National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[pat_k]

5. Nebraska and Maine don't do "winner-takes-all"

Last edited Tue Nov 29, 2016, 02:25 AM - Edit history (1)

The proportional idea gets floated here and there. Nebraska and Maine don't have a proportional system, but they do "divide" their electors (see below).

Even if all the states decided to allocate electors proportionally, the votes cast in some states would still be given more weight than votes cast in other states. That's because the number of electors assigned to a state is equal to the Congressional delegation (Members of House + two Senators). So, Wyoming, with population of about 500,000 (typical congressional district is about 700,000) has three electors. The upshot is that the votes cast by people in less populous states (which tend to be "red&quot are given more weight. For example, one "WY vote" is worth four "CA votes."

The only way to give all votes -- whatever state they are cast in -- equal weight is to elect the president based on the national popular vote.

And, just an FYI, here's how NE and ME divvy up their electors.

From: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.