Proportional allocating state EC delegates.

[Blahface]

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. That way candidate A would still be ahead 11.84 to 11.16 and it would be more accurate. If we were to do that though, we might as well change the entire voting system to something live approval or range voting.

I think a better way to do this is to advocate for a state compact with approval voting. Each candidate would get points equal to their approval percentage multiplied by the number of state delegate. For example, a candidate in Vermont with 60% approval would get 1.8 points [3 * 0.6]. Every state in the compact would have to appoint delegates that will vote for the candidate with the most points.

This might be an easier compact than the national popular vote compact because smaller red states will still have their disproportionate power, but it won't be winner take all and it won't be as much of a disadvantage that they'd be giving up.

 

[dismal]

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. That way candidate A would still be ahead 11.84 to 11.16 and it would be more accurate. If we were to do that though, we might as well change the entire voting system to something live approval or range voting.

I think a better way to do this is to advocate for a state compact with approval voting. Each candidate would get points equal to their approval percentage multiplied by the number of state delegate. For example, a candidate in Vermont with 60% approval would get 1.8 points [3 * 0.6]. Every state in the compact would have to appoint delegates that will vote for the candidate with the most points.

This might be an easier compact than the national popular vote compact because smaller red states will still have their disproportionate power, but it won't be winner take all and it won't be as much of a disadvantage that they'd be giving up.

One does not require constitutional amendment, the others do.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A better plan that does not require a constitutional amendment is to simply increase the number of representatives in the House. The only constitutional requirement is you can't have more than one rep per 30,000 people. Currently we're at about approximately one rep for 700,000 people, with quite a bit of give in each direction based on state populations. If we increase the number of reps, we increase the number of electors automatically, and flatten the ratio of electors per person that varies quite a bit from state to state.

Some states already allocate electors based on percentages of people who voted in that state, such as Maine. Some states have signed a non-binding contract that if enough states join in they'll tie their electoral vote to the national outcome.

 

[Blahface]

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. That way candidate A would still be ahead 11.84 to 11.16 and it would be more accurate. If we were to do that though, we might as well change the entire voting system to something live approval or range voting.

I think a better way to do this is to advocate for a state compact with approval voting. Each candidate would get points equal to their approval percentage multiplied by the number of state delegate. For example, a candidate in Vermont with 60% approval would get 1.8 points [3 * 0.6]. Every state in the compact would have to appoint delegates that will vote for the candidate with the most points.

This might be an easier compact than the national popular vote compact because smaller red states will still have their disproportionate power, but it won't be winner take all and it won't be as much of a disadvantage that they'd be giving up.

One does not require constitutional amendment, the others do.

It can also be done with a state compact. My point was though that just allocating them proportionally is a bad idea because states don't have enough delegates to do it accurately.

 

[Blahface]

A better plan that does not require a constitutional amendment is to simply increase the number of representatives in the House. The only constitutional requirement is you can't have more than one rep per 30,000 people. Currently we're at about approximately one rep for 700,000 people, with quite a bit of give in each direction based on state populations. If we increase the number of reps, we increase the number of electors automatically, and flatten the ratio of electors per person that varies quite a bit from state to state.

Some states already allocate electors based on percentages of people who voted in that state, such as Maine. Some states have signed a non-binding contract that if enough states join in they'll tie their electoral vote to the national outcome.

I agree that there should be more members in the House, but I don't think that is going to increase it enough to really solve the rounding error problem.

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

 

[dismal]

One does not require constitutional amendment, the others do.

It can also be done with a state compact. My point was though that just allocating them proportionally is a bad idea because states don't have enough delegates to do it accurately.

States can choose electors how they wish. Electors are a person, so you can't make up fractional electors.

Getting all the states to allocate electors in proportion to vote can be done by state compact. (e.g., they agree to do it if everyone else does.)

Everything else in your list requires a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Blahface]

It can also be done with a state compact. My point was though that just allocating them proportionally is a bad idea because states don't have enough delegates to do it accurately.

States can choose electors how they wish. Electors are a person, so you can't make up fractional electors.

Getting all the states to allocate electors in proportion to vote can be done by state compact. (e.g., they agree to do it if everyone else does.)

Everything else in your list requires a Constitutional amendment.

I'm not proposing fractional electors; I'm proposing fractional points. I'm suggesting that states have a compact to keep a point tally and all the states in the compact agree to nominate all of their delegates based on which candidate has the most points. Every delegate would be required by each state to vote for the that winner.

It would be no different than the national popular vote compact, but it would be with points instead of the popular vote.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A better plan that does not require a constitutional amendment is to simply increase the number of representatives in the House. The only constitutional requirement is you can't have more than one rep per 30,000 people. Currently we're at about approximately one rep for 700,000 people, with quite a bit of give in each direction based on state populations. If we increase the number of reps, we increase the number of electors automatically, and flatten the ratio of electors per person that varies quite a bit from state to state.

Some states already allocate electors based on percentages of people who voted in that state, such as Maine. Some states have signed a non-binding contract that if enough states join in they'll tie their electoral vote to the national outcome.

I agree that there should be more members in the House, but I don't think that is going to increase it enough to really solve the rounding error problem.

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

If you increase the number by a factor of 10, you stay well within the constitutional limits and yet significantly flatten the disparate representational issue.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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%.

 

[dismal]

States can choose electors how they wish. Electors are a person, so you can't make up fractional electors.

Getting all the states to allocate electors in proportion to vote can be done by state compact. (e.g., they agree to do it if everyone else does.)

Everything else in your list requires a Constitutional amendment.

I'm not proposing fractional electors; I'm proposing fractional points. I'm suggesting that states have a compact to keep a point tally and all the states in the compact agree to nominate all of their delegates based on which candidate has the most points. Every delegate would be required by each state to vote for the that winner.

It would be no different than the national popular vote compact, but it would be with points instead of the popular vote.

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.

 

[Blahface]

I agree that there should be more members in the House, but I don't think that is going to increase it enough to really solve the rounding error problem.

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

If you increase the number by a factor of 10, you stay well within the constitutional limits and yet significantly flatten the disparate representational issue.

I am a little bit worried about the expenses or at least the perceived expenses of increasing it by a factor of 10. Not only do you have to worry about the salary, but you also have to worry about staffers. Ideally, I'd have a larger body, but not all of them go to Washington. Most of them could work online from a local office in their district. They could elect through STV a small set of representatives that would go to Washington to deliberate publicly. I'm not sure if that would be constitutionally valid though.

 

[Elixir]

Electors are a person, so you can't make up fractional electors.

Minor oversight, easily corrected with appropriate surgery.

 

[Blahface]

I'm not proposing fractional electors; I'm proposing fractional points. I'm suggesting that states have a compact to keep a point tally and all the states in the compact agree to nominate all of their delegates based on which candidate has the most points. Every delegate would be required by each state to vote for the that winner.

It would be no different than the national popular vote compact, but it would be with points instead of the popular vote.

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.

 

[bilby]

There is nothing so useless as doing, with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all.

Your constitution has been amended many times before. Amend it again. There seems to be little support for the current outdated and stupid system. It's long since outlived any benefits it may once have had.

Why bother with a half-arsed non-solution that will be difficult to implement, when for only a small increase in the difficulty of implementation, you could build a new system from scratch that is actually fit for purpose?

Of course, it's possible that you don't know (or cannot agree upon) a purpose to which it should be fit - but if that's the case, then any proposed change is putting the cart before the horse.

Decide what you want from your electoral system; design a system that achieves that; and amend the constitution to enact the new system.

Don't waste time worrying about step three, until steps one and two have been completed (in their correct order).

Simples.

 

[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.

 

[Blahface]

There is nothing so useless as doing, with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all.

Your constitution has been amended many times before. Amend it again. There seems to be little support for the current outdated and stupid system. It's long since outlived any benefits it may once have had.

Why bother with a half-arsed non-solution that will be difficult to implement, when for only a small increase in the difficulty of implementation, you could build a new system from scratch that is actually fit for purpose?

Of course, it's possible that you don't know (or cannot agree upon) a purpose to which it should be fit - but if that's the case, then any proposed change is putting the cart before the horse.

Decide what you want from your electoral system; design a system that achieves that; and amend the constitution to enact the new system.

Don't waste time worrying about step three, until steps one and two have been completed (in their correct order).

Simples.

It is much, much harder to amend the constitution than to do a state compact.

 

[dismal]

There is nothing so useless as doing, with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all.

Your constitution has been amended many times before. Amend it again. There seems to be little support for the current outdated and stupid system. It's long since outlived any benefits it may once have had.

Why bother with a half-arsed non-solution that will be difficult to implement, when for only a small increase in the difficulty of implementation, you could build a new system from scratch that is actually fit for purpose?

Of course, it's possible that you don't know (or cannot agree upon) a purpose to which it should be fit - but if that's the case, then any proposed change is putting the cart before the horse.

Decide what you want from your electoral system; design a system that achieves that; and amend the constitution to enact the new system.

Don't waste time worrying about step three, until steps one and two have been completed (in their correct order).

Simples.

It is much, much harder to amend the constitution than to do a state compact.

Well, no, it only takes 3/4 of the legislatures of the states to pass an amendment. It takes 50/50ths of the states legislatures to agree to a compact.

 

[Blahface]

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 enough states on board to get rid of the state winner take all system in a fairer way. If it means red states having a little more voting power per person to get them to on board, then so be it. They already have more voting power, so it will still be a net gain.

 

[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?

 

[Blahface]

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.