In the Mischiefs of
Faction blog on Vox, Gregory
Koger offers
a solution to the distortion of the popular vote that is established in the
Constitution by the adoption of the unit rule in 48 states. As he correctly
points out, a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College is
probably impossible as too many states benefit from it. So here is what he
proposes:
The US Congress has a role in verifying the electoral votes
sent by each state. This includes a formal process written into the US code
dating back to 1887 for challenging the electoral votes from any specific
state. The current challenge process is that a challenge made by at least one
member of the House and one senator triggers a two-hour debate and
simple-majority vote, with the challenge failing unless it receives an
affirmative majority in both chambers.
My proposal: Congress
could amend this statute so that if a state does not allocate its electoral
votes proportionally, its electoral votes are subject to a challenge that
requires a two-thirds supermajority to overcome. If the challenge is sustained,
a set of electors based on a proportional vote would be substituted instead. [emphasis
added]
Congress would need to specify what
"proportionality" means when allocating electors. What percentage of
the popular vote does one need to get a presidential elector in a three-elector
state, for example? It would also be less controversial if there were an
external actor, such as the Federal Elections Commission, which certified state
laws as conforming or not to the congressional guidelines ex ante.
So, what would this proposal have done in 2016? The table
illustrates the popular vote in each state and the District of Columbia, the
percentage of the popular vote garnered by Clinton and Trump, and the
allocation of the electoral vote in each state and DC.
|
State
|
Clinton PV
|
Trump PV
|
Electoral Vote
|
Clinton PP EV
|
Trump PP EV
|
Other
|
|
Alabama
|
34.36%
|
62.08%
|
9
|
3
|
6
|
0
|
|
Alaska
|
36.55%
|
51.28%
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
|
Arizona
|
45.13%
|
48.67%
|
11
|
5
|
5
|
1
|
|
Arkansas
|
33.65%
|
60.57%
|
6
|
2
|
4
|
0
|
|
California
|
62.28%
|
31.88%
|
55
|
34
|
18
|
3
|
|
Colorado
|
48.16%
|
43.25%
|
9
|
4
|
4
|
1
|
|
Connecticut
|
54.57%
|
40.93%
|
7
|
4
|
3
|
0
|
|
Delaware
|
53.36%
|
41.92%
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
District of Columbia
|
90.48%
|
4.07%
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
|
Florida
|
47.82%
|
49.02%
|
29
|
14
|
14
|
1
|
|
Georgia
|
45.89%
|
51.05%
|
16
|
7
|
8
|
0
|
|
Hawaii
|
61.00%
|
29.40%
|
4
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
Idaho
|
27.50%
|
59.20%
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
|
Illinois
|
55.80%
|
38.80%
|
20
|
11
|
8
|
1
|
|
Indiana
|
37.91%
|
56.82%
|
11
|
4
|
6
|
1
|
|
Iowa
|
41.74%
|
51.15%
|
6
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
|
Kansas
|
36.05%
|
56.65%
|
6
|
2
|
3
|
0
|
|
Kentucky
|
32.68%
|
62.52%
|
8
|
3
|
5
|
0
|
|
Louisiana
|
38.45%
|
58.09%
|
8
|
3
|
5
|
0
|
|
Maine (at-large)
|
47.84%
|
45.16%
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
|
Maryland
|
60.32%
|
33.91%
|
10
|
6
|
3
|
1
|
|
Massachusetts
|
60.93%
|
33.31%
|
11
|
7
|
4
|
1
|
|
Michigan
|
47.27%
|
47.50%
|
16
|
8
|
8
|
1
|
|
Minnesota
|
46.44%
|
44.92%
|
10
|
5
|
4
|
1
|
|
Mississippi
|
39.74%
|
58.32%
|
6
|
2
|
3
|
0
|
|
Missouri
|
37.84%
|
56.88%
|
10
|
4
|
6
|
1
|
|
Montana
|
35.93%
|
56.47%
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
|
Nebraska (at-lrg)
|
33.70%
|
58.75%
|
5
|
2
|
3
|
0
|
|
Nevada
|
47.92%
|
45.50%
|
6
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
|
New Hampshire
|
46.98%
|
46.61%
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
|
New Jersey
|
54.99%
|
41.00%
|
14
|
8
|
6
|
1
|
|
New Mexico
|
48.26%
|
40.04%
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
New York
|
57.89%
|
36.84%
|
29
|
17
|
11
|
2
|
|
North Carolina
|
46.17%
|
49.83%
|
15
|
7
|
7
|
1
|
|
North Dakota
|
27.23%
|
62.96%
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
|
Ohio
|
43.56%
|
51.69%
|
18
|
8
|
9
|
1
|
|
Oklahoma
|
28.93%
|
65.32%
|
7
|
2
|
5
|
0
|
|
Oregon
|
50.10%
|
39.11%
|
7
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
47.85%
|
48.58%
|
20
|
10
|
10
|
1
|
|
Rhode Island
|
53.83%
|
39.46%
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
|
South Carolina
|
40.67%
|
54.94%
|
9
|
4
|
5
|
0
|
|
South Dakota
|
31.74%
|
61.53%
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
|
Tennessee
|
34.90%
|
61.06%
|
11
|
4
|
7
|
0
|
|
Texas
|
43.24%
|
52.23%
|
38
|
16
|
20
|
2
|
|
Utah
|
27.46%
|
45.54%
|
6
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
|
Vermont
|
55.72%
|
29.76%
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
Virginia
|
49.75%
|
44.43%
|
13
|
6
|
6
|
1
|
|
Washington
|
54.30%
|
38.07%
|
12
|
7
|
5
|
1
|
|
West Virginia
|
26.48%
|
68.63%
|
5
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
|
Wisconsin
|
46.44%
|
47.19%
|
10
|
5
|
5
|
1
|
|
Wyoming
|
21.90%
|
68.20%
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
538
|
256
|
250
|
31
|
The result is that Clinton wins a majority of the electoral
vote (256) over Trump (250). In addition, there are 31 electoral votes
allocated to other candidates. Even if those were all allocated to the popular
vote winner (Clinton), she would still have only 287 electoral votes—3 short of
the 290 electoral votes required to win in the Electoral College (remember, the
Constitution was not amended to eliminate the requirement to win a
constitutional majority of the electoral vote). Consequently, the election of
the president would end up in the House of Representatives, and assuming that
the electoral votes for vice president would also be allocated proportionally,
the Senate would elect the vice president.
This is not a solution to the problems created by the
institution of the Electoral College. In fact, one could argue that it creates
more problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment