Thing is, the big problem with the Electoral College isn’t the distorted representation. I always thought it was, but no, that really doesn't make a difference right now.
Because
nearly EVERY electoral vote goes to whoever has the most votes in the
state, regardless of how many of that state's residents voted for
someone else.
As
a result, in most states, the majority of the votes are thrown out
when they contribute to the Electoral College. Only Maine and Nebraska
have *any* proportional representation, and even that doesnʼt usually
split their electoral vote (though it did in Maine in 2016).
On
November 9th, 2016, I started trying to understand what went so
horribly wrong. I made a spreadsheet, because that’s how I often cope
with distress.
The final Electoral Vote tally was Clinton 43.7%, Trump 56.3%.
If
we took the 538 electoral votes we have, but reallocated them with a
minimum of 1 per state, rather than three, the final Electoral vote
tally would have been Clinton 43.9%, Trump 56.1%.
If
we increased the size of the House to a minimum of [population of
United States] ÷ [population of smallest-population state], which would be 548
Representatives, then used the same formula we currently have for
Electoral Votes, the final EV tally would have been 43% to 57%.
If we had those 651 Electoral votes (548 + 100 + 3 for DC), but reallocated them with a minimum of one per state, 43.9% to 56%.
Finally,
if there were 10,000 Electoral votes, and they were allocated strictly
based on population, the result would have been... 43.6% to 56.4%. (On
that one I didn’t do the work of rounding the individual statesʼ
allotment of electoral votes... but that probably would have made less
than half a percentage point of difference.)
BUT,
if ALL states awarded their electoral votes proportionally based on the
popular vote in that state, there would be some difficult rounding
issues to solve but with a rough calculation, the EVs would have gone
Clinton 257, Trump 249, Other 32 (most to Gary Johnson, but some to
Stein and at least two to other candidates: one to that guy in Utah, and
one to a third-party candidate in California).
No
one would have had a majority... but, even with the disproportional
representation, Clinton would have won the highest number of Electoral votes,
which is far more reflective of the popular vote.
AND,
if we allocated electoral votes this way in EVERY state... there would
be no more “safe” states. There would be no more swing states. There
would just be states where there are more votes to win, and fewer. Where
you have a better chance of increasing your proportion, and a worse
chance. The whole country would be a battleground. We would all be in
play.
And
that would be a very, VERY different political landscape. It would be
one where minor parties could negotiate to throw support at a major
candidate for platform concessions. It would be one where campaign
events were more often in dense urban areas, because that's where the
most votes are. Candidates wouldn't just come to California to raise
money... they'd actually stay and talk to the rest of us plebes.
Obviously,
the National Vote Interstate Compact would also achieve that outcome,
but if we can’t get that, and we can get this (a law that all states
have to award their electoral votes proportional to their popular vote,
with specific rules for rounding), it would still be a really good
change.
