Electoral College - Reform?

[liberalpragmatist]

Personally, I favor a single, nationwide popular vote election of the President. It's a simple, straightforward, easy-to-understand process.

That being said, I realize that we may never get that. For that reason, various reform proposals need to be examined. The proportional allotment of EC votes is one method that's often touted, as is allotment by Congressional District (ala Maine and Nebraska).

I want to throw a third possibility in there: The Humphrey Method. Proposed by Hubert Humphrey, the reform attempts to compromise between a national popular vote and the desire to have a wide geographic base and give states some role in the election, given that this is a federal union.

Humphrey proposed the following:

1) Abolish live electors and the EC as an institution. Instead, allot electoral votes automatically. The total number of electoral college votes would be equal to the number of seats in the House plus the number of seats in the Senate (plus 3 for DC): Hence, the 538 number remains.

2) Give TWO electoral votes to the winner in each state or DC. Hence, if a candidate wins 23 states plus DC, they'd get 48 electoral votes.

3) Divide the remaining 436 (435 + 1 for DC) in proportion to the national popular vote, to the nearest tenth. Hence, if our candidate wins 51% of the popular vote, they'd get 222.4 electoral votes from this step.

4) Total the number of electoral votes. If there's no majority, perhaps establish a 40%-plurality threshold. A candidate must have at least a 40% plurality to win or else either there's a runoff or a vote in Congress.

If this method were in place this year, the total would have been like this:

BUSH - 51% popular vote, 31 states = 284.4
KERRY - 48% popular vote, 20 states = 249.3
others = 4.4 votes.

ADVANTAGES - every vote nationwide has a potential impact on the result. The national popular vote takes on a real national significance. Under the current situation, nearly 80% of the states are rendered mere spectators to the race - the campaign has no effect on them and citizens in those states are completely detached from the process.

Also, candidates have an interest in trying to win as many states as possible. That means that ALL close states are exploited, not just the biggest ones.

DOWNSIDES - In a close race, it's VERY EASY for the popular vote winner to still lose. The method would actually make it harder for Democrats to win close races b/c we tend to be concentrated in fewer states. Hence, a Democrat would have to work hard to get the highest possible popular vote while winning at least 24 states.

Also - very COMPLEX. Can Americans handle this kind of complexity? At east the EC is relatively easy to understand even if it's stupid.

Possible Modifications - Perhaps add 11 votes (2% of 538) to the winner of the national popular vote at the end of the tabulating? Hence, once the 538 initial votes were tabulated (436 from the popular vote, 102 from the states), Al Gore in 2000 would have received an additional 11 votes for winning the nationwide popular vote.

ANY THOUGHTS?

[WMliberal]

1. just abolish the P.O.S.

pop vote for pres. no one gets over 50% the first go round, then there's a run-off.