Would you accept the proportional electoral college compromise?

[David Hume]

We all know the electoral college is bad. However, to change it, an amendment is needed. The electoral college benefits small states and swing states, so any amendment to outright abolish it is highly unlikely to pass. This is why I propose the following compromise:

1, Each state has the number of electoral votes that is the same with the sum of their house and senate seats. (no change).

2, The electoral votes in each states are assigned in proportional to the popular votes each candidates get in the presidential election, up to a certain decimal TBD.

For example, in WV, there are 4 electoral votes. Trump gets 70% in the election, so he is assigned 2.8 votes. Biden gets 30%, so he is assigned 1.2 votes.

In this way, small states get exactly the same voting power they currently have. Every vote counts in such a system, and candidates would have to campaign in all states no matter how safe they are. This will also fix the problem of unfaithful electors and threats like Trump asking electors to vote for him despite the election, since all electoral votes are automatically assigned based on the election result.

[Open Source Intelligence]

We all know the electoral college is bad. However, to change it, an amendment is needed. The electoral college benefits small states and swing states, so any amendment to outright abolish it is highly unlikely to pass. This is why I propose the following compromise:

1, Each state has the number of electoral votes that is the same with the sum of their house and senate seats. (no change).

2, The electoral votes in each states are assigned in proportional to the popular votes each candidates get in the presidential election, up to a certain decimal TBD.

For example, in WV, there are 4 electoral votes. Trump gets 70% in the election, so he is assigned 2.8 votes. Biden gets 30%, so he is assigned 1.2 votes.

In this way, small states get exactly the same voting power they currently have. Every vote counts in such a system, and candidates would have to campaign in all states no matter how safe they are. This will also fix the problem of unfaithful electors and threats like Trump asking electors to vote for him despite the election, since all electoral votes are automatically assigned based on the election result.

I doubt the 2 main parties will ever accept anything proportional if it results in a 3rd entity receiving credit for votes. The last thing they ever want to create is a kingmaker scenario. The current winner-take-all method is pretty much the only way you can get Clinton to winning in 1992 without making Perot's voters kingmakers. For people that say plurality of votes should win, yeah but that looks worse the further away from 50 you get, and Clinton only took 43%.

I think a better way to do it is:

-increase the size of the electoral vote to 1000 based on states' share of U.S. population, so it's divorced from the House and Senate composition, plus 1000 is a nice round number where you get 501 you win
-either do an American primary-style allocation (if getting a majority take all, if winner less than 50% do proportional allocation with greater than 5, 10, or 15% to receive any) or either a greatest remainder or a d'Hondt-style allocation.

What I call American primary-style allocation is in my opinion something I could see both parties in theory agreeing to.

[David Hume]

We all know the electoral college is bad. However, to change it, an amendment is needed. The electoral college benefits small states and swing states, so any amendment to outright abolish it is highly unlikely to pass. This is why I propose the following compromise:

1, Each state has the number of electoral votes that is the same with the sum of their house and senate seats. (no change).

2, The electoral votes in each states are assigned in proportional to the popular votes each candidates get in the presidential election, up to a certain decimal TBD.

For example, in WV, there are 4 electoral votes. Trump gets 70% in the election, so he is assigned 2.8 votes. Biden gets 30%, so he is assigned 1.2 votes.

In this way, small states get exactly the same voting power they currently have. Every vote counts in such a system, and candidates would have to campaign in all states no matter how safe they are. This will also fix the problem of unfaithful electors and threats like Trump asking electors to vote for him despite the election, since all electoral votes are automatically assigned based on the election result.

I doubt the 2 main parties will ever accept anything proportional if it results in a 3rd entity receiving credit for votes. The last thing they ever want to create is a kingmaker scenario. The current winner-take-all method is pretty much the only way you can get Clinton to winning in 1992. For people that say plurality of votes should win, yeah but that looks worse the further away from 50 you get, and the guy only took 43%.

I think a better way to do it is:

-increase the size of the electoral vote to 1000 based on states' share of U.S. population, so it's divorced from the House and Senate composition, plus 1000 is a nice round number where you get 501 you win
-either do an American primary-style allocation (if getting a majority take all, if winner less than 50% do proportional allocation with greater than 5, 10, or 15% to receive any) or either a greatest remainder or a d'Hondt-style allocation.

What I call American primary-style allocation is in my opinion something I could see both parties in theory agreeing to.

Dems officially support proportional, right? For R, this at least does't hurt them like true popular votes does, and would save them when TX goes blue.

[Open Source Intelligence]

We all know the electoral college is bad. However, to change it, an amendment is needed. The electoral college benefits small states and swing states, so any amendment to outright abolish it is highly unlikely to pass. This is why I propose the following compromise:

1, Each state has the number of electoral votes that is the same with the sum of their house and senate seats. (no change).

2, The electoral votes in each states are assigned in proportional to the popular votes each candidates get in the presidential election, up to a certain decimal TBD.

For example, in WV, there are 4 electoral votes. Trump gets 70% in the election, so he is assigned 2.8 votes. Biden gets 30%, so he is assigned 1.2 votes.

In this way, small states get exactly the same voting power they currently have. Every vote counts in such a system, and candidates would have to campaign in all states no matter how safe they are. This will also fix the problem of unfaithful electors and threats like Trump asking electors to vote for him despite the election, since all electoral votes are automatically assigned based on the election result.

I doubt the 2 main parties will ever accept anything proportional if it results in a 3rd entity receiving credit for votes. The last thing they ever want to create is a kingmaker scenario. The current winner-take-all method is pretty much the only way you can get Clinton to winning in 1992. For people that say plurality of votes should win, yeah but that looks worse the further away from 50 you get, and the guy only took 43%.

I think a better way to do it is:

-increase the size of the electoral vote to 1000 based on states' share of U.S. population, so it's divorced from the House and Senate composition, plus 1000 is a nice round number where you get 501 you win
-either do an American primary-style allocation (if getting a majority take all, if winner less than 50% do proportional allocation with greater than 5, 10, or 15% to receive any) or either a greatest remainder or a d'Hondt-style allocation.

What I call American primary-style allocation is in my opinion something I could see both parties in theory agreeing to.

Dems officially support proportional, right?

No that I'm aware of.

[Del Tachi]

Yes, but with the caveat that two electoral votes should always be awarded to the state's popular vote winner and then the remaining votes are divided among the candidates proportionally with the electoral vote total rounded up to the nearest whole number (i.e., 1.1 becomes 2).  If the total number of electoral votes allocated under this calculation adds up to more than the state's total number of electors, votes are subtracted from the lowest vote-getter(s) until the total is right.

So, for your West Virginia example Trump wins 2 electoral votes for winning the state.  The other two votes are then allocated proportionally based on vote-share.  For Trump that's 0.69*2 = 1.38 (rounds up to 2) and Biden it's 0.30*2=0.6 (round up to 1.)  Since the total is 5, an electoral vote is subtracted from Biden to make 4.  Trump wins all four electors.

Another example, California: Biden wins 0.63*53 = 33.39 (rounds up to 34) + 2 = 36.  Trump 0.34*53 = 18.02 (rounds up to 19).  The total number allocated, 55, is correct so the final split is  Biden, 37; Trump,  19.

It should be obvious why proportionality rules favor Republicans. It let's the GOP win a significant number of votes in CA, NY, IL while giving Democrats only crumbs from the smaller states where the GOP is currently favored.

[David Hume]

Yes, but with the caveat that two electoral votes should always be awarded to the state's popular vote winner and then the remaining votes are divided among the candidates proportionally with the electoral vote total rounded up to the nearest whole number (i.e., 1.1 becomes 2).  If the total number of electoral votes allocated under this calculation adds up to more than the state's total number of electors, votes are subtracted from the lowest vote-getter(s) until the total is right.

So, for your West Virginia example Trump wins 2 electoral votes for winning the state.  The other two votes are then allocated proportionally based on vote-share.  For Trump that's 0.69*2 = 1.38 (rounds up to 2) and Biden it's 0.30*2=0.6 (round up to 1.)  Since the total is 5, an electoral vote is subtracted from Biden to make 4.  Trump wins all four electors.

Another example, California: Biden wins 0.63*53 = 33.39 (rounds up to 34) + 2 = 36.  Trump 0.34*53 = 18.02 (rounds up to 19).  The total number allocated, 55, is correct so the final split is  Biden, 37; Trump,  19.

It should be obvious why proportionality rules favor Republicans. It let's the GOP win a significant number of votes in CA, NY, IL while giving Democrats only crumbs from the smaller states where the GOP is currently favored.

You scheme is too unfair that Blue states would reject.

[2016]

We all know the electoral college is bad. However, to change it, an amendment is needed. The electoral college benefits small states and swing states, so any amendment to outright abolish it is highly unlikely to pass. This is why I propose the following compromise:

1, Each state has the number of electoral votes that is the same with the sum of their house and senate seats. (no change).

2, The electoral votes in each states are assigned in proportional to the popular votes each candidates get in the presidential election, up to a certain decimal TBD.

For example, in WV, there are 4 electoral votes. Trump gets 70% in the election, so he is assigned 2.8 votes. Biden gets 30%, so he is assigned 1.2 votes.

In this way, small states get exactly the same voting power they currently have. Every vote counts in such a system, and candidates would have to campaign in all states no matter how safe they are. This will also fix the problem of unfaithful electors and threats like Trump asking electors to vote for him despite the election, since all electoral votes are automatically assigned based on the election result.

Completely nix the Electoral College, go to a Parlamentary System otherwise the Democrats will rule for the next 50 years which I am expecting.

[Bush did 311]

No. In addition to the other issue people usually raise with the EC...The EC also makes 3rd parties impossible structurally.

Suppose we adopted instant runoff voting. It would still be impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win since there's no way they could get 270 EVs in a 3 way race against 2 competitive major party candidates. In fact even with a plurality of votes nationally they could still get very few EVs depending how they are spread. So it would go to Congress, which would pick a major party candidate instead. If we want to have more and better options to represent us we need to abolish the EC completely and have a popular vote with IRV or ranked choice or something.

[David Hume]

No. In addition to the other issue people usually raise with the EC...The EC also makes 3rd parties impossible structurally.

Suppose we adopted instant runoff voting. It would still be impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win since there's no way they could get 270 EVs in a 3 way race against 2 competitive major party candidates. In fact even with a plurality of votes nationally they could still get very few EVs depending how they are spread. So it would go to Congress, which would pick a major party candidate instead. If we want to have more and better options to represent us we need to abolish the EC completely and have a popular vote with IRV or ranked choice or something.

Didn't my scheme completely fix this problem? If RFK gets 30% in MA, he gets 2.7 votes. If his accumulative vote is high enough, he could win the presidency even if he did not win a single state. (My scheme would abolish the 270 bar and give presidency to whoever with the highest accumulative vote.)

[Bush did 311]

Ah, I missed the bit about giving it to the plurality. You know splitting EVs and eliminating the 270 threshold would still require an amendment right? Literally easier to just get rid of the thing. Assuming we still have free and fair elections in a few decades, we will likely witness the end.

The NPVIC is coming.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

basically this is what I support, but you can't split up electoral college votes into fractions, since each vote is an actual human representative. you have to round up for the winner.

for recent elections it Utah it would be something like
UT 2012:  Romney 5, Obama 1
UT 2016:  Trump 3, Clinton 2, McMullin 1
UT 2020:  Trump 4, Biden 2

[oldkyhome]

A much easier and more feasible solution would be to remove the cap on U.S House seats, since electors are apportioned based on representation in Congress. The reason a state like Wyoming has outsized influence is because they’re guaranteed two votes from the Senate, which wouldn’t be significant enough to sway an outcome if there were hundreds of more votes from the House. You’d need a trifecta for something like that (and maybe a filibuster proof majority in the Senate), but it’s far more realistic than the NPVIC, which fails even in Dem-leaning swing states like Nevada, much less a Constitutional amendment, or somehow convincing every state to adopt the Nebraska-Maine system.

[Vice President Christian Man]

I suppose this would be better than the current system, but ideally the electoral college should be abolished and replaced by RCV.