What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally?

The record shows that President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012 by defeating Mitt Romney with 332 electoral votes to 206. Even though Obama won the popular vote by a single percentage point (50% to 49%), many consider the election to be a landslide, because Obama’s margin in the Electoral College was 62% to 38%.

What’s wrong with the way things are?

There are those who would like to see the Electoral College abolished. It has several clear shortcomings. First and most importantly, it is not based on the popular vote of the people. As recently as 2000, Democrat Al Gore received more than a half million more votes than George Bush. However, with the shenanigans in Florida, Bush won the Electoral College, 271-266. In a country that prides itself on one person-one vote, this was clearly a travesty.

Second, in recent elections,approximately ten states have been considered swing states. This means that there is considerable uncertainty about whether they will go to the Democratic or the Republican candidate. The remaining forty states are considered to be solidly for one candidate or the other. They are considered to be sure bets for one candidate or the other. This is what happened in 2012.

The three largest states in the country, California, Texas, and New York (actually tied in size with swing state Florida at 29 votes) were essentially ignored by the candidates, except for fund raising purposes. California and New York were solidly for President Obama; Texas for Governor Romney. The 82.6 million voters in these states, representing one-fourth of the population of the entire country, received virtually no visits from the candidates. There were no big rallies or parades in these states. The citizens had no value to the candidates, except for a few fat cats who provided money to the candidates’ campaigns, or the Super PACs that worked on their behalf.

Abolish the Electoral College?

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College has been around for a long time. However, the existence of the Electoral College is clearly stated in the Constitution. Article II, Section says:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed.

To change this would require a constitutional amendment. The process for that would be for an amendment to be proposed in either the Senate or the House and then have it approved by two-thirds of the members of each chamber. That is hardly the end of it; the proposed amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, meaning now thirty-eight of the fifty states. Amending the U.S. Constitution is a cumbersome process and has not happened since 1992 when the 27th Amendment  was passed. It was a relatively minor one regarding congressional salaries.

Award electoral votes proportionally by state popular vote?

The other way to change how we vote for president would be for each state to change the way  it instructs its electors vote. Forty-eight states require that all electors in their state vote for the candidate who received the largest popular vote in their state. The other two states, Maine and Nebraska, use a somewhat different system, which at most can only change one electoral vote for the entire state. However, if each of the states agreed to allot their electors proportionally to the popular vote in the state, we would have a completely different outcome from what normally happens in presidential elections. It would be very close to the outcome of a popular vote election:

2012 Electoral Vote: Obama 62%; Romney 38%

2012 Popular Vote: 50%, Romney 49%

2012 Proportional Electoral Vote by State: Obama 51%, Romney 49%

Beneath these numbers is the reality that with proportional electoral voting by state, the outcome would be just one percent different from the popular vote. It would be much closer to the will of the people than the present Electoral College. It would clearly be a much more democratic process. However, this method would only work if all fifty states agreed to allocate their electors proportionally. The likelihood of that would be less than that of passing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with the popular vote.

Some people have suggested proportional electoral voting in each state. However, the conclusion is that while it would advance the cause of democracy, it is not a realistic proposal. Until both the federal Congress and the state legislatures see the wisdom of amending the constitution to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote, we will continue to have both an undemocratic system and one in which one candidate can win the popular vote and another the Electoral College. There has to be a better way to build a democracy.


StateElectoral VotesObama VotesRomney Votes
New Hampshire422
New Jersey1486
New Mexico532
New York291910
North Carolina1578
North Dakota312
Rhode Island431
South Carolina945
South Dakota312
Weat Virginia523
Total Electoral Vote538276264
Percentage of Popular Vote100%51%49%
  • DanaR

    You start out with a false premise. The people do not vote for the President. The states do.
    What we should do with the electoral college is make it proportional based on the number of districts or counties won. This way the liberals in the urban areas do not get to dictate the outcome of the elections

  • Michael Zaman

    It seems like this methodology takes the winner’s share based on total electoral votes for each state. It seems like it assumes there is no 3rd candidate. Electors should be allocated proportionality based on the House numbers. The winner should automatically get the 2 senate electors. The big question is what to do when a 3rd party gets enough votes where no candidate gets 270. Instead of the congress voting tie mechanism, I think the top 2 candidates should remain along with their electoral votes. The remaining electoral votes should by divided 50 (states) and one vote given to each state legislature.

  • Pingback: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? - updates - Occasional Planet()

  • Marcus

    So instead the minority conservatives in the rural areas get to dictate the outcome.

  • blueman1992

    In my opinion it would be best if the basis for the outcome of presedential elections would be the popular vote per state. Not like it is now, because all the votes for the second-best candidate are ignored. So just split the electoral college in each state based on popular vote.
    The advantage of national over federal popular vote is that the balance of power between the states is maintained. However the Republicans might not like this, because in this system it becomes nearly impossible to win a presidential election with less popular votes over all 52 states.