Pulled from Wikipedia
Possible electoral college changes
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
The Compact, if passed by states representing a controlling majority of the electoral college, would require states cast their electoral votes for the national popular winner, essentially shifting the election to a popular vote. The existing system is argued to encourage candidates to cater to swing states, discourage voter turnout, and allow candidates not popularly elected to take office as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. Currently, only Maryland has signed NPV legislation into law.
[edit] DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007
In 2007, Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-VA) introduced the "DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007" in the U.S. House. If enacted, the act would have the effect of increasing the size of the electoral college by one. The bill's primary purpose is to give House representation to the District of Columbia, alongside an additional electoral college vote award to Utah in order to balance the addition. The Congressional Research Service has determined that if passed, the bill would likely be found unconstitutional, on the suggested basis that Congress does not have the authority to grant a Representative to the District.[71]
The bill also grants, for partisan balancing, an additional House seat to Utah, which very narrowly missed gaining another seat in the 2000 census, and increases Utah's electoral votes by 1, since Utah is likely to vote Republican and the District of Columbia is likely to vote Democratic. However, this will only be valid until the next census, when the extra seat will be reapportioned like all other seats. The District of Columbia's electoral vote count would remain unchanged at 3, as required by the 23rd amendment. The likely effect of the change, if enacted, on the 2008 presidential election would be to give a +1 advantage to the Republican candidate: Utah has not been carried by a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and in the most recent election gave the Republican 71% of the vote. Even though the size of the electoral college would increase to 539, a candidate would still need 270 electoral votes to win.
[edit] Presidential Election Reform Act (California)
There is a proposed initiative in the state of California to alter, in time for the 2008 election, the way the state's electoral votes for president are distributed among presidential candidates. Under the proposed measure, it would switch from a winner-takes-all system to a system under which every candidate receives electoral votes based on their percentage of the popular vote in California. The Democratic Party has opposed this, saying that it will give an unfair advantage to Republicans and is tantamount to electoral fraud.
As of September 27, 2007, efforts to get the initiative on the ballot appeared to be dead.[72] However, it gained new life in late October 2007, when a new organization began raising the money thought needed to get the initiative on the ballot.[73]
In order to appear on the June 3, 2008, ballot, the initiative must garner approximately 434,000 signatures by February 4, 2008, according to California's Secretary of State.[74] However the signatures were not submitted in time for the June 3 ballot which means it will likely appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot.
Possible electoral college changes
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
The Compact, if passed by states representing a controlling majority of the electoral college, would require states cast their electoral votes for the national popular winner, essentially shifting the election to a popular vote. The existing system is argued to encourage candidates to cater to swing states, discourage voter turnout, and allow candidates not popularly elected to take office as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. Currently, only Maryland has signed NPV legislation into law.
[edit] DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007
In 2007, Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-VA) introduced the "DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007" in the U.S. House. If enacted, the act would have the effect of increasing the size of the electoral college by one. The bill's primary purpose is to give House representation to the District of Columbia, alongside an additional electoral college vote award to Utah in order to balance the addition. The Congressional Research Service has determined that if passed, the bill would likely be found unconstitutional, on the suggested basis that Congress does not have the authority to grant a Representative to the District.[71]
The bill also grants, for partisan balancing, an additional House seat to Utah, which very narrowly missed gaining another seat in the 2000 census, and increases Utah's electoral votes by 1, since Utah is likely to vote Republican and the District of Columbia is likely to vote Democratic. However, this will only be valid until the next census, when the extra seat will be reapportioned like all other seats. The District of Columbia's electoral vote count would remain unchanged at 3, as required by the 23rd amendment. The likely effect of the change, if enacted, on the 2008 presidential election would be to give a +1 advantage to the Republican candidate: Utah has not been carried by a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and in the most recent election gave the Republican 71% of the vote. Even though the size of the electoral college would increase to 539, a candidate would still need 270 electoral votes to win.
[edit] Presidential Election Reform Act (California)
There is a proposed initiative in the state of California to alter, in time for the 2008 election, the way the state's electoral votes for president are distributed among presidential candidates. Under the proposed measure, it would switch from a winner-takes-all system to a system under which every candidate receives electoral votes based on their percentage of the popular vote in California. The Democratic Party has opposed this, saying that it will give an unfair advantage to Republicans and is tantamount to electoral fraud.
As of September 27, 2007, efforts to get the initiative on the ballot appeared to be dead.[72] However, it gained new life in late October 2007, when a new organization began raising the money thought needed to get the initiative on the ballot.[73]
In order to appear on the June 3, 2008, ballot, the initiative must garner approximately 434,000 signatures by February 4, 2008, according to California's Secretary of State.[74] However the signatures were not submitted in time for the June 3 ballot which means it will likely appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot.
