1) A flaw of the Electoral College (EC) system is that states choose to award Electoral Votes (EV) mostly on a winner-take-all (WTA) basis. While the EC is Constitutionally mandated, WTA is not.
2) WTA makes votes in a handful of swing states worth much more than those in other states, depriving voters in other states of equal protection under the law and the expectation of one person, one vote.
3) Legal precedent appears to strongly disfavor the status quo and it is thought that a persuasive argument would find a receptive audience in the Supreme Court as constituted.
4) Equal Citizens wishes to mount a legal challenge to abolish WTA in favor of having ALL states award their EV in proportion to the statewide popular vote.
I do not represent Equal Citizens; if you want to know more or want clarification, go to their website.
I do have a few questions... two of which I posed directly to its organizers.
Q1 - On the post https://medium.com/equal-citizens/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777 you show a map indicating proportional allocation of the 2016 popular vote would have resulted in a 270-263 Clinton win. My math/methodology would lead to a result of the House of Representatives picking the President: Clinton 266, Trump 262, Johnson 8, Stein 1, McMullin 1. What methodology underlies the proportional allocation associated with that map?
Q2 - Suppose SCOTUS hears the case and rules in favor... but then allows the states do decide their own allocation methodologies. If states opt for the Maine/Nebraska method, one man one vote suffers just as much because of partisan gerrymandering of Congressional districts in various states. Describe how you plan to convince SCOTUS not only to strike down Winner-Take-All but compel the states to adopt a method of proportional EV allocation that's NOT subject to manipulation through the redistricting process?
Equal Citizen's answers:
A1 - We had a voting data expert (who's a political science professor at U of Michigan) crunched our numbers and he said that the different results are most likely due to how third party candidates are treated. Unfortunately he won't be able to answer individual questions like this (the fall semester just started, after all), but I'll talk to my team about writing a blog post on how a proportional allocation scheme would work and how the votes could be divided. If they see there's a demand for an explainer on this, I think they'd be on board.
A2 - You're right that allocation by congressional district would lead to even more unequal representation. We believe we could file the lawsuit in a way that pushes the court to recognize that congressional district allocation violates the Equal Protection clause as well. We'll roll out more contents that explain our plan in the coming weeks, so please follow us on Facebook as we post our informational contents there.
In the absence of receiving Equal Citizens' methodology of proportions, I'll show you mine.
First, let's look at the 2016 popular votes from each state, expressed as a percentage of all Presidential votes cast in that state.
| ST | HC (D) | DT (R ) | GJ (L) | JS (G) | EM (I) | OTHER |
| AL | 34.358% | 62.083% | 2.094% | 0.442% | 0.000% | 1.023% |
| AK | 36.551% | 51.282% | 5.877% | 1.800% | 0.000% | 4.490% |
| AZ | 45.126% | 48.672% | 4.132% | 1.335% | 0.678% | 0.057% |
| AR | 33.653% | 60.574% | 2.638% | 0.838% | 1.172% | 1.125% |
| CA | 61.726% | 31.617% | 3.374% | 1.965% | 0.279% | 1.039% |
| CO | 48.157% | 43.251% | 5.184% | 1.383% | 1.040% | 0.985% |
| CT | 54.566% | 40.927% | 2.959% | 1.389% | 0.128% | 0.031% |
| DE | 53.086% | 41.713% | 3.325% | 1.375% | 0.159% | 0.342% |
| DC | 90.864% | 4.087% | 1.576% | 1.368% | 0.000% | 2.105% |
| FL | 47.823% | 49.022% | 2.198% | 0.684% | 0.000% | 0.273% |
| GA | 45.640% | 50.771% | 3.045% | 0.187% | 0.316% | 0.041% |
| HI | 62.221% | 30.039% | 3.719% | 2.969% | 0.000% | 1.052% |
| ID | 27.492% | 59.261% | 4.104% | 1.231% | 6.733% | 1.179% |
| IL | 55.825% | 38.762% | 3.786% | 1.387% | 0.211% | 0.029% |
| IN | 37.775% | 56.940% | 4.899% | 0.287% | 0.000% | 0.099% |
| IA | 41.740% | 51.147% | 3.779% | 0.733% | 0.790% | 1.811% |
| KS | 36.052% | 56.655% | 4.678% | 1.985% | 0.550% | 0.080% |
| KY | 32.682% | 62.520% | 2.794% | 0.723% | 1.184% | 0.097% |
| LA | 38.450% | 58.089% | 1.872% | 0.692% | 0.421% | 0.476% |
| ME | 47.830% | 44.870% | 5.095% | 1.905% | 0.252% | 0.048% |
| MD | 60.326% | 33.909% | 2.862% | 1.292% | 0.346% | 1.265% |
| MA | 60.005% | 32.808% | 4.151% | 1.433% | 0.082% | 1.521% |
| MI | 47.275% | 47.498% | 3.587% | 1.072% | 0.170% | 0.398% |
| MN | 46.445% | 44.925% | 3.836% | 1.256% | 1.802% | 1.736% |
| MS | 40.115% | 57.941% | 1.194% | 0.309% | 0.000% | 0.441% |
| MO | 38.135% | 56.772% | 3.466% | 0.905% | 0.252% | 0.470% |
| MT | 35.746% | 56.168% | 5.640% | 1.603% | 0.462% | 0.381% |
| NE | 33.699% | 58.747% | 4.613% | 1.039% | 0.000% | 1.902% |
| NV | 47.918% | 45.501% | 3.322% | 0.000% | 0.000% | 3.259% |
| NH | 46.826% | 46.459% | 4.135% | 0.873% | 0.143% | 1.564% |
| NJ | 55.453% | 41.350% | 1.871% | 0.975% | 0.000% | 0.351% |
| NM | 48.256% | 40.043% | 9.337% | 1.237% | 0.730% | 0.397% |
| NY | 59.006% | 36.516% | 2.287% | 1.398% | 0.134% | 0.659% |
| NC | 46.173% | 49.828% | 2.744% | 0.255% | 0.000% | 1.000% |
| ND | 27.227% | 62.956% | 6.224% | 1.098% | 0.000% | 2.495% |
| OH | 43.558% | 51.688% | 3.175% | 0.842% | 0.229% | 0.508% |
| OK | 28.932% | 65.323% | 5.745% | 0.000% | 0.000% | 0.000% |
| OR | 50.072% | 39.094% | 4.708% | 2.498% | 0.000% | 3.628% |
| PA | 47.465% | 48.183% | 2.380% | 0.810% | 0.105% | 1.057% |
| RI | 54.407% | 38.898% | 3.177% | 1.340% | 0.111% | 2.067% |
| SC | 40.673% | 54.939% | 2.340% | 0.620% | 0.999% | 0.429% |
| SD | 31.737% | 61.531% | 5.634% | 0.000% | 0.000% | 1.098% |
| TN | 34.716% | 60.722% | 2.807% | 0.638% | 0.478% | 0.639% |
| TX | 43.235% | 52.235% | 3.161% | 0.798% | 0.472% | 0.099% |
| UT | 27.459% | 45.538% | 3.501% | 0.834% | 21.538% | 1.130% |
| VT | 56.678% | 30.269% | 3.199% | 2.145% | 0.203% | 7.506% |
| VA | 49.728% | 44.407% | 2.968% | 0.694% | 1.357% | 0.846% |
| WA | 52.539% | 36.833% | 4.850% | 1.761% | 0.000% | 4.017% |
| WV | 26.426% | 68.499% | 3.220% | 1.130% | 0.155% | 0.570% |
| WI | 46.454% | 47.218% | 3.584% | 1.044% | 0.398% | 1.302% |
| WY | 21.877% | 68.173% | 5.193% | 0.983% | 0.000% | 3.774% |
Now... to the above information, let's add the following:
a) the number of Electoral Votes to be awarded by each state.
a) the number of Electoral Votes to be awarded by each state.
b) a decimal computed by calculating 1 divided by (# of EV x 2). This comes under the heading "0.5EVTh" for "0.5 EV Threshold"... the percentage of votes one would need in a state that's theoretically worth 1/2 EV. In a 5 EV state, that threshold is 10% (1 divided by (5 x 2) = 1/10 or 10%); in CA, with 55 EV, it's 1/110 or 0.9091%.
c) each candidate whose vote total in that state does not exceed the 1/2 EV threshold gets their vote total zeroed out. This is to prevent a quirk of (eventual) rounding from resulting in a candidate with less than 1/2 EV worth of votes in a state being awarded 1 full EV from that state.
d) a cumulative of the vote percentages of all candidates whose totals were not reset to zero in step c).
Table 2 - % of 2016 Ballots Cast by Candidate and State where Percentage met or exceeded the equivalent of 0.5 EV.
Next, let's compute the # of EV in the state multiplied by the candidates' vote totals divided by the cumulative percentage of above-the-threshold ballots... rounded to 3 decimals.
Example: Alabama... Clinton 9 x 34.358% / 96.441% = 3.206
c) each candidate whose vote total in that state does not exceed the 1/2 EV threshold gets their vote total zeroed out. This is to prevent a quirk of (eventual) rounding from resulting in a candidate with less than 1/2 EV worth of votes in a state being awarded 1 full EV from that state.
d) a cumulative of the vote percentages of all candidates whose totals were not reset to zero in step c).
| ST | E.V. | 0.5EVTh | HC | DT | GJ | JS | EM | CUM. |
| AL | 9 | 5.556% | 34.358% | 62.083% | 96.441% | |||
| AK | 3 | 16.667% | 36.551% | 51.282% | 87.833% | |||
| AZ | 11 | 4.545% | 45.126% | 48.672% | 93.798% | |||
| AR | 6 | 8.333% | 33.653% | 60.574% | 94.227% | |||
| CA | 55 | 0.909% | 61.726% | 31.617% | 3.374% | 1.965% | 98.682% | |
| CO | 9 | 5.556% | 48.157% | 43.251% | 91.408% | |||
| CT | 7 | 7.143% | 54.566% | 40.927% | 95.493% | |||
| DE | 3 | 16.667% | 53.086% | 41.713% | 94.799% | |||
| DC | 3 | 16.667% | 90.864% | 90.864% | ||||
| FL | 29 | 1.724% | 47.823% | 49.022% | 2.198% | 99.043% | ||
| GA | 16 | 3.125% | 45.640% | 50.771% | 96.411% | |||
| HI | 4 | 12.500% | 62.221% | 30.039% | 92.260% | |||
| ID | 4 | 12.500% | 27.492% | 59.261% | 86.753% | |||
| IL | 20 | 2.500% | 55.825% | 38.762% | 3.786% | 98.373% | ||
| IN | 11 | 4.545% | 37.775% | 56.940% | 4.899% | 99.614% | ||
| IA | 6 | 8.333% | 41.740% | 51.147% | 92.887% | |||
| KS | 6 | 8.333% | 36.052% | 56.655% | 92.707% | |||
| KY | 8 | 6.250% | 32.682% | 62.520% | 95.202% | |||
| LA | 8 | 6.250% | 38.450% | 58.089% | 96.539% | |||
| ME | 4 | 12.500% | 47.830% | 44.870% | 92.700% | |||
| MD | 10 | 5.000% | 60.326% | 33.909% | 94.235% | |||
| MA | 11 | 4.545% | 60.005% | 32.808% | 92.813% | |||
| MI | 16 | 3.125% | 47.275% | 47.498% | 3.587% | 98.360% | ||
| MN | 10 | 5.000% | 46.445% | 44.925% | 91.370% | |||
| MS | 6 | 8.333% | 40.115% | 57.941% | 98.056% | |||
| MO | 10 | 5.000% | 38.135% | 56.772% | 94.907% | |||
| MT | 3 | 16.667% | 35.746% | 56.168% | 91.914% | |||
| NE | 5 | 10.000% | 33.699% | 58.747% | 92.446% | |||
| NV | 6 | 8.333% | 47.918% | 45.501% | 93.419% | |||
| NH | 4 | 12.500% | 46.826% | 46.459% | 93.285% | |||
| NJ | 14 | 3.571% | 55.453% | 41.350% | 96.803% | |||
| NM | 5 | 10.000% | 48.256% | 40.043% | 88.299% | |||
| NY | 29 | 1.724% | 59.006% | 36.516% | 2.287% | 97.809% | ||
| NC | 15 | 3.333% | 46.173% | 49.828% | 96.001% | |||
| ND | 3 | 16.667% | 27.227% | 62.956% | 90.183% | |||
| OH | 18 | 2.778% | 43.558% | 51.688% | 3.175% | 98.421% | ||
| OK | 7 | 7.143% | 28.932% | 65.323% | 94.255% | |||
| OR | 7 | 7.143% | 50.072% | 39.094% | 89.166% | |||
| PA | 20 | 2.500% | 47.465% | 48.183% | 95.648% | |||
| RI | 4 | 12.500% | 54.407% | 38.898% | 93.305% | |||
| SC | 9 | 5.556% | 40.673% | 54.939% | 95.612% | |||
| SD | 3 | 16.667% | 31.737% | 61.531% | 93.268% | |||
| TN | 11 | 4.545% | 34.716% | 60.722% | 95.438% | |||
| TX | 38 | 1.316% | 43.235% | 52.235% | 3.161% | 98.631% | ||
| UT | 6 | 8.333% | 27.459% | 45.538% | 21.538% | 94.535% | ||
| VT | 3 | 16.667% | 56.678% | 30.269% | 86.947% | |||
| VA | 13 | 3.846% | 49.728% | 44.407% | 94.135% | |||
| WA | 12 | 4.167% | 52.539% | 36.833% | 4.850% | 94.222% | ||
| WV | 5 | 10.000% | 26.426% | 68.499% | 94.925% | |||
| WI | 10 | 5.000% | 46.454% | 47.218% | 93.672% | |||
| WY | 3 | 16.667% | 21.877% | 68.173% | 90.050% |
Table 2 - % of 2016 Ballots Cast by Candidate and State where Percentage met or exceeded the equivalent of 0.5 EV.
Next, let's compute the # of EV in the state multiplied by the candidates' vote totals divided by the cumulative percentage of above-the-threshold ballots... rounded to 3 decimals.
Example: Alabama... Clinton 9 x 34.358% / 96.441% = 3.206
| ST | EV | HC | DT | GJ | JS | EM |
| AL | 9 | 3.206 | 5.794 | |||
| AK | 3 | 1.248 | 1.752 | |||
| AZ | 11 | 5.292 | 5.708 | |||
| AR | 6 | 2.143 | 3.857 | |||
| CA | 55 | 34.403 | 17.622 | 1.881 | 1.095 | |
| CO | 9 | 4.742 | 4.259 | |||
| CT | 7 | 4.000 | 3.000 | |||
| DE | 3 | 1.680 | 1.320 | |||
| DC | 3 | 3.000 | ||||
| FL | 29 | 14.003 | 14.354 | 0.644 | ||
| GA | 16 | 7.574 | 8.426 | |||
| HI | 4 | 2.698 | 1.302 | |||
| ID | 4 | 1.268 | 2.732 | |||
| IL | 20 | 11.350 | 7.881 | 0.770 | ||
| IN | 11 | 4.171 | 6.288 | 0.541 | ||
| IA | 6 | 2.696 | 3.304 | |||
| KS | 6 | 2.333 | 3.667 | |||
| KY | 8 | 2.746 | 5.254 | |||
| LA | 8 | 3.186 | 4.814 | |||
| ME | 4 | 2.064 | 1.936 | |||
| MD | 10 | 6.402 | 3.598 | |||
| MA | 11 | 7.112 | 3.888 | |||
| MI | 16 | 7.690 | 7.726 | 0.584 | ||
| MN | 10 | 5.083 | 4.917 | |||
| MS | 6 | 2.455 | 3.545 | |||
| MO | 10 | 4.018 | 5.982 | |||
| MT | 3 | 1.167 | 1.833 | |||
| NE | 5 | 1.823 | 3.177 | |||
| NV | 6 | 3.078 | 2.922 | |||
| NH | 4 | 2.008 | 1.992 | |||
| NJ | 14 | 8.020 | 5.980 | |||
| NM | 5 | 2.733 | 2.268 | |||
| NY | 29 | 17.495 | 10.827 | 0.678 | ||
| NC | 15 | 7.215 | 7.786 | |||
| ND | 3 | 0.906 | 2.094 | |||
| OH | 18 | 7.966 | 9.453 | 0.581 | ||
| OK | 7 | 2.149 | 4.851 | |||
| OR | 7 | 3.931 | 3.069 | |||
| PA | 20 | 9.925 | 10.075 | |||
| RI | 4 | 2.332 | 1.668 | |||
| SC | 9 | 3.829 | 5.171 | |||
| SD | 3 | 1.021 | 1.979 | |||
| TN | 11 | 4.001 | 6.999 | |||
| TX | 38 | 16.657 | 20.125 | 1.218 | ||
| UT | 6 | 1.743 | 2.890 | 1.367 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1.956 | 1.044 | |||
| VA | 13 | 6.867 | 6.133 | |||
| WA | 12 | 6.6913 | 4.6910 | 0.618 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1.392 | 3.608 | |||
| WI | 10 | 4.959 | 5.041 | |||
| WY | 3 | 0.729 | 2.271 |
Table 3 - Preliminary Calculated Electoral Votes, rounded to 0.001
Now, we'll round these to whole numbers. Generally .500 rounds to up and .499 rounds down... but there are exceptions in MI and WA, where a strict rounding rule would result in an additional EV in each state. In each case, only two totals could be rounded up of three possible decimals that ordinarily would be rounded up. The total with the lowest amount to the right of the decimal was rounded down (in blue)... the others (in yellow) were rounded up.
| ST | EV | HC | DT | GJ | JS | EM |
| AL | 9 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| AK | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| AZ | 11 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| AR | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CA | 55 | 34 | 18 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| CO | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CT | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DE | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DC | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FL | 29 | 14 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| GA | 16 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HI | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ID | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| IL | 20 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| IN | 11 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| IA | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| KS | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| KY | 8 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LA | 8 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ME | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MD | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MA | 11 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MI | 16 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MN | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MS | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MO | 10 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MT | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NE | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NV | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NH | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NJ | 14 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NM | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NY | 29 | 17 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| NC | 15 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ND | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OH | 18 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| OK | 7 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OR | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PA | 20 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RI | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SC | 9 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SD | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TN | 11 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TX | 38 | 17 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| UT | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| VT | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| VA | 13 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WA | 12 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WV | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WI | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WY | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 266 | 262 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
Table 4 - Proportional EV totals, rounded to integers
Thus... by my methodology... with neither candidate having won 270 EV, the House of Representatives ends up choosing the President. Probably Trump, maybe Johnson, snowball's-chance-in-Phoenix for Clinton... unless...
That brings me to my next post... I'll posit that proportional allocation of EV doesn't do away with swing states... it just changes which ones they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment