Revive
the Electoral College:
One Presidential Elector
for Each
Congressional District
SYNOPSIS:
The method by which Americans select a President is out of date.
Our Electoral College should be reorganized
(without changing the U.S. Constitution)
to reflect more accurately the wishes of the American people.
State
laws govern how the Electors are selected for
each state.
Let the votes for President and Vice President
be counted within each U.S.
Congressional District
to select one Presidential Elector for that District.
In addition, the popular vote within the whole state
could select two additional (at-large) Presidential Electors.
OUTLINE:
1. SELECTING ELECTORS BY
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
WOULD NOT
CHANGE THE PRESENT BALANCE OF POWER.
2.
'SWING DISTRICTS' WOULD REPLACE 'SWING STATES'.
3. PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES WOULD CAMPAIGN WITH
CANDIDATES
FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
4. ELECTION REFORM
WITHOUT CHANGING
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
5. POPULAR
VOTE TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT.
6. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANING OF
VOTING FOR PRESIDENT:
I WANT MY VOTE
TO MATTER.
7.
CONCLUSION: LET MORE VOTES MATTER.
Revive
the Electoral College:
One Presidential Elector
for Each
Congressional District
by
James Leonard Park
The Electoral College was
created by the writers of the U.S. Constitution
in order to avoid
the direct election of the President of
the United States.
The basic idea was for each state to appoint wise Electors
who would gather in each state's capital
for the sole purpose of
selecting the next President and Vice President.
Each state decided its own method of selecting Electors,
but they could not be public officials—elected or appointed.
Originally, the American
people did not vote for President and VP.
In practice it has not worked this way for many years.
Nowadays,
the political parties
name potential Electors.
And a popular vote for President and VP in each state
determines which slate of
Electors from that state
will be empowered to vote for President and Vice President.
Each political party in a
given state selects a number of Electors
equal to the number of
Congressional Districts in that state
plus two more, for the number of U.S. Senators from each state.
In
other words, the College of Presidential Electors
is the same size as
the whole U.S. Congress.
(Three more Electoral Votes were added for the District of Columbia,
creating the grand total of 538 Presidential Electors.)
At
present we have winner-takes-all
elections in
most states.
Whichever Presidential slate gets the most
votes in that state
empowers
the Electors of that party
to cast the actual Electoral Votes for
President and Vice President.
Most people
do not know about these Electors.
Their names seldom become
public.
They are selected by their political parties.
And they
are always supposed to vote for
the candidates who won the
popular election in that state.
But they do have the power (which
they sometimes exercise)
to vote for other people or to abstain.
The public hears about "Electoral Votes" for each state.
We are told that each state has a number of "Electoral
Votes"
equal to the number of U.S. Representatives
and
U.S. Senators from that state.
Minnesota (where I live) has 10 Electoral Votes,
since we have 8
Congressional Districts and
two at-large U.S. Senators who
represent the whole state of Minnesota.
Other states have
many more Electoral Votes,
since they have larger populations
—and
hence more U.S. Congressional Districts.
Each 700,000 people elects one U.S. Representative.
The
extra Electoral Votes awarded for the two U.S. Senators
gives the
smaller states more influence
in electing the President.
1. SELECTING ELECTORS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
WOULD NOT
CHANGE THE PRESENT BALANCE OF POWER.
The U.S. Constitution is extremely difficult to
change.
But the enshrined advantage for the smaller states
could be preserved by states changing their election laws.
Each state would still have the same number of Electoral Votes,
but Electors could be
selected in a new way within each state.
The American people would still vote for President
and Vice President.
But our votes could be
counted by U.S. Congressional Districts.
Whichever Presidential slate wins
the most votes in a given District
would select a flesh-and-blood Presidential Elector of the same party.
These are exactly the same
votes for President and Vice President
but they would be added up for each District and for each state.
Members of the U.S. House
of Representatives are elected
by a direct vote of the people in
each Congressional District.
My U.S. Congressional District
is the 5th of Minnesota,
which includes all of the City of
Minneapolis
and parts of nearby suburbs.
Since U.S. Representatives are elected every two years,
their
elections coincide with the Presidential election every four years.
Whenever there is a Presidential election,
there is
also a race for the U.S. Representative from each District.
And if we can count the votes for U.S. Representatives,
we can
count the votes from the same voters
for the President and Vice
President.
The official outcome of the Presidential
election
would be announced along with the results for each
Congressional race.
In addition to electing one person to be their U.S. Representative,
each Congressional District would be choosing one Presidential Elector
by means of marking their ballots for President and Vice President.
Close
Presidential races in a few Districts might require recounts,
just
as recounts are now required for some U.S. Representatives.
The number of Presidential Electors selected for each party
would be known on election night.
And
they would be certified just days later
along with all of the
other votes counted in the same election.
And uncertain counts in
one or two Congressional Districts in the USA
would probably not
change the winner of the Presidential election.
Thus, each of the 8 Congressional Districts in Minnesota
would select one Presidential Elector
—by their popular vote for
President and Vice President.
This would eliminate
the winner-takes-all system
now
in place for the whole state of Minnesota.
And in most elections
for President and VP in Minnesota,
some Congressional Districts (rural and suburban)
would select Republican Presidential Electors
and some
Congressional Districts (urban)
would select Democratic Presidential Electors.
The two extra (at-large) Presidential Electors for
Minnesota
would be selected by the
state-wide popular vote for President and VP.
Whichever slate gets
the the largest number of popular votes
counting all votes for the whole state of Minnesota
would officially elect the two
at-large Presidential Electors for that
party.
This would
counter-balance any unintended and unavoidable concentration
of voters of one party in some Congressional Districts.
For example, if 4 Districts in Minnesota preferred the Republican slate
and the other 4 Districts gave more votes to the
Democrats slate,
then there would be a tie-vote for Minnesota
—4 Presidential Electors for each
party.
But two additional Presidential Electors would be elected
according to the popular
votes added up for the whole state.
Thus, the over-all voting power of
Minnesota
would still be 10 Electoral Votes
—now 10 flesh-and-blood
Presidential Electors—
determined by the direct votes of
the people.
Two states—Maine
and Nebraska—
already
assign their Electoral Votes according to this pattern:
Each
Congressional District gets one Electoral Vote,
based on the
popular vote for President in that Congressional District.
And
whoever gets the most votes
in the whole state,
gets two more
Electoral Votes.
These two states show
that it is already possible
for individual states
to change how
their Electoral Votes are allocated.
States could also divide
their Electoral Votes
in
proportion to the popular vote in each state
or to reflect the nationwide popular vote.
2.
'SWING DISTRICTS' WOULD REPLACE 'SWING STATES'.
Under the present winner-takes-all system
of electing the
President and Vice President,
most states are basically
ignored
because
a majority of their voters will vote either Republican or
Democrat.
In 2004, there were about 15
so-called "battleground states",
which means that by
spending huge piles of money,
all of the Electoral Votes of a
swing state can be won.
Only a few thousand votes have to be
shifted from one party to the other.
In
the 2008 election for President,
there were 6 states and one
Congressional District (in Nebraska)
in which the difference in the popular
vote was less than 5%.
For the 2012
election for President,
the election was decided in about 10 competitive states.
All of the other Electoral Votes were safely
in one party or the other.
So the whole campaign took place in
these 10 swing
states.
Why
spend time and money in states where the Electoral Vote is
settled?
Thus, most of the states that
make up the USA can be
ignored.
For example, the whole state of
California can be ignored
—even
tho it has the largest population of any state—
because
it is safely in the Democratic camp.
Republican voters in
California have no impact
in electing the President.
Because
California has a safe Democratic majority among its voters,
all of
California's 55 Electoral Votes go to the Democratic slate.
Texas can also be ignored—with its 38 Electoral Votes—
since the
Republican majority is large enough
to put the whole state into the
Republican column.
Democratic voters in Texas
cannot affect the
Presidential election.
In 2016, there
were about 13 swing states,
where the Presidential election was decided.
Votes were recorded in all the other states,
but observers knew in advance where their Electoral Votes would go.
Under
the winner-takes-all system, the voters in the swing states
have
more influence on the outcome of the Presidential election
than
the rest of the voters everywhere else.
The other voters cannot
change the outcome.
How fair is that?
However, if each U.S. Congressional District
selected one Presidential Elector,
then the candidates would pay attention
to
winning a majority in each Congressional District.
"Swing Districts"
would replace "swing states".
There will still be some Districts
that vote so solidly for one political party
that there is no need for
the Presidential candidates
to pay much attention to those voters.
But many U.S. Congressional Districts could go either way.
Perhaps more than half
of all U.S. Congressional Districts
would
be "swing Districts" in the Presidential election.
And when gerrymandering
is ended,
even more Districts will become competitive.
And every state would have
at least a few Districts worth considering.
If votes for President were effective at the
District level,
we would never see some states completely ignored
because they are
considered either won or lost ahead of time.
When the winner takes all of the Electoral Votes from any state,
more than 30 states can be
ignored.
Yes, the voters in the ignored states do cast
ballots for President & VP.
And yes, these votes are correctly counted and reported.
But these votes do not matter.
The Electoral Votes for these states are known beforehand:
All of the Electoral Votes from each of the ignored states
will go to the expected slate.
But if the same votes were added up by U.S.
Congressional District,
then each vote for President
and Vice President would matter more.
More voters could affect the Electoral College count.
And more people would
probably vote
under this reform.
Right now, people
who know that they are
in a definite
minority in a
certain state
—overwhelmingly
outvoted by members of the other party—
often
decide not to
vote at all,
since
they know the Presidential outcome for their state ahead of time.
Would 5-10% more eligible
voters cast their ballots
if they knew that their votes might change the Presidential election?
When votes for President are counted by Congressional
District
in addition to calculating the popular vote for the whole state,
there is a better chance for each
individual vote to be meaningful.
Reorganizing the Electoral College
to have one Presidential Elector for each Congressional District
would
empower more voters since each voter would be closer
to making a
difference in his or her U.S. Congressional District.
In some Congressional Districts,
the Presidential Elector of a minority party might win
even if that party had no
chance of winning
every District in that state.
Under the present system of winner-takes-all,
about 1/4 of all voters live
in swing states.
But under the Congressional District system,
about 1/2 of all voters
might live in swing Districts.
A swing state or District might be
defined
as having a margin of
victory within 5% of the total votes
cast for President and Vice President in that area.
Under this definition, how many Congressional Districts
were swing Districts in the 2016 election?
And what percentage of all the voters live in these Districts?
When voters see that there is a real race
for President and Vice
President in this own District,
they will go to the polls (or vote-by-mail),
also voting in the other
races on the same ballot.
3.
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WOULD CAMPAIGN WITH
CANDIDATES FOR
THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Selecting one Presidential Elector for each
Congressional District
would
raise attention for each race for Representatives in the U.S.
House.
Because each Congressional District would select one
Presidential Elector,
it would be natural for the candidates for
President from any party
to coordinate their campaigns with the same party's candidate
for that seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
For example, the candidates running for the 5th Congressional
District
of the State of Minnesota (which is the city of
Minneapolis and some suburbs)
would be the most logical
coordinators for the Presidential campaigns.
In each
Congressional District each party would present
one candidate for
the U.S. House of Representatives
and one Presidential slate for
President and Vice President.
This would
make national politics more local.
The Presidential campaign
would help local voters
to care more about their Representative
in the U.S. House.
Under the present system of winner-takes-all,
the state total is the focus of each Presidential campaign.
In contrast, if the Electoral College
were completely replaced by a direct
popular vote for President,
then the campaign would broaden to
the whole country
because only the total
popular votes would matter.
And media campaigning in urban areas would replace local
politics.
Small states and rural areas where there are few voters
might be ignored because the major media markets have more votes.
4. ELECTION REFORM WITHOUT
CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
As said before,
changing the way votes for President are counted
would not require any change to the Constitution of the United States.
Individual states can change
how they allocate their Electoral Votes
by a simple majority vote within each house of the state legislature
and the affirmation of the governor of that state.
Winner-takes-all is not mentioned in the
Constitution.
Thus the states are free to decide how to allocate their Electoral
Votes.
Even keeping the Electoral College as provided in the Constitution,
state election laws could be changed
to select one Presidential
Elector for each Congressional District.
The voters would see the candidates for President and VP on the ballot.
And their votes for President and Vice President would be counted
right along with the other votes by the same voters
for their Congress-person in the U.S. House of Representatives.
In addition to these District Presidential Electors,
each state would also select two
at-large Presidential Electors,
based on the popular vote
for President and VP for that whole state.
Thus, each state would still have the same number of
Electoral Votes,
but these Electoral Votes would be allocated
according to the votes of the people in each Congressional District
and awarded by the total popular vote for President and VP in that
state.
As a result, almost all states would have some Presidential Electors
for each slate of candidates from the major political parties.
The winner-takes-all practice in almost all states
is the most unfair feature
of the present Electoral College system.
Under winner-takes-all within each state,
the votes in 30+ states do not matter
because all of those Electoral Votes
are already settled before election day.
When changing state laws to re-allocate Electoral
Votes,
most states will want other
states to change at the same time.
This could be done by
establishing an effective-date
for this change
after a named number of other states
also agree to re-allocate their Electoral Votes.
Or these state laws could be scheduled to go into effect
only after enough states have changed their election laws
so that a majority of the Electoral Votes will be assigned by this
method.
Such provisions should
be written in such a way
as to avoid the Constitutional prohibition of compacts among the
states
that have not been approved by the national government.
Establishing contingent effective-dates should be sufficient.
As already noted,
two states—Maine and Nebraska—
have
already changed their election laws
to allocate Electoral Votes
based on the votes for President and
Vice President in those states.
Any other state could follow suit
without
waiting for
additional
states to reform their laws.
To make these
flesh-and-blood Presidential Electors
even more local,
state laws could be re-written to
elect one
Presidential Elector
from each U. S. Congressional
District.
This person would probably be the
party leader for that District.
And each party would
also nominate two at-large
Presidential Electors,
who would be sent to the state capital
if that party wins the state-wide vote
for President and Vice
President.
These at-large Presidential Electors
would probably be
two party
leaders at the
state level.
Some state laws
might put the names
of these
Presidential Electors
onto the ballots along with their
Presidential slates.
And these candidates for the
College of Presidential Electors
might campaign alongside the
candidates for President and Vice
President.
Selecting one Presidential Elector for
each Congressional
District
would make these local party officials
better known to the voters.
Especially in large
state such as California,
it would make more sense to have
Presidential Electors
named for each U.S. Congressional
District
(plus two at-large Presidential
Electors named for the whole state)
rather than having a long list of 55
Electors for each party.
Some states already name Electors for
each Congressional District.
Each voter who
marks a ballot for President and Vice
President
will know that this vote will decide
which Presidential Elector
from his or her own U.S. Congressional
District
will be sent to the state capital to
cast one Electoral Vote for that
District.
Even those
Congressional Districts most remove
from Washington, DC
do elect one Representative to sit in
the U.S. House of
Representatives.
And the same voters in each
Congressional District
will select one Presidential Elector
(by voting for President and VP)
who will represent the votes of that
Congressional District.
In addition, the total popular vote
within each state
will select two additional
Presidential Electors.
Geographical
diversity will be preserved in the
Electoral College
by making certain that the 700,000
people of each Congressional
District
have one
Presidential Elector.
Each
Congressional District
would have its own Presidential election.
And the vote-totals from those
District elections
would be added up for the whole state
to determine the two at-large
Presidential Electors for that state.
This would keep even Presidential
politics more local
in contrast to adding up all the votes
state-wide
or adding up the total votes
nationwide.
Another alternative
within the power of each state
legislature
would be to allocate all of that
state's Electoral Votes
in
proportion to the popular vote in that state.
Instead of invalidating all of the minority voters in that
state,
there is a chance that any party in the minority will be
able to earn
at least a few Electoral Votes for their
candidate.
For example, if 30% of the voters in Texas vote Democratic,
then 30% of the Electoral Votes (13 of 38)
would be cast for the Democratic slate.
This would be a mathematical calculation based on state-wide vote
rather than paying attention to the votes within Congressional
Districts.
5. POPULAR VOTE TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT.
Another reform would be direct election of the
President:
Whoever gets the most votes
nationwide wins the
election.
Then it would be just a matter of total votes cast for
each candidate,
without regard to the
locations of the voters.
Each vote counts exactly as much as each other vote.
However, having a national vote-count for President
and Vice
President
would not allow the small
states to retain
their
present disproportionate power in selecting the President.
Direct popular vote would make the election a
media campaign,
with millions of dollars spent on advertising in the mass media.
Media markets with the most
voters would get the most
advertising.
Where voters are densely packed, it costs less to reach each voter.
And areas with few voters might be largely ignored.
Urban areas would become the basic locations for campaigning.
And less populated parts of America would not matter as much.
One proposed way to have a direct popular election
of the President
without changing the U.S.
Constitution
suggests using the nationwide popular votes for President & VP
as the only criterion for
selecting members of the Electoral College.
State election laws could be changed to require all Electors
to vote for the slate that won the national popular vote.
Some states have already enacted such laws.
But these laws are made contingent
on other states
following suit:
Only when 270 Electoral Votes would be determined by this method
would these state laws come into effect.
In other words, when more than half of the Electoral Votes
will be dictated by the national
popular vote,
then the Electoral College becomes a mere formality.
These states would cast all
of their Electoral Votes for the national winner
without regard to how the voters of each state cast their ballots.
Joining such an interstate
compact
puts more distance between the individual voter and the national result.
The winning slate in the national
vote-count
would automatically
also win the Electoral College
because more than half of the Electoral Votes
have already been allocated that way by state laws.
Thus, the only number that would matter is the national total
of votes for President and Vice President.
Each Presidential campaign would try to gain more votes
—from anywhere in the United States
of America.
But, how would the voters of Texas feel
if they overwhelmingly voted for the Republican slate
but this compact between the states required
all of Electoral
Votes of Texas to be cast for the Democratic slate?
And how would the voters of California feel
if they overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic slate
but their state law required all
of California's Electoral Votes
to be cast for the Republican
slate
because that slate won more votes nationwide?
These Electors would no longer represent their own states.
They would become rubber stamps for the national winning slate.
Having a national popular election eliminates
geographical diversity.
Small states by population lose their extra influence.
A single vote anywhere has much less possibility of making a
difference.
Local voting-maps can be
ignored since only the nationwide totals
matter.
Fewer citizens might vote in national elections
if they felt that their votes would not matter.
Would 5-10% fewer
people vote if only the nationwide total mattered?
Already a large numbers of American citizens do not vote
because they believe their votes will not make a difference.
If that one vote is only 1 of 150,000,000 votes,
then will non-voters be more
motivated to vote?
But if each Congressional District has its own
Presidential election,
then one vote is 1 of 350,000 votes.
In other words, each vote
has a more chance of making a difference.
And each voter will first want to know: Who won in my District?
And all Presidential votes would be reported by Congressional District.
If votes for President are counted within each
Congressional District,
then any necessary recounts
are much more manageable
than having state-wide or nationwide recounts.
Almost all of the Presidential Electors would be known on election
night.
Officially each Congressional
District has its own Presidential
election.
If the count is close or uncertain for any
reason,
then only the votes within that District would need to be re-examined.
Whichever slate for President and Vice President in that District
gets the largest number of votes
determines the Presidential Elector who will be sent to the state
capital
to vote for the Presidential slate of that party.
To determine the two extra
Presidential Electors for each state
the vote-totals from the separate District-elections for President
would be added up to see who got the most votes state-wide.
The winning slate for each state would select 2 more Presidential
Electors.
Thus, there would probably be no state-wide recounts
---only recounts in Congressional Districts where the result was
uncertain.
Because we want our individual votes to make a
meaningful difference,
direct election of
the President & VP will probably never come into effect.
Many of us want to see our votes for President added up locally.
Our votes for President could be counted to determine
one Presidential Elector for each Congressional District.
This gives each vote more
potential impact.
If I live in a swing Congressional District,
my individual vote could determine the Presidential Elector for my
District.
If the interstate compact for direct popular vote
ever comes into effect,
and if (as predicted here) this results in even fewer people voting,
at least some of the states will repeal their laws
that assigned all Electoral Votes to the nationwide winner.
While good on some conceptual level,
if direct popular vote means that 5-10% fewer people go to
the polls,
this will be condemned as an unintended
negative consequence
of attempting to move to a direct popular vote.
If that experiment is tried and it fails,
then we will consider other ways to reform the Electoral College,
such as counting votes by each Congressional District.
Some states are already moving to block the national popular
vote.
They can refuse to report
the actual vote-count in their state
until after the College of Electors has met
and selected the next President and Vice President.
These resisting states would only report
who won that state's Electoral Votes.
If enough states use this method to undermine a national popular vote,
then states that voted to give ALL of their Electoral Votes
to the nationwide winner will not know how to assign their Electoral
Votes.
Small states can prevent this end-run around the Electoral College
by keeping millions of votes secret
until after the College of Electors has made its official selection
of the next President and Vice President.
Changing
state election
laws
to allocate members of the College of Electors
according to the the winner
in each Congressional District
might be better than a national popular vote for President and VP.
Small and large states alike can support getting rid of
winner-takes-all
---either at the state level or the national level.
Bring the counting of ballots for President and Vice President
closer to the people at their local polling place.
6. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANING OF
VOTING FOR PRESIDENT:
I WANT MY VOTE TO MATTER.
A nationwide popular vote for President
means that each vote would be just one of millions of votes.
In 2016, more than 60 million people voted for each of the two top
candidates.
Any single vote had almost
no chance of making a difference.
With that knowledge, even fewer
people would probably vote.
However, if Presidential votes were counted by
Congressional Districts,
then each vote is one of a few
thousand votes in that geographical
area.
Each vote has a possibility of making a difference.
Each vote would be accumulated in two different ways:
Within each Congressional District, which slate got the most votes?
Each District would select one Presidential Elector
---either the Democratic Elector or the Republican Elector.
And within each state, the total popular vote
would determine which two At-Large Presidential Electors
will vote for President and Vice President for that state.
Thus, each voter has a role in selecting three Presidential Electors
---one for his or her Congressional District
and two for his or her whole state.
Geographical diversity would be preserved
because even the rural voters
are voting to select one
local Presidential
Elector
as well as two Presidential Electors for the whole state.
And the reasonable
imbalance of power
in electing the U.S.
President is preserved.
Decentralization is maintained
because each state, no matter how small the population,
still sends two Senators to the U.S. Senate.
And each state still has two extra Electoral Votes
based on the fact of being a
state rather than the
size of its
population.
Sending one Presidential Elector from each
Congressional District
means that my local vote will matter in my District and in my state.
Watching the election map on the night of the election
means that I will watch for the results in my District
as well as my whole state.
Both my District and my state will send flesh-and-blood Electors
to select the next President and Vice President.
Even the most remote islands of Hawaii or Alaska
will still be empowering Presidential Electors to select the next
President.
7.
CONCLUSION: LET MORE VOTES MATTER.
Let's make the election of the U.S. President more democratic
by assuring that more votes for President and Vice President
have a real possibility of making a difference in the election.
We can preserve some of the power of the states
by selecting Presidential Electors by Congressional District.
The 700,000
people who select one U.S. Representative
will also select one Presidential Elector.
And their same votes for President and VP will also be counted
to select two additional Presidential Electors for the whole state.
Thus, we keep the College of Electors as defined in
the Constitution,
but we choose our Presidential Electors
in ways that more accurately reflect the wishes of the people.
created
March 26, 2004; revised 9-22-2010;
10-13-2011; 10-14-2011;
11-4-2011; 12-10-2011;
5-5-2012;
6-28-2012; 7-3-2012; 9-15-2012; 11-7-2012;
11-18-2013;
8-6-2014; 1-25-2015; 10-6-2015;
1-23-2016; 2-2-2016; 11-9-2016; 11-11-2016; 11-12-2016; 11-13-2016;
11-18-2016; 11-27-2016; 11-28-2016; 12-6-2016; 12-13-2016;
12-15-2016;
12-19-2016; 12-27-2016; 12-28-2017;
3-21-2019; 12-20-2019; 2-12-2020;
HAS YOUR MIND BEEN CHANGED?
Has this essay changed your mind about electing the President?
Did
you previously believe that the Electoral College was fair?
Do
you now agree that we could elect the President and Vice President
by
counting the popular vote
in each Congressional District?
Only state election
laws would have to change
to select one Presidential Elector for each Congressional District.
If you support this change in
selecting the President of the USA,
why not forward this essay with
your state lawmakers?
And/or, you might
share it the Internet or on Facebook:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/PRES-VOT.html
Someone with an appropriate computer program
and all the recorded votes for President and Vice President
could determine whether any past elections for President and VP
would have been changed if winner-takes-all
for each state
had been replaced by
one
Presidential Elector for each Congressional
District,
plus 2 extra Presidential Electors for the winning slate in each state.
What would have happened if the same votes
had been reported by Congressional District?
If and when such an analysis takes place,
it can be linked from here.
We should also
consider
that putting the 30+ ignored
states back into the
running
will encourage perhaps 5% more people
to vote
—especially
in those states.
Each state
will have at least some
Congressional Districts
that might give more votes to a
slate that could not win the whole state.
Here are the
results for Minnesota's 8 Congressional Districts in 2016:
5 Districts had more votes for Donald Trump: 5
Republican Electors selected.
3 Districts had more votes for Hillary Clinton: 3
Democratic Electors selected.
Clinton won the popular vote state-wide: 2 more Democratic Electors for
her.
Totals: 5 Presidential Electors selected for each
major candidate,
which was very close to the popular vote in the state of Minnesota.
Because Minnesota is still a winner-takes-all state,
all 10 of Minnesota's Electoral Votes were cast for Hillary Clinton,
based on the total votes for President in the state of Minnesota.
PAIRING STATES
TO PREVENT PARTISAN ADVANTAGES.
As these numbers illustrate, counting votes by
Congressional District
would have a partisan advantage for the smaller party in each state.
But this unwanted consequence could be overcome by pairing two states
that have slightly different political majorities.
For example, Wisconsin is just east of Minnesota.
And it voted slightly in favor of the Republican candidate in 2016.
And because Wisconsin is also a winner-takes-all state,
all of its Electoral Votes when to the Republican slate.
Thus if these two states simultaneously changed their systems
for counting Presidential votes,
any partisan advantages would disappear.
The rural areas of both Wisconsin and Minnesota would vote Republican.
And the urban areas of both states would vote Democratic.
All votes would matter.
And any geographical concentrations would be counterbalanced
by the fact that the vote-totals for each state
would also select two at-large Presidential Electors for each state.
And because there would always be some Presidential Electors
for each major political party, these two states
would always be considered in all future Presidential elections.
Other states that want to avoid unwanted partisan advantages
could seek other pairings so that reasonable balance would be preserved
even while allowing Presidential politics to come closer to the people.
For example, Democratic-leaning California
could be paired with Republican-leaning Texas
plus one other Republican-leaning state
so that all of the voters of
these states
could once again take part in Presidential politics.
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
AND ELECTION REFORM
Wikipedia provides historical background and suggested changes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
Gerrymandering for
political advantage can be corrected
by drawing
more reasonable geographical voting-districts.
But where voters choose to
live creates unavoidable
concentrations.
Counting Presidential votes by Congressional District
reduces the influence of voters who have concentrated themselves
into Congressional Districts that overwhelmingly vote for one party.
A national popular vote would correct such unplanned concentrations.
Here is a comprehensive article on unintended gerrymandering:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jowei/florida.pdf
AUTHOR:
James Park is an independent writer, living in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
He votes in every election and
wants his votes to be meaningful.
Much more will be
learned about him on his personal website,
which is the last link below.
Here are six other on-line essays suggesting changes in America:
A
Better Way
to Choose a President:
More Super-Delegates:
Giving Elected Representatives
More Power to Nominate Candidates
Outlaw
Gerrymandering:
Seven Ways to Abolish Distorted Districts
Automatic
Voter Registration
Sex-Balanced
Senate
The
Social Security Tax:
Reforming the Most Unfair Federal Tax
Million
Dollar Cap:
No One Should Get More than One Million Dollars Per
Year
from
the U.S.
Taxpayers
These
and a few others have now been gathered into a small book
called:
Fixing
America: 12 Ways to Improve our Elections, Taxes, & Government.
Revitalizing
the Electoral College is Chapter 3.
Go to
the beginning of this website
James
Leonard Park—Free
Library