Hot take - I hate the Maine Rule

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

Makes maps look really ugly. It was cool seeing a republican win ME-02 but honestly what’s the point. That and NE-02 cancel out anyway nowadays.

There has been talk of republicans using Maine rule in Georgia, democrats in Minnesota, etc. Not sure how serious it is - might just be activists on Twitter - but I would prefer the winner of a state to get all of its electoral votes.

[emailking]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

[Pericles]

It's fine for states to divide their electoral votes, proportional allocation sounds good actually. The Maine rule isn't that though. Without drastic change to the redistricting process, it just enables politicians to rig presidential elections for their party. That takes it further away from the ideal of the outcome of the presidential election representing the will of the people.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

If every state used this rule in 2012, Mitt Romney would have won 274 electoral votes and thus the election, despite losing the popular vote by 5 million votes.

Maine and Nebraska can get away with using it because they aren't gerrymandered, but applied to most other states and it makes an already terrible electoral system much, much worse.

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

[Hammy]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

As much as I hate the EC and wish it would go I'll have to admit I agree here.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

The Maine Rule would be an improvement over winner-takes-all IF we didn't have gerrymandering. Unfortunately, in a world with gerrymandering (as indeed the new NE map remind us), it would be a disaster.

[Fascism Must Be Defeated]

It doesn't even take gerrymandering really. All you need really is crappy geography--a fair map with the main rule of Wisconsin is basically guaranteed to just give Biden two electoral votes on the congressional side, for example, in a state which he won.

[Figueira]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

As much as I hate the EC and wish it would go I'll have to admit I agree here.

I disagree that it makes it more interesting. It makes election night more like a game, sure, but I think it would be way more fun to see candidates visiting California and Tennessee and South Dakota and ignoring state lines rather than visiting the same five states every four years.

[Ferguson97]

Like everyone else said, this would enable the gerrymandering of presidential elections. Awful idea.

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

After all the most important thing in a democracy is that the elections are “interesting”.

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

I disagree that it makes it more interesting. It makes election night more like a game, sure, but I think it would be way more fun to see candidates visiting California and Tennessee and South Dakota and ignoring state lines rather than visiting the same five states every four years.

The states are changing though, to be fair.

Also, nothing wrong with games. Though I wish I was better at President Infinity.

After all the most important thing in a democracy is that the elections are “interesting”.

Not the most important thing, but definitely an important thing. Last i checked, a majority of this site has an academic interest in elections/politics.

Besides, if being more democratic is the concern, primaries for both parties need as much (if not more) reform than does the general election.

[emailking]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

True, I have to turn off that part of my brain when I evaluate what's better lol.

[Figueira]

Just for the record, I'm in favor of allocating electoral votes proportionally in each state (as an improvement over the current system, though I'd still prefer a national popular vote) but the problem with this is that it would have to be done state by state and there's no ruling state party for whom it's unequivocally in their best interest to do this.

[Skill and Chance]

As it currently exists in homogeneous rural states it's basically fine, but it's a disaster waiting to happen if it spreads to diverse, urbanized states.  Would prefer to see it abolished before anyone finds it too tempting. 

[Skill and Chance]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

This plus the risk of a plurality victory for a crazy person in a 3+ way race from winning the South or Northeast near unanimously is enough to make me mildly favor the EC.

The EC with proportional allocation and a normal 218-to-win US House vote in January if no one has a majority in November would be better than an NPV system without a runoff.

[Ferguson97]

I disagree that it makes it more interesting. It makes election night more like a game, sure, but I think it would be way more fun to see candidates visiting California and Tennessee and South Dakota and ignoring state lines rather than visiting the same five states every four years.

The states are changing though, to be fair.

Also, nothing wrong with games. Though I wish I was better at President Infinity.

After all the most important thing in a democracy is that the elections are “interesting”.

Not the most important thing, but definitely an important thing. Last i checked, a majority of this site has an academic interest in elections/politics.

Besides, if being more democratic is the concern, primaries for both parties need as much (if not more) reform than does the general election.

Yeah I have an interest in elections/politics, that doesn't mean I think my interest is more important than having a fair election lol

[Figueira]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

This plus the risk of a plurality victory for a crazy person in a 3+ way race from winning the South or Northeast near unanimously is enough to make me mildly favor the EC.

The EC with proportional allocation and a normal 218-to-win US House vote in January if no one has a majority in November would be better than an NPV system without a runoff.

I can see this being a concern in the Jim Crow era, but no one is winning any region "near unanimously" in the twenty-first century. A three person race is also not happening.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

It’s not a hot take at all. The Maine Rule makes discrepancies between the EC and the Popular Vote more likely.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Like everyone else said, this would enable the gerrymandering of presidential elections. Awful idea.

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

After all the most important thing in a democracy is that the elections are “interesting”.

I actually recommended this post.  A first.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't like it either, it diminishes the importance of the states and thereby induces all of the negatives of a national popular vote, without any of the positives.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

Eliminate primaries and have a jungle primary/runoff system. With popular vote deciding the winner.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

If the electoral votes were distributed proportionally - all of each state's votes, not just the House-equivalent ones with the two Senate-equivalents going to the statewide winner - then at that point what would be the remaining point of keeping the electoral college?

[emailking]

If the electoral votes were distributed proportionally - all of each state's votes, not just the House-equivalent ones with the two Senate-equivalents going to the statewide winner - then at that point what would be the remaining point of keeping the electoral college?

Small states still get an advantage because of the 2 senate equivalent votes. And the super small states get an additional bonus from having the house equivalent vote even though their population doesn't justify it. So small states would still have an incentive to keep the electoral college even in that scenario.

[Big Abraham]

And to think this whole mess could've been avoided if Missouri wasn't admitted to the Union on a compromise basis.

[Trump v. Wong Kim Ark]

If the electoral votes were distributed proportionally - all of each state's votes, not just the House-equivalent ones with the two Senate-equivalents going to the statewide winner - then at that point what would be the remaining point of keeping the electoral college?

1992 would’ve gone to the House. I don’t think 1996 would have. Not sure about 2000 and 2016. For 2016, McMullin would’ve gotten a vote or two out of Utah; Johnson would probably get a few from the bigger states and possibly NM, depending on how you allocate them. I think Stein might eke one out of California.

I’m not sure what this method is called (though I’m sure it has a name):

Divide 100 by whatever number of electoral votes the state has; that’s the threshold and is used to allocate all but the last vote by giving every candidate that surpassed that threshold the respective number of EVs. The last one would then go to the person that has the most votes out of the last say 20% in New Mexico. Johnson would snag that one.

New Mexico, 2016:

Hillary Clinton: 48.26%
Donald Trump: 40.04%
Gary Johnson: 9.34%
(Others): 2.36%

So, the threshold is 20%. Clinton and Trump each get 2 electoral votes. Take away that 80% and you get:

Gary Johnson: 9.34%
Hillary Clinton: 8.26%
(Others): 2.36%
Donald Trump: 0.04%

Gary Johnson, having the plurality of the remaining 20%, wins an electoral vote.

Don’t really feel like going through the rest of the states, but have at it. I’m also pretty sure that someone here has done these sorts of calculations before.