The less populous states actually aren't a big deal. Donald Trump won 30 states in this election while Hillary Clinton won 20 states and the District of Columbia.
The skew from one electoral vote per House district is the two U.S Senate votes that each state gets.
If those votes are removed from the equation, Donald Trump receives 60 less electoral college votes (2*30) while Hillary Clinton receives 42 less electoral college votes ((2*21)
So the electoral college vote based on the House districts would have been.
Donald Trump 246 Hillary Clinton 190
(435 House Districts + 1 District of Columbia vote = 436)
I personally am agnostic on the Electoral College method of electing a President rather than through direct popular vote, but for those who want a Constitutional Amendment to bind the Electors to how the state voted, why not simply propose an Amendment to keep the Electoral College vote count but simply get rid of the Electors themselves all together?
The count method is separate from the Electors, and since I'm sure it must cost some money to have these Electors, if you're want to bind how they vote, keeping them around is nothing but a complete waste of money.
A significant reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a relatively large amount while losing the electoral vote by a solid amount isn't due to the small states, it's because California is normally much more offset by Texas.
Republican Presidential candidates usually win Texas by around 15% while Trump won it by just 9% (8.99%)
Around 5% of Texans voted for third party candidates, so had Trump won Texas 55-40% instead (which all of the other statewide Republican candidates in Texas at least won by) he would be around 500,000 votes closer in the national popular vote.
Not that anyone has asked me, but the reason I like the electoral college isn't to do with protecting the small states, it's to do with trying to ensure that all regions of the country have a say in electing the President.
Here in Canada, Stephane Dion was running for the leadership of the Canadian Liberal Party in 2009. I remember he was asked about the Liberal electoral process in which in that election, every riding (district) received 14 delegates irrespective of the number of party members in each riding (district) and asked if he thought that was fair.
He replied something like "If we had a one member one vote system whether through direct election or through assigning one delegate per so many members, I and all of the other candidates would just campaign in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal and ignore the rest of the country. This way, we have to try and campaign in every single riding."
He has since made a similar comment recently in regards to the debate here on electoral reform:
"When you watch the results on TV, you always wonder to yourself, 'Which region of my country will be out of the executive branch with this kind of system?'
Prior to going into politics, Stephane Dion was a fairly highly respected political science professor. His main area of expertise was political administration but I'm pretty sure I recall reading he also taught a class on psephology.
Psephology: the statistical study of elections and trends in voting.
I realize that in practice in the United States, this means that the candidates focus pretty much entirely on the 'swing states' but it is also true that, with the exception of the West Coast, there are swing states in every region of the country.
While Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Donald Trump dominated in the Southern and Midwestern states, had basically a tie in the Western States and really only did poorly in the Eastern States (though he won Pennsylvania and the 2nd Maine electoral district.
I personally think that the greater ability to be a much more national candidate like that counts for something along with the ability to get the most total votes.
OF course, that is basically a tie in the number of Western States that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump won, given Clinton's large vote win in California, I'm sure she won the popular vote in the West handily.
The less populous states actually aren't a big deal. Donald Trump won 30 states in this election while Hillary Clinton won 20 states and the District of Columbia.
ReplyDeleteThe skew from one electoral vote per House district is the two U.S Senate votes that each state gets.
If those votes are removed from the equation, Donald Trump receives 60 less electoral college votes (2*30) while Hillary Clinton receives 42 less electoral college votes ((2*21)
So the electoral college vote based on the House districts would have been.
Donald Trump 246
Hillary Clinton 190
(435 House Districts + 1 District of Columbia vote = 436)
I personally am agnostic on the Electoral College method of electing a President rather than through direct popular vote, but for those who want a Constitutional Amendment to bind the Electors to how the state voted, why not simply propose an Amendment to keep the Electoral College vote count but simply get rid of the Electors themselves all together?
The count method is separate from the Electors, and since I'm sure it must cost some money to have these Electors, if you're want to bind how they vote, keeping them around is nothing but a complete waste of money.
A significant reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a relatively large amount while losing the electoral vote by a solid amount isn't due to the small states, it's because California is normally much more offset by Texas.
ReplyDeleteRepublican Presidential candidates usually win Texas by around 15% while Trump won it by just 9% (8.99%)
Around 5% of Texans voted for third party candidates, so had Trump won Texas 55-40% instead (which all of the other statewide Republican candidates in Texas at least won by) he would be around 500,000 votes closer in the national popular vote.
Not that anyone has asked me, but the reason I like the electoral college isn't to do with protecting the small states, it's to do with trying to ensure that all regions of the country have a say in electing the President.
ReplyDeleteHere in Canada, Stephane Dion was running for the leadership of the Canadian Liberal Party in 2009. I remember he was asked about the Liberal electoral process in which in that election, every riding (district) received 14 delegates irrespective of the number of party members in each riding (district) and asked if he thought that was fair.
He replied something like "If we had a one member one vote system whether through direct election or through assigning one delegate per so many members, I and all of the other candidates would just campaign in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal and ignore the rest of the country. This way, we have to try and campaign in every single riding."
He has since made a similar comment recently in regards to the debate here on electoral reform:
"When you watch the results on TV, you always wonder to yourself, 'Which region of my country will be out of the executive branch with this kind of system?'
Prior to going into politics, Stephane Dion was a fairly highly respected political science professor. His main area of expertise was political administration but I'm pretty sure I recall reading he also taught a class on psephology.
Psephology: the statistical study of elections and trends in voting.
I realize that in practice in the United States, this means that the candidates focus pretty much entirely on the 'swing states' but it is also true that, with the exception of the West Coast, there are swing states in every region of the country.
ReplyDeleteWhile Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Donald Trump dominated in the Southern and Midwestern states, had basically a tie in the Western States and really only did poorly in the Eastern States (though he won Pennsylvania and the 2nd Maine electoral district.
I personally think that the greater ability to be a much more national candidate like that counts for something along with the ability to get the most total votes.
OF course, that is basically a tie in the number of Western States that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump won, given Clinton's large vote win in California, I'm sure she won the popular vote in the West handily.
ReplyDelete