are apportioned in specific states are blatantly partisan, unfair, divisive, and not worthy of our nation,” Holder said in a speech Thursday night to Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. “Let me be clear again: we will not sit by and allow the slow unraveling of an electoral system that so many sacrificed so much to construct.”
Late last year, Republicans in Pennsylvania re-proposed that the state drop its winner-take-all system for electoral votes in presidential elections and move towards one that would parcel out those votes based on the popular vote in the state. That could encourage presidential candidates to pay more attention to the Keystone state at a time when it seems to be drifting more and more firmly into the Democratic column in presidential elections.
Other states are acting on the electoral college system too according to this article in Democracy Chronicles titled “Virginia to Stop Move Toward Electoral College Reform“:
A plan to alter the winner-takes-all Electoral College rules in the state of Virginia is on the chopping block after two Republican state senators on a key committee said they would oppose it, according to The Associated Press. The proposed remake would have changed how electoral votes are tabulated by anchoring them to congressional districts, which are largely drawn to favor incumbents — the majority being Republicans, even though Democrats won the House popular vote in 2012.
Had the bill been passed ahead of last year’s presidential election, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would have been declared winner in Virginia even though President Barack Obama won the popular vote by hundreds of thousands of actual voters. Similar bills are being considered in the key swing states of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, AP noted, and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is encouraging state lawmakers to take up the cause.
toto says
One of the counter-intuitive aspects of the whole-number proportional approach (which retains the Electoral College and the office of presidential elector) would result in most states being ignored in presidential elections. There would be fewer battleground states under this system than under the current system.
Campaigning is rarely capable of shifting more than 8% of the vote during a typical presidential campaign. If one considers an average-sized state (i.e., a state with 11 electoral votes), one electoral vote would correspond to 9% of the popular vote in the state. In smaller states, one electoral vote would correspond to an even larger percentage of the popular vote in the state. In a state of median size (i.e., seven electoral votes), one electoral vote would correspond to 14% of the popular vote in the state. In the case of the seven states with three electoral votes, one electoral vote would correspond to 33% of the popular vote.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the Electoral College, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the
nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress. Given the composition of the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2001, the whole-number proportional approach would have resulted in the election of the second-place presidential candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Frank says
The best way to do it, instead of splitting them up is get states totaling 270 Electoral Votes to change they way their electorates vote. Instead of voting the way the state did, have them vote the way the popular vote in the country votes. Then the 18th Century Electoral College will be pointless!
toto says
California has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.
When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National
Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
toto says
Republican legislators who want to split state electoral votes in states that have recently voted Democratic in presidential elections, do not want to split electoral votes in states that recently voted Republican in presidential elections.
Republican legislators seem quite “confused” about the merits of the congressional district method. The leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their congressional district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. While in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, some Republican legislators recently strongly argued that they must change from the winner-take-all method to the congressional district method.
These obvious unprincipled partisan attempts to make the current system even less fair, makes the case for the National Popular Vote plan all the stronger.
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 “battleground” districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error.
The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular
vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Mudlock says
Absolutely. “Okay, how about this: We keep 100% of all the red ones, but you get to keep 51% of each blue one” isn’t more-fair.
(Not that NPV is seamless, either; since each state has it’s own laws determining voter eligibility and registration requirements, red states could still do a lot to make things less than fair.)
Adrian Tawfik says
We need one complete package of similar reforms to be put together by people who care. I think proportional representation is very important but without addressing voter turnout, money in elections, third party competition and a host of similar reforms, it might not work. The key is that it is possible to get a working system. I think a package of reforms put together and called “Reforming American Democracy Bill” or something, should be top agenda for anyone who wants better politicians and government.
Bill Dougherty says
No one in power wants top change the way things are done currently unless it favors their party. We stopped being an electorate and became subjects again some time ago.
Kyle says
You are a fucking moron.
in large states like California that has 55 votes, it should not be a winner take all state. That’s ludicrous! Small states with 10 or less votes, who cares what they do.
55 out of 270… that is why it should not be a winner take all state.
Grow up kid, and get a job.
Linda Choquette says
I wish someone will change it. It’s like my vote doesn’t even count. Why do we even vote, it’s a force.
Bill Dopugherty says
Wow, I’m shocked. Are you telling me that parties are more concerned with keeping power than in what is fair, and how is it that it is always the Republicans that get bashed? Trust me both parties are equally selfish and corrupt.
Eddie says
I would prefer a straight popular vote for president. This is how it is done in countries like France and Great Britain. Why is this country so backwards?
Ronald Stutrud says
France has popular vote but in Great Britain the leader of the party with the majority in the House of Commons becomes the Prime Minister (symbolically appointed by the Queen). The popular vote determines the members of Parliament, so basically it’s an electoral system too. Also the U.S. has 5 times the population of France and GB respectively.
Nic says
Ask any republican controled state if they they would reform, they would absolutely not allow this, the popular vote only works if the whole country does it and that would be almost impossible as you would have to amend the constitution. Take away californias winner take all system and all the other winner take all states which is almost all of them will get more power and their votes will count more than california. It only works if everyone does it which republicans would hate as well. Its funny that they want california to be a popular vote state but not the rest of the country, though anyone with 2 braincells knows its absolutely a partison issue.
Jonathan says
none if the measures illustrated in this op-ed piece endangers the electoral college. the Electoral collage system allocates votes to states based on the states population per the US census. How the state wishes to cast its vote is of no concern to the electoral college.