(Nov. 11) If you think it’s a problem that seven “swing” states get more attention from presidential campaigns than the other 43 states combined, don’t blame the Electoral College system. Blame the other 43 states.
Each state has the power, with simple legislation, to fix its status as a political afterthought. No approval is needed from anyone outside the state.
Even better, if a number of states make such changes in their own self-interest, the national good also will be served. The fix is relatively easy: Most states should jettison their winner-take-all systems of allocating electors….
Here, though, is where there is play in the joints. The legislature in each state has total authority to choose how that state’s electors are allotted as long as the allocation system is in place before voting begins. If a state legislature wants to choose the electors on its own, it can. If it wants the governor to choose them, so be it. Of course, legislators who don’t let their constituents cast votes for president probably would not be reelected, so those first two options are merely theoretical possibilities. Each state obviously will let its citizens vote for president. The question is, how will the number of electors for each candidate be allocated?
Since the founding era, every state except two has migrated to “winner-take-all” systems. If one presidential candidate in California wins a plurality in that state by just a single vote, out of more than 17 million votes cast, the state appoints all 54 electors pledged to that candidate. Likewise, in tiny Delaware, a simple plurality earns a candidate all three of its electors.
The legislatures reasoned that by using the winner-take-all system, each state would be more alluring to the candidates. A 54-0 haul of electors from California means more to the winner than, say, a 30-24 split.
That approach, however, features a drawback. If a combination of polls and past voting behavior shows that one party has an insurmountable edge in a state, what is the point of spending any money there or paying attention to issues peculiar to that state? If Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrats felt certain to win all of California’s 54 electors, or all 19 in Illinois, why would they bother campaigning there? If President-elect Donald Trump’s Republicans knew it would make no difference whether they earned 45% of California’s vote or 40% — either way, they still get zero electors — why bother competing there?….
The cure for being ignored is easy. One way or another, the noncompetitive states should abandon their winner-take-all approaches.
Nebraska and Maine, each with small populations, already do this…. [But not even Maine and Nebraska have the best solution for most states. For the rest of this deep-dive analysis and creative solution, follow this link.]
