Two small states, Maine and Nebraska currently allocate their presidential electoral votes differently than other states, namely one electoral vote goes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in each congressional district (Nebraska has three districts and Maine two) with the statewide winner getting an additional two votes representing that state's Senators. Now the proportional allocatin usually doesn't matter in these states since Nebraska generally voted Republican and Maine Democratic. No large state has a proportional system, but North Carolina has moved one step closer to being the first. With 15 electoral votes (13 House members and 2 Senators) North Carolina would be the biggest state (and one with sufficient numbers and diversity to influence the outcome of an election) to institute proportional electoral votes. The idea would be the same, the presidential candidates would get one vote for every Congressional district they win and the statewide winner would get two additional votes.
This sort of plan, which appeals to Democrats in North Carolina more than Republicans (who have generally benefited from the largely GOP voting trends in the state, would prolbably make calls for abolishing the Electoral College irrelevant. If adopted nationwide, the electoral vote is more likely to more accurately reflect the popular. I say more accurately because there are a few glitches. Nationwide, Democrats are not likely to warm up to this idea too much. Many of their big state victories are predicated upon overwhelming population numbers in large cities. For example, New York is not nearly as monolitically Democratic as its numbers would seem, but with so much population centered on New York City and Long Island, overwhelmingly democratic districts, statewide winners rack up huge margins in the City area to offset the narrow losses they garner in upstate, which tends to be more conservative. Thus Democrats look like they win huge in a statewide, winner take all system and get 31 electroal votes in New York, when if under a proportional allocation of electoral votes they Democrats might win only 20-22 votes. The situation is even more relevant in states like California (with populations in Los Angeles and San Francisco that are overwhelmingly Democratic easily surpassing teh Republican edge in other districts), Illinois (with its liberal base in the Chicago area and a much more conservative tenor in downstate areas, and Michigan.
Of course, the GOP has their weak spots as well, Texas and Florida come to mind quickly. Even in a Congress led by Democrats, there are districts out there with conservative Democratic congressmen that are likely to vote for a GOP presidetial candidate.
This is an interesting development and if the North Carolina Legislature can get the bill passed, there may be a raft of other, middling states that do the same. I don't expect it in larger states, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment