Not all votes for president carry equal weight

[charlese]

In this thread of talking about equality/inequality, I found a sentence that amused me pretty good. Knowing a family in Montana that have been ranchers and have been, going into three generations. Yes, they raised quite a few sheep.

That sentence is: "When it comes to a presidential vote, the voice of a sheep herder in Montana should be as loud as that of a corporate lawyer or executive on Wall Street."
Good thing we don't vote according to wealth - the corporate lawyer would likely loose out.

Living out of a sheep wagon is a pretty good life.

BTW, since MT has only one congressional district, it would be pretty hard to split the vote.

[tomsalwasser]

So, if I lived in Minnesota, why bother to vote at all ? I can understand why a state might want to change how it appoints its electors but why say "we will just go along with whatever the other 49 states want' ?????

I agree MB that would be silly, so I don’t think the folks behind this effort advocate what you describe. The key here is every state would be under the same system. There would be no division of battleground states and flyover states. Every state would be a battleground. Every vote essential for the cause, blue or red. I was pleasantly surprised to learn of this movement and see it is so far along.

Quote from the news article linked above:
The effort is part of a national campaign being pushed in all 50 states. The agreement would take effect when states with 270 or more electoral votes -- the majority needed to elect a president under the current system -- pass legislation committing their votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Eight states and the District of Columbia have enacted presidential popular-vote laws. Those jurisdictions possess a total of 132 electoral votes, almost half of those needed to activate the proposal. No constitutional amendment is required.
End Quote.

I am also surprised that this movement does not include an apportionment feature like the one mentioned by Heathicus. It’s easy to understand. Just divvy up a state’s electoral votes in the same proportion as its popular vote. But then Charlese pointed out that Montana (among others I’m sure) has one electoral vote, very tough to divide.

[heathicus]

Montana should have 3 electoral votes. One for their single US Representative. And two for their two Senators.

A state receives electoral votes equal to their number of US Congressmen (Representatives plus Senators). The number of Representatives are determined by population (each Representative with their own district). Every state has 2 Senators, regardless of population.

In a system like I described, the state would have to decide how those additional two "Senator" electoral votes are cast. Typically, I think they would go to the overall winner of the popular vote in the state. In Montana's case, since the entire state is a single electoral district, the result would be all 3 of their electoral votes going to the same candidate, never to be split.

But that isolated case doesn't make it a bad idea for the rest of the states.

[davebodner]

Tieing electoral votes to voting districts would be bad. Voting districts are horribly gerrymandered in many states. So all the ills associated with how we elect our House members will translate to the President as well. Plus, it gives the political parties that much more incentive to keep gerrymandering.

I'd be OK with a national popular vote, or, if you want to maintain the advantage the smaller states currently have, split each state's electoral votes in the same proportion as the state's popular vote.

There's nothing sacred about the system we currently have. It doesn't represent any particular genius solution. It was merely a workable compromise.