Proportional Voting In the United States
Posted by: YoungGunConservative // Category: Blog Entries, YoungGunConservativeThe way our system is set up in our country when it comes to presidential elections, the winner of each other state in the popular vote count takes all electoral votes, aka “Winner Takes All”. With this system, we have seen quite a few landslides, such as Reagan- Mondale, Clinton-Bush and most recently, Obama-McCain. But, what if each state were to enact legislation that gave electoral votes to the respective candidates based on the popular vote in each state. One would have to wonder how some of the election results would look after proportional voting went into effect? Bare in mind, this would make the popular vote just as effective as the electoral college.
I took 4 major elections in the last 25 years: 1984, 1992, 2000 and 2008. When we enact proportional voting here are how the numbers fall:
In 1984, Reagan soundly defeated Mondale, 525 electoral to 13 votes. Reagan that year won 58.7% of the popular vote to Mondale’s 40.5%. When you put proportional voting in place, Reagan wins 311 electoral votes and Mondale gets 227 EV’s. Reagan would still win the presidency but the margin of victory in EV’s would be cut by 214.
In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain 365 EV’s to 173 EV’s. Obama also won 52.8% of the popular vote and McCain won 45.6%. With proportional voting, Obama wins 282 EV’s and McCain wins 245 EV’s with 11 EV’s split among third party candidates. Now we get into the heart of the matter: the 1992 and 2000 races.
In 2000, George W. Bush won 271 EV’s and Al Gore won 266 EV’s with 1 floating EV. Bush had 47.8% of the popular vote and Gore had 48.3%. With proportional voting the numbers look much different. Al Gore would have had 260 EV’s under his belt and Bush would have had 258 EV’s, with 20 EV’s going to Nader. This meant that Nader was the obvious spoiler and the election would have been thrown into the House of Representatives. Had Nader’s EV’s been split down the middle, Gore would have had the 270 to win the presidency. Now we look at the 1992 elections.
Clinton won with 370 EV’s and Bush had 168 EV’s, with Clinton winning 43% of the popular vote and Bush receiving 37.4%, followed by Ross Perot with 18.9%. Tack in there the proportional vote factor and the numbers do not look at all like the results of the election. Clinton would have received 232 EV’s, Bush would have received 199 EV’s and Perot would have been a spoiler with a whopping 107 EV’s. This means again the election would have gone to the House. Suppose though, we split Perot’s EV’s and gave each to Clinton and Bush. The numbers would break for Clinton, 285 1/2 to 252 1/2.
Perot according to many estimations, took about 65% of the potential popular vote away from Bush, which translated into 71 EV’s that would have gone to Bush, thereby giving Bush his re-election with 270 EV’s and Clinton with 268.
Proportional voting should be adopted in my opinion across the country for two reasons: candidates and states. Political parties, including third parties would be able to have access to states that typically are considered “red” or “blue” states. The popular vote then would have a deeper impact on the outcome of the presidential race and the Electoral College would not be criticized as ineffective and the larger states “control the outcomes”. The states’ voices would then be the second reason to adopt PV. Smaller states like NH and Vermont would be more empowered and could possibly tip the scale to one candidate or another. The other thing is the larger EV states would not be considered safe by either party, like California, Texas, New York or Florida. This puts all the states, and the potential voters into play, which means it would then be a free for all for the presidency and leadership, and direction our country goes.
Of the people, by the people, for the people.
2 Responses to “Proportional Voting In the United States”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state’s bonus of two electoral votes. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com