MD [where I live] passed this law which will not take effect unless enough states [totalling 270 electoral votes] do the same.
It is an INSANE proposition - and if the GOP wins the next election, the citizens of MD will go berserk. MD will NO DOUBT go for the DEM candidate, BUT they will THEN realize that [had this law been in effect] their electoral votes woulda gone to the GOP ...
I am NOT a fan of the current system [winner-take-all, except for ME and NE].
The FAIREST way to ensure that all votes count [down to the lowest levels of citizenry] is to award the electoral votes by district in each state. Win the district - win the one electoral vote assigned to it.
There are [of course] two electoral votes left over [assigned to the Senate seats]. These would be awarded to the winner in the overall state vote - as a “bonus”.
Therefore, in 2008, instead of Obama winning 10-0 in MD, he would won something like 7-3.
The concept of awarding a state's electors based on the national popular vote specifically and deliberately violates that rule.
“The FAIREST way to ensure that all votes count [down to the lowest levels of citizenry] is to award the electoral votes by district in each state. Win the district - win the one electoral vote assigned to it.”
Seems like a good idea. My state is a winner take all state. I especially don’t like the idea of states having open primaries also being winner take all states.
Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.