Proportional allocating state EC delegates.

[dismal]

OK, you got two big Constitutional constraints. One is the number of electors from each state:

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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Constraint two is that at some point each elector must write the name of the one person they are voting for President on a piece of paper.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President

If I understand correctly, you are saying that every state legislature can agree to participate in a plan to allocate electors from their state based on things that happen in other states?

Like, for example, my state may 21 electors and have a 50/50 vote which would cause me to send the score 10.5-10.5 to some algorithm that might, based on things that happened in other states, tell me to allocate the state's electors 13-8?

This may not literally offend the Constitution, though I suspect it might be challenged, but it still has the problem that for it to work you need all (or most) of the 50 states to sign up, which is statistically more difficult than just getting a Constitutional amendment.

I'm saying that every state delegate in the compact would be obligated to vote for the same person. So, if Texas and California sign on to this compact and Bob Bunghole wins through the point system, all delegates from both Texas and California would be obligated to vote for Bob Bunghole. It would be a winner take all for every state in the compact instead of a winner take all for a single state.

Well, that's a version of what I said. Texas and California agree to participate in System X. System X takes the election data from both states, runs it through an algorithm and the algorithm tells each Texas and California elector how to vote. (I think in your case is just that the algorithm is whomever gets the most popular votes in both states gets all the electors in both states.)

Again, to get all 50 states to agree to this would be harder than amending the Constitution to have a national popular vote.

You don't need all 50 states, you should need enough states to get 270 delegates. Also, you don't just have to exclude states that are not in the compact from the results tabulation. They could count other states plurality system as voters just approving a single candidate. I'd want to do whatever it takes to get rid of the state winner take all system. If that means red states having a little more voting power per person to get them to on board, then so be it.

Hmm, not sure a system that disenfranchises 49% of the people in the country will hold up, but I don't see how you're going to get it either.

Let's say I have California and New York signed up. Why would Texas vote to join?

It would get candidates to pay more attention to Texas and Republican voters from the blue states would also have more sway. It also wouldn't necessarily be just California and New York gaining control of Texas electoral votes. Even if other red states do not agree to the compact, you could still use their results in the tabulation process so it won't just be the blue states running roughshod.

It seems like it will perpetually be the case that the current system is perceived to be to the advantage of one side or the other. Thus, it will perpetually be a challenge to get the advantaged side to agree to participate in the system.

 

[Terrell]

When it comes to these "state compact" ideas, how are they enforced? What prevents any state from reneging if it's elected officials think it's in their political interests to do so?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I recently watched Lawrence Lessig on TYT interviews and apparently now he wants to allocate state delegates for the electoral college proportionally. I think this is a really bad idea because of all the cumulative rounding errors. This is particularly bad for the even delegate states which will largely be split even.

Let's say a 20 delegate state goes 52% for candidate A and 48% for candidate B. That state is going to give 10 delegates to each candidate. If a 3 delegate state goes for candidate B by the same margin, then suddenly candidate B is in the lead 12 to 11.

This would be more reasonable if we used a point system instead of a delegate system and we split the points into decimals...

Or we could just eliminate the electoral college altogether and choose the president by popular vote.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When it comes to these "state compact" ideas, how are they enforced? What prevents any state from reneging if it's elected officials think it's in their political interests to do so?

Nothing really. It could happen that Texas convinces California to do proportional EC voting, and then Texas fails to follow through, granting a big help to the Republicans.

 

[dismal]

When it comes to these "state compact" ideas, how are they enforced? What prevents any state from reneging if it's elected officials think it's in their political interests to do so?

Presumably it would be an enforceable contract. So, if breached someone could sue someone.

Of course, I don't think a legislature can bind future legislatures so I'm not sure what happens if a future legislature decides to pull out.

 

[lpetrich]

Also, I'm pretty sure Maine and Nebraska go by district, not proportionality.

Indeed they do. Each congressional district picks an elector, and there are also two at-large ones. That is even worse than winner-take-all, because gerrymandering can make it non-proportional.

Hmm, not sure a system that disenfranchises 49% of the people in the country will hold up, but I don't see how you're going to get it either.

But a system that can easily disenfranchise even more of the voters you seem completely happy with. I have the numbers on state populations and electoral votes, and it's possible to elect a president while getting only 24% of the votes. All one needs is half the vote plus 1 in each of the 40 lower-population states, and it can counterbalance getting none of the vote in all the 10 higher-population states.

 

[lpetrich]

Germany could be one model to look it.
It has local regional states and a national parliament based on proportional representation. This enables smaller parties a chance to get seats if they get more than 5%.

Proportional representation is already widely used:  List of electoral systems by country. It can be implemented state-by-state by changing election laws without amending the Constitution.

 

[Jayjay]

When it comes to these "state compact" ideas, how are they enforced? What prevents any state from reneging if it's elected officials think it's in their political interests to do so?

If the compact can be broken by one state defecting, there is always that risk. But if the compact can be made big enough that no single state defecting couldn't affect the results, then it's a very strong incentive against individual defectors. The rest of the compact members could even punish the defector by discounting its votes from the tabulation.

Of course then the question just becomes, what if two states reneg on the compact at the same time. Possible, but even more unlikely.

 

[lpetrich]

Using the numbers for the 2016 election, I did some calculations.

In the actual election, Trump beat Clinton by 306 - 232.

Doing winner-take-all for all states, I get 305 - 233.

The difference from the actual count is because of Maine and Nebraska doing winner-take-all in each of their House districts and two winner-take-all for at large, corresponding to their Congressional delegations.

I then decided to do proportional representation. To make it simple, I did round( (number of electors)*(each candidate's vote)/(total vote) + (adjustment) ), and adjusted (adjustment) until the total of all the candidates' electors equals the total number of electors. This is a way of doing largest remainder in a spreadsheet: round all the numbers of electors down and add one for the highest remainders until the total equals the total number of electors.

I have some code for doing highest averages, like D'Hondt, but I wanted quick results.


For state-by-state proportional representation, the counts are Clinton 261, Trump 259, Libertarian (Gary Johnson) 14, Green (Jill Stein) 1, Independent (lumped together) 1, and Others (lumped together) 2.

Removing the Independents and Others gives Clinton 262, Trump 262, Libertarian 13, and Green 1.

With only the top two, it is Clinton 270, Trump 268.


For national-scale proportional representation, the counts are Clinton 259, Trump 248, Libertarian 18, Green 6, Independent 3, Others 4.

Omitting the Independents and Others, it's Clinton 263, Trump 251, Libertarian 18, Green 6.

With only the top two, it's Clinton 275, Trump 263.

 

[bilby]

I can see how you might want your electoral system to give more weight to small states when choosing legislators, where different electors in different states end up with different people acting as their delegates in enacting legislation.

But given that every American has the same President at the end of the process, I cannot see any benefit or purpose in a system that doesn't weight every vote equally. The simplest option for electing a president it therefore FPTP on a national count; If there are significant third-or-lower party candidates (like Gary Johnson in 2016), then IRV is probably the fairest of the not-too-confusing options.

Certainly the vote for President should return a result that takes no account of the particular state in which a voter lives. The EC system is truly dreadful for selecting Presidents; It manages not to be democratic, while simultaneously failing to allow an elite to block the election of a clearly unsuitable person (which was, until 2016, usually given as the reason for keeping such an obviously undemocratic system in place).

 

[dismal]

But given that every American has the same President at the end of the process, I cannot see any benefit or purpose in a system that doesn't weight every vote equally.

Well, since you probably didn't get as much American history as many of us here, what you're missing is that much of the US Constitution was a compromise between large and small states, wherein certain concessions were made to the small states to allay their concerns their interests would not be represented in a simple majoritarian democracy.

 

[bilby]

But given that every American has the same President at the end of the process, I cannot see any benefit or purpose in a system that doesn't weight every vote equally.

Well, since you probably didn't get as much American history as many of us here, what you're missing is that much of the US Constitution was a compromise between large and small states, wherein certain concessions were made to the small states to allay their concerns their interests would not be represented in a simple majoritarian democracy.

I understand this - indeed, I mentioned it in passing in my post - but proportionality doesn't apply to a single, universal, and indivisible, representative.

You have 100 senators, so you can decide to give more to the big population states; or you can (and did) abandon proportionality, and just give each state 2 - which gives more representation to each Kentuckian voter than to each Californian voter - but still means that Californians have two Senators to call their own.

But there is one, and only one, President; dividing him (either proportionally or in a weighted fashion) is impossible. So it is unreasonable to give different weights to different states in his selection. To do so is to risk the disenfranchisement of a majority of the population.

That this unreasonableness was part of the horse-trading a couple of centuries ago is irrelevant; the constitution was never meant to be set in stone forever, and has been amended many times; appeal to tradition or to the (long gone) circumstances at the time America was founded is just a cop-out for people who prefer some dead dudes from before the industrial revolution to do their thinking for them, rather than thinking for themselves about how things need to be done today.

I suppose it's a slight improvement on letting Bronze Age shepherds do your thinking for you. But it's still pretty silly.

 

[dismal]

Well, since you probably didn't get as much American history as many of us here, what you're missing is that much of the US Constitution was a compromise between large and small states, wherein certain concessions were made to the small states to allay their concerns their interests would not be represented in a simple majoritarian democracy.

I understand this - indeed, I mentioned it in passing in my post - but proportionality doesn't apply to a single, universal, and indivisible, representative.

You have 100 senators, so you can decide to give more to the big population states; or you can (and did) abandon proportionality, and just give each state 2 - which gives more representation to each Kentuckian voter than to each Californian voter - but still means that Californians have two Senators to call their own.

But there is one, and only one, President; dividing him (either proportionally or in a weighted fashion) is impossible. So it is unreasonable to give different weights to different states in his selection. To do so is to risk the disenfranchisement of a majority of the population.

That this unreasonableness was part of the horse-trading a couple of centuries ago is irrelevant; the constitution was never meant to be set in stone forever, and has been amended many times; appeal to tradition or to the (long gone) circumstances at the time America was founded is just a cop-out for people who prefer some dead dudes from before the industrial revolution to do their thinking for them, rather than thinking for themselves about how things need to be done today.

I suppose it's a slight improvement on letting Bronze Age shepherds do your thinking for you. But it's still pretty silly.

Yes it can be amended. But the challenge is you need to get the votes of those same small states who don't want to be overwhelmed by the big states in a simple majoritarian democracy.

 

[bilby]

I understand this - indeed, I mentioned it in passing in my post - but proportionality doesn't apply to a single, universal, and indivisible, representative.

You have 100 senators, so you can decide to give more to the big population states; or you can (and did) abandon proportionality, and just give each state 2 - which gives more representation to each Kentuckian voter than to each Californian voter - but still means that Californians have two Senators to call their own.

But there is one, and only one, President; dividing him (either proportionally or in a weighted fashion) is impossible. So it is unreasonable to give different weights to different states in his selection. To do so is to risk the disenfranchisement of a majority of the population.

That this unreasonableness was part of the horse-trading a couple of centuries ago is irrelevant; the constitution was never meant to be set in stone forever, and has been amended many times; appeal to tradition or to the (long gone) circumstances at the time America was founded is just a cop-out for people who prefer some dead dudes from before the industrial revolution to do their thinking for them, rather than thinking for themselves about how things need to be done today.

I suppose it's a slight improvement on letting Bronze Age shepherds do your thinking for you. But it's still pretty silly.

Yes it can be amended. But the challenge is you need to get the votes of those same small states who don't want to be overwhelmed by the big states in a simple majoritarian democracy.

The degree of difficulty has no bearing on whether or not any given change is desirable or reasonable.

Yes, it's hard to change. That doesn't change the fact that it is currently a poor system that fails to achieve an optimum result.

 

[dismal]

Yes it can be amended. But the challenge is you need to get the votes of those same small states who don't want to be overwhelmed by the big states in a simple majoritarian democracy.

The degree of difficulty has no bearing on whether or not any given change is desirable or reasonable.

Yes, it's hard to change. That doesn't change the fact that it is currently a poor system that fails to achieve an optimum result.

Ok, well good luck winning people over.

 

[lpetrich]

Yes it can be amended. But the challenge is you need to get the votes of those same small states who don't want to be overwhelmed by the big states in a simple majoritarian democracy.

What's so special about states? Are they essentially separate communities or nations?

I notice that people who make this sort of argument seem very happy with being ruled from small states. Why might that be?

 

[dismal]

Yes it can be amended. But the challenge is you need to get the votes of those same small states who don't want to be overwhelmed by the big states in a simple majoritarian democracy.

What's so special about states? Are they essentially separate communities or nations?

I notice that people who make this sort of argument seem very happy with being ruled from small states. Why might that be?

In 4th grade or so you should have learned that the "United States" is a union of states with certain agreed upon defined and limited powers vested in a federal government. It turns out they even took the time to put a list of these powers in the Constitution.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But there is one, and only one, President; dividing him (either proportionally or in a weighted fashion) is impossible. So it is unreasonable to give different weights to different states in his selection. To do so is to risk the disenfranchisement of a majority of the population.

Actually, if we go back to the President being the one who got the most EC votes, and the VP being the one who got the second most, we could divide the executive in exactly the manner you are suggesting.

Can you imagine President Donald Trump having to work with Vice President Hillary Clinton?

 

[bilby]

But there is one, and only one, President; dividing him (either proportionally or in a weighted fashion) is impossible. So it is unreasonable to give different weights to different states in his selection. To do so is to risk the disenfranchisement of a majority of the population.

Actually, if we go back to the President being the one who got the most EC votes, and the VP being the one who got the second most, we could divide the executive in exactly the manner you are suggesting.

Can you imagine President Donald Trump having to work with Vice President Hillary Clinton?

What's to imagine? The VP does virtually nothing unless and until the POTUS is incapacitated. VPs have some trivial ceremonial stuff to do to keep them busy; They don't have executive powers any more than the spare battery in my desk drawer is powering my laptop. There is no real sense in which there is a division of executive powers, the President makes executive decisions, and is not obliged to ask, much less consider, the opinions of his VP, however they are chosen.

The only result of the scenario you suggest would be to increase the motive for impeachment (or even assassination) on the part of the President's opponents.

 

[lpetrich]

Cute thought. But there is a joker in the deck. The Constitution originally specified each elector voting for 2 candidates. That was so that it is more likely that one candidate might receive a majority of the votes. But the rise of political parties screwed it up.

In 1800, the Federalists selected John Adams as their President and Charles C. Pinckney as their Vice President. One of the Federalist electors was to vote for John Jay instead of Charles Pinckney. Likewise, the Democratic-Republicans selected Thomas Jefferson as their President and Aaron Burr as their Vice President. One of the D-R's electors was to vote for someone other than Aaron Burr.

This pushed the election into the House of Representatives, and the the House gave a majority to neither Jefferson nor Burr for 35 votes, and finally elected Jefferson on its 36th vote.

That provoked the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment, and it established the present system of separate President and Vice President votes.