The U.S. electoral college is usually elected through the winner-take-all at state level but the congressional district method has been a bit fairer in two instances.
[the following is from Wikipedia "electoral college" with my corrections and additions that don't seem to "stick" when I make them in Wikipedia.]
The congressional district method has been implemented in Maine and Nebraska.
Under the congressional district method, the state-wide popular-vote winner receives two electoral votes in each state. Additionally, the remaining electoral votes go to the winner within each of the states' congressional districts.
Maine has used this system since 1972; Nebraska since 1992.
While this method may result in a mixed allocation of electors impossible under the state winner-take-all system, this is not usually the case.
Only in two cases have Maine's and Nebraska's delegates been of mixed parties due to the congressional district system.
In 2008 Nebraska elected four Republican delegates and one Democrat delegate. Obama won Nebraska 2. This was the first time a Democrat delegate has been elected in that state since 1964. (From 1962 to 1992, the plurality of the state vote went to Republicans. From 1992 to 2004 the plurality state-wide and in each congressional district was Republican. In 2008 the plurality state-wide and in two of the three districts went Republican, the plurality in one district was Democrat. In 2012 and 2016 the plurality state-wide and in each congressional district was Republican.)
In 2016 Maine elected three Democrat delegates and one Republican delegate to the electoral college. A Trump candidate was elected in Maine 2, the first time a Republican has been elected in that state since 1988. (From 1988 to 2016, the plurality state-wide and in each congressional district was Democrat. In 2016 the plurality state-wide and in one of the two districts went Republican, the plurality in one district was Democrat.) Trump's man in District 2 was not re-elected in the 2018 election.
The congressional district system did not have any effect in most cases, including in 1992 in Nebraska.
In 1992, George H. W. Bush won all five of Nebraska's electoral votes with 47 percent of the vote, the same as he would have won under the state winner-take-all system. Even though he had minority of the vote, he had plurality, the largest single voting block among voters.
Proportionally he was due half the seats with a seat going to Bill Clinton and Ross Perot as well if possible.
A mixed system is more proportional than a winner-take-all system, but only to a greater or lesser extent.
STV would have likely given Bush two seats out of three, with the remaining one going to Bill Clinton. Or perhaps one seat each to Bush, Clinton and Perot. In both cases Bush would have taken the two state-wide seats as well.
Bush 47 percent
Clinton 29 percent
Perot 24 percent
Three seats Quota: 25 percentage
Bush had almost twice the votes of Perot so deserved twice the seats. But the District Magnitude of three does not allow much nicety. Either Bush gets two and Perot none or both get the same number of seats.
Opening the two state-wide plurality seats to STV would create more proportionality under STV.
Bush 47 percent
Clinton 29 percent
Perot 24 percent
five seats Quota: 16 percentage
Bush 3 seats, Clinton 1, Perot 1 would have been the likely result under five-seat STV. Perot's seat being much more certain than under the winner-take-all or congressional district systems.
Additionally, Maine is now using Alternative Voting to elect its representatives (see blog "Maine has adopted Alternative Voting"). While in Nebraska, the winner of a plurality of the popular vote within each of the states' congressional districts is given a seat, in Maine the successful candidate in each district must have the support of a majority of the district voters, whether on the first count or accumulated through vote transfers. This adds a level of fairness to the congressional district system that it has adopted.
Thanks for reading.
==================================
Comments