Editor, Times-Union: The following is the third part of my letter on reforming the Electoral College and popular vote. The first two parts, which were printed in the Jan. 25 and 27 editions of the Times-Union, listed background information on the 2016 election results. This part of my letter will begin with a proposed solution to the disparity between the electoral vote and the popular vote. First, I will begin by saying that the Electoral College is more than just a process. It is a symbol of American unity that should ensure that all states in our vastly diverse and large American union, whether they be heavily or lightly populated, conservative or progressive — along with local congressional districts that encompass your hometowns, cities, neighborhoods and countrysides — have their say and influence in this process. It should also ensure that third party and independent voters are not excluded from this process in their respective states and the nation at large when they have actually earned electoral votes with their share of the popular vote. Finally, it is has been well past time and then some that the nationwide popular vote actually be counted as electoral votes. This means that the Electoral College will need to be doubled in size from its current 538 votes to 1,076. The first 538 votes would still be allocated on how each individual state best sees fit to distribute those electoral votes currently assigned to it. Each state can stick with the winner- take-all-by-plurality system that 48 out 50 states currently go with. They could also change that to a winner take all or most by simple majority or supermajority. There is also the congressional district method that Nebraska and Maine use. Several other methods that have been proposed around the country are the congressional majority, state winner/proportional popular vote, or total proportional vote method. A website called 270 to Win gives an excellent overall on how these different allocation methods apply to individual states or the country as a whole. However, there was one method that was not considered, which is the following. The next 538 votes would be proportionally divided up between the candidates based on their overall percentages of the nationwide popular vote. The first chart shows the 2016 election results for two major party candidates and third party candidates.
Candidate Popular Vote Percent Clinton 65,853,625 48 Trump 62,985,106 46 Johnson 4,489,233 3.27 Stein 1,457,222 1.06 McMullin 731,709 0.53 Others 453,856 0.33 Write-ins 1,129,478 0.82
The second chart below shows the combined state by state and nationwide electoral votes. Candidate Trump would receive 248 nationwide electoral votes based on his 46 percent of the overall popular vote, plus the 306 state-by-state electoral votes for a combined total of 554, surpassing the necessary 539 needed to win. While candidate Clinton receives 490 electoral votes and other candidates 32.
2016 Election Allocation By Electoral Hybrid System (539 to Win) State Candidate Candidate Nationwide by State Totals Trump 248 306 554 Clinton 258 232 490 Others 32 0 32 538 538 1076
My next letter will detail possible alternative electoral allocation methods for Indiana and what happens when the candidates fall short of the necessary 539 electoral votes needed to win.
