Two states already do this, so the “precedent” is there.
There’s no real problem with it, it’s constitutional (obviously as there has been no challenge to Maine or Nebraska).
In some ways it would put the electoral college back to what it was when we started — electors representing a significant but still small number of people. States would still benefit from the EC, but candidates would have incentive to compete, and voters incentive to vote, that they don’t have today.
And recounts would be much less likely, and also simpler. For example, in Florida there probably wouldn’t have been a recount. I don’t think any DISTRICT was close one way or the other, all the places Gore was counting already gave him their votes. They would have been competing over the 2 STATE-wide electoral votes only. Oh wait, it was so close that might have swung the election.
But anytime it isn’t within 2 votes, a contest would only have to recount a district.
I’ve always thought we should limit a state to x electoral votes. If they get too big, they should split into two states. Having a few states with so many EVs skews the process, and really takes away the value of the vote for too many people.
Better to fix it on a nationwide scale though, I guess. Of course, in most states the predominant party would control the votes to prevent the change to take away their own party’s lock on the EVs, so the only place you are going to pass this is in states narrowly divided.
I never said it was unconstitutional ... I said it was a lousy precedent to set. Maine and Nebraska are very small states, with very little national electoral exposure ... California is a different story entirely.
>> I’ve always thought we should limit a state to x electoral votes. If they get too big, they should split into two states.
The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to forcibly split States. The federal government forcibly dividing large powerful States into smaller, less powerful states might be the best way to concentrate ALL political power in Washington D.C.
This is a lousy idea.
>> Having a few states with so many EVs skews the process, and really takes away the value of the vote for too many people.
The Electoral College process actually skews the power into smaller states ... where elections hinge on Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc - rather than New York, California and Texas.
Larger states are more powerful in the Electoral College - because they’ve got FAR more people. The power of their vote is the same ... but the aggregate power of the 21-Million people in Texas SHOULD be higher than the power of the 1.2-million in New Hampshire.
Just as an example ...
As it stands, the 1.2 million in NH have 4 electoral votes (which comes to .0000033 electoral votes per person), and Texas’s 21 Million people have 34 electoral votes (which comes to .000001619 electoral votes per person).
Individual voters in New Hampshire have TWICE the electoral power of voters in Texas. You’re disdain for the voting power of people in larger states doesn’t hold water.
H