Will MI correct the Electoral College bias towards Democrats?

[zorkpolitics]

In the last two elections, an Electoral College bias in favor of the democratic candidate has developed. In 2008 Obama beat McCain by 7.26%, but it would have taken 9.5% shift nationwide towards McCain for the Republican to have won a majority of the Electoral Votes.  In 2012, Obama beat Romney by 3.86%, but it would have taken a 5.37% shift towards Romney for the Republican to win a majority of the Electoral Votes.  Thus, in the last two elections there has been about a 2% bias in the Electoral College, such that had either election been close, Obama could have won in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by up to 2%.

Recently bills were introduced into committees in MI that could level the playing field. 
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/03/michigan_political_points_elec.html

These bills would award electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote or by Congressional district winners.  If this had been in place in the last election, Romney would have earned 7 electoral votes in MI and he could have won in the Electoral College with a popular vote shift of 3.8%, almost exactly Obama’s margin of victory.  Thus these bills could eliminate a Democratic bias in the Electoral College.

[Devils30]

Anyone who supports blatant cheating like this is a major piece of scum. Let's end democracy and just give Jeb the wh with 47% popular vote.

[Liberalrocks]

How about Republicans actually try and win an election fairly and by a system that has been in place for centuries rather then try to alter the rules because the demographics are not favoring them and they are doing little in the way of changing to win on a national level ?!

I never remember Carter Mondale or Dukakis coming out with this after they lost lopsidedly.

[Tender Branson]

Gov. Snyder (R) won't sign these cheat bills anyway, he said.

[Sumner 1868]

I must remind you that the Electoral College was biased toward the less popular candidate in 2000.

[Devils30]

Michigan has a ballot referenda process so the GOP would be wasting time as it would be repealed by voters.

[Beet]

In the last two elections, an Electoral College bias in favor of the democratic candidate has developed. In 2008 Obama beat McCain by 7.26%, but it would have taken 9.5% shift nationwide towards McCain for the Republican to have won a majority of the Electoral Votes.  In 2012, Obama beat Romney by 3.86%, but it would have taken a 5.37% shift towards Romney for the Republican to win a majority of the Electoral Votes.  Thus, in the last two elections there has been about a 2% bias in the Electoral College, such that had either election been close, Obama could have won in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by up to 2%.

The only way to eliminate a bias in the Electoral College using the popular vote as the metric of guidance would be to determine the election result by the popular vote. Hence, if Obama beats McCain by 7.26%, then it would take a 7.26% shift nationwide towards McCain for the Republican to win the election. If Obama beat Romney by 3.86%, then it would take a 3.86% shift towards Romney for the Republican to win the election.

See how simple that is? This is what Democrats have been proposing all along.

MI isn't proposing to correct bias, but to introduce new bias, by changing the rules on a selective basis, the sole reason why MI is selected being that it is a state expected to vote Democratic. Hence the purpose to sabotage the state's influence in presidential elections to bias the system towards the GOP. The Republicans are the only reason why the biased Electoral College system is in place to begin with, and now they propose to biased their own biased system, thus stacking bias on top of bias in an absurd contortion calculated to benefit themselves. Might as well just write in the next election winner ahead of time.

[King]

If you want to eliminate the bias in electoral college, eliminate the electoral college.

Otherwise it's just a disingenuous attempt to get a leg up on the electoral process.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I would support a system based on proportion of statewide popular vote (i.e. if you live in a state with 10 EV's, you get 1 EV for each 10% of the vote you get, rounding to the nearest multiple of 10%), simply because there are many states (PA, IL, OR, WA, etc.) where non-urban areas typically don't matter in terms of deciding who gets a state's EV's because of the domination of a big urban area (Philadelphia/Allegheny County, Cook County, Portland, Seattle/King County) . Just because you live in a rural area doesn't mean you don't deserve representation in the electoral college. With the current system, you have a situation where (for instance) Washington State's electors are essentially representing the interests of King County, while the rest of the state gets no representation whatsoever, and that just doesn't seem right. (For what it's worth, under this system, Obama would have won 276-261 in 2012, with 1 EV for Gary Johnson in CA. Obama would have 51.3% of the EV's to Romney's 48.5%, for a 2.8% Obama EC margin, which is pretty close to his 3.9% margin in the NPV.)

However, a system like Nebraska's is not something I support, as it would only make the problem worse. Democratic governments gerrymander districts for democrats, and republican governments do the same for republicans, so you'd essentially be leaving the EC open to the gerrymandering that has already plagued the U.S. house. This goes far beyond simply giving rural areas represenation, and instead actually skews the results so that it misrepresents the interests of the nation as a whole and has a much higher risk than the current EC of electing someone who lost the NPV (If NE's system was used nationwide, Romney would have won 274-264 in 2012's EC. This comes out to 50.9% of the EV's going for Romney to 49.1% for Obama, or a 1.8% Romney EC margin, which is off, quite significantly, from Romney's 3.9% loss in the NPV.)

[ag]

Introducing gerrymandering into presidential election trully seems like a great idea.

[Skill and Chance]

I would support a system based on proportion of statewide popular vote (i.e. if you live in a state with 10 EV's, you get 1 EV for each 10% of the vote you get, rounding to the nearest multiple of 10%), simply because there are many states (PA, IL, OR, WA, etc.) where non-urban areas typically don't matter in terms of deciding who gets a state's EV's because of the domination of a big urban area (Philadelphia/Allegheny County, Cook County, Portland, Seattle/King County) . Just because you live in a rural area doesn't mean you don't deserve representation in the electoral college. With the current system, you have a situation where (for instance) Washington State's electors are essentially representing the interests of King County, while the rest of the state gets no representation whatsoever, and that just doesn't seem right. (For what it's worth, under this system, Obama would have won 276-261 in 2012, with 1 EV for Gary Johnson in CA. Obama would have 51.3% of the EV's to Romney's 48.5%, for a 2.8% Obama EC margin, which is pretty close to his 3.9% margin in the NPV.)

However, a system like Nebraska's is not something I support, as it would only make the problem worse. Democratic governments gerrymander districts for democrats, and republican governments do the same for republicans, so you'd essentially be leaving the EC open to the gerrymandering that has already plagued the U.S. house. This goes far beyond simply giving rural areas represenation, and instead actually skews the results so that it misrepresents the interests of the nation as a whole and has a much higher risk than the current EC of electing someone who lost the NPV (If NE's system was used nationwide, Romney would have won 274-264 in 2012's EC. This comes out to 50.9% of the EV's going for Romney to 49.1% for Obama, or a 1.8% Romney EC margin, which is off, quite significantly, from Romney's 3.9% loss in the NPV.)

I like this system overall, as it would give red/blue areas of blue/red states proper representation.  Someone recently did an analysis on that method.  The downside is that it is almost assured to send anything within a 2% PV margin to Congress due to small 3rd parties.  However, there is nothing wrong with a city deciding the outcome for a state if the majority of the people in the state live in that city!  Having Chicago or Philadelphia or Seattle carry a state is no affront to democracy.  Giving Wyoming and Vermont the same number of senators as California and Texas (and therefore exrtra EV) is. 

[Joe Biden 2020]

How about Republicans actually try and win an election fairly and by a system that has been in place for centuries rather then try to alter the rules because the demographics are not favoring them and they are doing little in the way of changing to win on a national level ?!

I never remember Carter Mondale or Dukakis coming out with this after they lost lopsidedly.

Well said.

[Stockdale for Veep]

Sure, but then can we address the GOP bias in the House and Senate?

Call me when California has 10 senators, and Wyoming has 1.

[kohler]

A survey of Michigan voters showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.

By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men.

On December 11, 2008, The Michigan House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill by a bipartisan 65-36 margin

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states, like Michigan, that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently.
In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9). The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

[DrScholl]

I'm having a hard time seeing where there is bias. The electoral college is winner take all and Democrats have reached well over 270 both times, in fair results. Bias would be using gerrymandered congressional districts to award votes, which would be disproportionate to the state wide vote. It would be very hard to justify Romney receiving 9 electoral votes while only getting 44% of the vote.

[Mr. Illini]

It's only happened once in the last 100 years that a Presidential candidate has lost the popular vote and still been elected President.

And that was Republican Bush 43.

[hopper]

Sure, but then can we address the GOP bias in the House and Senate?

Call me when California has 10 senators, and Wyoming has 1.

If California had 10 US Senators the Dems could pass anything they wanted and it would become law with a Dem President in the White House.

[Sumner 1868]

Sure, but then can we address the GOP bias in the House and Senate?

Call me when California has 10 senators, and Wyoming has 1.

If California had 10 US Senators the Dems could pass anything they wanted and it would become law with a Dem President in the White House.

If California had 10 senators, so would every other state.

[SteveRogers]

I would support a system based on proportion of statewide popular vote (i.e. if you live in a state with 10 EV's, you get 1 EV for each 10% of the vote you get, rounding to the nearest multiple of 10%), simply because there are many states (PA, IL, OR, WA, etc.) where non-urban areas typically don't matter in terms of deciding who gets a state's EV's because of the domination of a big urban area (Philadelphia/Allegheny County, Cook County, Portland, Seattle/King County) . Just because you live in a rural area doesn't mean you don't deserve representation in the electoral college. With the current system, you have a situation where (for instance) Washington State's electors are essentially representing the interests of King County, while the rest of the state gets no representation whatsoever, and that just doesn't seem right. (For what it's worth, under this system, Obama would have won 276-261 in 2012, with 1 EV for Gary Johnson in CA. Obama would have 51.3% of the EV's to Romney's 48.5%, for a 2.8% Obama EC margin, which is pretty close to his 3.9% margin in the NPV.)

However, a system like Nebraska's is not something I support, as it would only make the problem worse. Democratic governments gerrymander districts for democrats, and republican governments do the same for republicans, so you'd essentially be leaving the EC open to the gerrymandering that has already plagued the U.S. house. This goes far beyond simply giving rural areas represenation, and instead actually skews the results so that it misrepresents the interests of the nation as a whole and has a much higher risk than the current EC of electing someone who lost the NPV (If NE's system was used nationwide, Romney would have won 274-264 in 2012's EC. This comes out to 50.9% of the EV's going for Romney to 49.1% for Obama, or a 1.8% Romney EC margin, which is off, quite significantly, from Romney's 3.9% loss in the NPV.)

The main problem with this plan is that electoral votes are not actually proportionally distributed across the country by state population. Under the current system, a citizen of Wyoming is disproportionately represented in the electoral college compared to a citizen of California (1 EV for every 194,717 people vs. 1 EV for every 705,500 people). Distributing EVs proportionally within each state would exacerbate this problem. Based on 2012 vote totals, under such a system a third party candidate would have had to get  around 237,000 votes to get one of California's 55 EVs, while in Wyoming they'd only have to get 83,000 votes in Wyoming to get one of its EVs. So branding such a plan as a "Proportional" system is really a misnomer and wouldn't represent a step forward with regards to the Electoral College system.

[hopper]

I must remind you that the Electoral College was biased toward the less popular candidate in 2000.

Its not like Bush W. lost badly though in the popular vote. The popular vote was very close in the 2000 Presidential Election.

[hopper]

How about Republicans actually try and win an election fairly and by a system that has been in place for centuries rather then try to alter the rules because the demographics are not favoring them and they are doing little in the way of changing to win on a national level ?!

I never remember Carter Mondale or Dukakis coming out with this after they lost lopsidedly.

The Republicans could change tomorrow if they wanted to but what about their current base of support? Their current base of support is very conservative(juts listen to conservative talk radio callers) so it would be hard for them to really move their platform at all. Just listening to Conservative Talk Radio callers most of them basically haven't changed with the times they just stay in their time that they grew up in as a teen/early 20's. I have listened to some Conservative Talk Radio(Mark Levin, Inga Barks) and they haven't changed with the times on a lot of things. They didn't care  if Obama's Executive Order on Immigration passed even if costs the Republicans Hispanic Votes in 2016.

[Sumner 1868]

I must remind you that the Electoral College was biased toward the less popular candidate in 2000.

Its not like Bush W. lost badly though in the popular vote. The popular vote was very close in the 2000 Presidential Election.

I know. I was attempting to show there is no real bias either way.

[bobloblaw]

There is no real EV vote bias towards the Dem Party. There has since 1992, been a popular vote wall the GOP hasnt been able to overcome. But states like MI, WI, MN, PA are no more Dem leaning today in their PVI than they were in 1988. Bush in 1988, underperformed just as much in PA as Romeny did in 2012.

[Mister Mets]

It's unlikely to make a difference, and even if it were to pass, the bad publicity could end up doing more harm to the Republican party.

[pbrower2a]

Go to national popular vote, split electoral votes proportionately in all states, or stick with the current winner-take-all by state system. Assigning electoral votes by Congressional district does more to confirm the artificial divisions of some states into gerrymandered districts than to represent the People.

Any trick that effectively distorts the result of the popular vote other than the well-recognized winner-take-all system will be seen as disenfranchising voters.