The electoral college is a venerable institution. It guarantees that within a federal system states with little population are not to be mowed down by the "big boys".
But that doesn't mean that the allocation of those electors is fair and even democratic. Most states and districts have the nasty winner-takes-it-all rule. A couple of states (Maine and Nebraska) use congressional districts, what is slightly better but pretty a joke, as they are not electing a representative for those districts.
Then let's compare what would have happened if the United States had applied electoral systems that are common to modern democracies. Let's take one favourite, the D'Hont method. This system allows proportional representation, but it slightly favours majorities, so someone getting 47% of votes can probably count with a majority and avoid stalemates in congresses and colleges.
Then let's do apply such system to the current result for the 2016 presidential election and see what happens (on the left of the blank column, the actual results; on its right side, the results using D'Hont)
And the winner is ... Donald Trump.
But, wait a minute. Take a look to the battleground states. They are no longer key states.
Also, under such a system, Republicans in California and Democrats in the Dakotas would be more enthusiastic about going and vote. Besides, such representation makes voters more prone to vote the likes of Johnson, Stein, McMullen, etcetera; specially if they tell what they are going to recommend their electors to do. And think of participation. Millions of voters now interested because they're no longer forsaken "minorities" in their states.
In such a system maybe we'd still have Trump as the winner, but there still may be some room for negotiation in the electoral college and Trump would win, but by assuming certain compromises.
I personally believe that both Clinton and Trump would have gotten almost the same votes (now Clinton is ahead for almost 3 million votes) and the third party candidates would have some 15 or 20 electors, so either the Don and or Hill would win by reaching a compromise with those.
A totally different political scape, don't you think?
But that doesn't mean that the allocation of those electors is fair and even democratic. Most states and districts have the nasty winner-takes-it-all rule. A couple of states (Maine and Nebraska) use congressional districts, what is slightly better but pretty a joke, as they are not electing a representative for those districts.
Then let's compare what would have happened if the United States had applied electoral systems that are common to modern democracies. Let's take one favourite, the D'Hont method. This system allows proportional representation, but it slightly favours majorities, so someone getting 47% of votes can probably count with a majority and avoid stalemates in congresses and colleges.
Then let's do apply such system to the current result for the 2016 presidential election and see what happens (on the left of the blank column, the actual results; on its right side, the results using D'Hont)
| State | electors | Trump | Clinton | Trump | Clinton | Johnson | McMullin | Stein | |
| Alabama | 9 | 9 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Alaska | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Arizona | 11 | 11 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Arkansas | 6 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| California | 55 | 0 | 55 | 19 | 35 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Colorado | 9 | 0 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Connecticut | 7 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Delaware | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| DC | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Florida | 29 | 29 | 0 | 15 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Georgia | 16 | 16 | 0 | 9 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Hawaii | 4 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Idaho | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Illinois | 20 | 0 | 20 | 8 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Indiana | 11 | 11 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Iowa | 6 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Kansas | 6 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Kentucky | 8 | 8 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Louisiana | 8 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Maine | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Maryland | 10 | 0 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Massachusetts | 11 | 0 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Michigan | 16 | 16 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Minnesota | 10 | 0 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Mississippi | 6 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Missouri | 10 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Montana | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Nebraska | 5 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Nevada | 6 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| New Hampshire | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| New Jersey | 14 | 0 | 14 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| New Mexico | 5 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| New York | 29 | 0 | 29 | 11 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| North Carolina | 15 | 15 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| North Dakota | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Ohio | 18 | 18 | 0 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Oklahoma | 7 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Oregon | 7 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Pennsylvania | 20 | 20 | 0 | 11 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| South Carolina | 9 | 9 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| South Dakota | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Tennessee | 11 | 11 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Texas | 38 | 38 | 0 | 21 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Utah | 6 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Vermont | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Virginia | 13 | 0 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Washington | 12 | 0 | 12 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| West Virginia | 5 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Wisconsin | 10 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Wyoming | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| TOTAL | 538 | 306 | 232 | 272 | 264 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
But, wait a minute. Take a look to the battleground states. They are no longer key states.
Also, under such a system, Republicans in California and Democrats in the Dakotas would be more enthusiastic about going and vote. Besides, such representation makes voters more prone to vote the likes of Johnson, Stein, McMullen, etcetera; specially if they tell what they are going to recommend their electors to do. And think of participation. Millions of voters now interested because they're no longer forsaken "minorities" in their states.
In such a system maybe we'd still have Trump as the winner, but there still may be some room for negotiation in the electoral college and Trump would win, but by assuming certain compromises.
I personally believe that both Clinton and Trump would have gotten almost the same votes (now Clinton is ahead for almost 3 million votes) and the third party candidates would have some 15 or 20 electors, so either the Don and or Hill would win by reaching a compromise with those.
A totally different political scape, don't you think?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2hvxTqi
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire