Until we can abolish the EC, we should work to make it proportional by total state vote.

[Ken Burch]

This can be done via the iniative process in many states...including many of the current "battleground" states. If we had had this in place in Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania, Hillary would be choosing her cabinet as we speak.

The more states it is done in, the more pressure will be created to pass federal legislation or a constitutional amendment making it proportional by overall popular vote in ALL states.

[applegrove]

1. If that means that Hillary would win alot of California's electoral

college votes and almost half of WI Michigan and Pennsylvania's electoral college votes this time around, I'm for that.

[Ken Burch]

2. almost half of Iowa and Ohio's as well.

[jackson]

3. This is much more likely to happen than abolishing EC.

Even red states are getting behind this.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

[Grey Lemercier]

6. The Compact will be found unconstitutional, unfortunately

States cannot make interstate binding laws without approval of congress.

[etherealtruth]

20. There are some constitutional scholars that agree with you, most do not

Without doubt it would be challenged in court

[Grey Lemercier]

21. I would lay wager that a RW SCOTUS (if it gets that far) will strike it down

Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution

Clause 3: Compact Clause

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2007.6403




This review argues that Congress itself cannot even approve it, that it will take a constitutional amendment.
Supporters of the Compact argue that this is not true, and that they WILL seek congressional approval (and therefore, I argue, it will die as well, as the Republicans and small states will will never support it)

http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/09/20/publius.pjt037.full

[etherealtruth]

22. I am not an attorney, nor am I a constitutional scholar; however ....

This should prove an interesting read for you

Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Survives Constitutional Scrutiny Under the Compact Clause


http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=lpb

[Grey Lemercier]

23. will read it, thanks

It is all irrelevant anyway, as not enough swing states will join it.

The only truly workable solution is to increase the size of the House of Representatives, and thus the EC votes, and fairly distribute them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2637762

[pnwmom]

4. How would that help? It would still give more electoral votes to low population states. n/t

[TrollBuster9090]

5. I've seen this plan before, and one thing that I always wondered about was...

Sure, several states could make a legislative pact agreeing to give all of their delegates to whichever candidate won the popular vote. Problem solved without having to amend the Constitution, right?

But what's to stop any of those State governments from holding a last minute midnight session to repeal the legislation if it looks like their favorite candidate isn't winning the popular vote?

[libtodeath]

7. At the same time it would mean that rump would have captured a large percentage of

EC votes in New York and California so wonder if the outcome would change much.

[csziggy]

8. I did a rough calculation a week or so ago if the states EV were portioned

"If the electoral votes were divided in the same ratio as the votes each candidate receives it would make a tremendous difference. By my rough calculations, that would have given Clinton 279 to Trump's 258 but obviously my math is not quite right, probably thrown off by McMullen's large percentage in Utah the smaller votes for Johnson and Stein in other states."

A major problem is that the way states are given electoral votes now, there aren't enough to reflect the percentages of voters in very tight races or races with a number of third party candidates. For my calculation above, I ignored the third party candidates - when they got 5% or less there was no way to give them an electoral vote.

For example in Utah, with percentages: Trump 45.5%; Clinton 27.5%; McMullin 21.5% - it's hard to divide up their 6 electoral votes. Trump got almost half, but Clinton and McMullin should come close to splitting the remaining votes evenly. There is no way with 6 votes to make it work out properly.

[libtodeath]

9. That at least has a result that is fair and in proportion to what the popular vote was.

[csziggy]

10. True - but I wonder if the method for determining electoral votes should be altered

More votes - at least one per precinct - would bring the results closer to the local level. But that would take a Constitutional amendment and I don't want to get into that morass!

[Ken Burch]

14. I think you can multiply the size of the EC

If you gave each state say, four times the electoral votes it has now(and there would be no cost in this. It's basically just a group of people showing up at the state capitals for one day, casting their votes, and then going out for pizza or cheeseburgers or just going back to work), proportionality would be much easier to achieve.

[radius777]

19. Yeah, but then we'd get a chunk of TX, where

Hillary only lost by 9%.

It would probably take a constitutional amendment, but proportional EV's may be the best way to go, as it would force candidates to campaign all across the country, so red states would get alot of love from Dems and blue states from GOP, which would help build the parties in those states, and reduce polarization, where now very blue/red states are basically deserted by the national parties.

Either way, the system needs a change, because as it stands, all both parties do is focus on winning a few swing states. With proportional EV (or popular vote or a combination), winning or losing a close state by a few points wouldn't matter much, so they could then be free to campaign elsewhere.

A hybrid system is probably the best, i.e. proportional EV's, bonus EV's for winning the state, bonus EV's for winning the popular vote.

[DanTex]

11. It's a good idea, but getting there is almost impossible.

The problem is, it would have to be done by all the states at the same time. If one swing state decides to go proportional, suddenly that swing state will lose a lot of electoral sway. Because of instead of (say) 20 electoral votes at stake, there will only be one or two at the margins.

Also, solidly red or blue states aren't going to want to do this because it would mean in effect handing a few electoral votes to the other side. If CA went proportional, that would mean that instead of getting all 55, Dems would only get the majority of them.

[philosslayer]

12. Someone already did that analysis

And Hillary would have still lost by roughly the same margin.

[Persondem]

13. The limit on the House of 435 needs to be separated from the EC.

That is how our system worked until about 100 years ago. There is no reason the EC votes have to match the HoR. If the original wording of the Constitution is followed, the EC would be more proportionally correct.

[BzaDem]

16. That would require a constitutional amendment.

From Article II:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

[Persondem]

17. It might. But the limit of 435 for the HoR was done by legislation, not a constitutional convention

or amendment. This is the way House members were to be allocated ...

" The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative" from Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.

That is still in the Constitution. Not sure how the # was fixed at 435 without an amendment or constitutional convention.

So constitutionally, electors should be chosen as 1 per every 30k people. It's fixed at 435 only because of the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

Some links ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

There are some interesting solutions to proportional apportionment including the "Wyoming Rule".

[BzaDem]

24. Oh yes, the size of the house is just a statute.

I was responding to the idea that we could decouple the EC from the size of the House. We can definitely increase the size of the House, from a constitutional perspective.

[BzaDem]

15. I read somewhere that Trump would have received 56% of the electoral votes if this were universal.

The problem with the EC is the outsized influence it gives to small states.

[radius777]

18. problem w/our entire system is blue votes don't matter

as much as red votes.

Whether its the EC, congress, senate, etc - rural/whiter areas are overrepresented compared to bluer, metro, more densely populated areas.

The senate is the most glaring example. Huge, diverse, wealth producing states like NY and CA get the same two votes in the senate (which decides major national issues) as small, rural, homogenous states.

The way the system was setup by the founders may've made sense 240 years ago, but it certainly doesn't now.

[briv1016]

25. Blue states would split there vote; Red states won't.

Welcome to a near permanent Republican White House. No thank-you.

[flyingfysh]

26. that is a very bad idea

If you try to do it state by state, it would be stuck partway through the process. The Republicans would get it pushed through in states where they sometimes lose, and would not do it in states (such as in the South) which they always win.

The result: a permanent Republican advantage.