(November 11, 2016 at 11:37 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: States have the option to apportion their results according to the popular vote. Any State could do so but they don't. The dominant party of those States wants their party's candidate to get them all. Sure they want it on a national scale I.e. on other states but they won't do that for the people in their own state.
Well a few do, for instance Maine and I believe Nebraska do to some extent.
However apportioning electoral votes within the states themselves won't solve the problem either, because for some states it's easier to match the popular vote than in others.
Take the recent results, where Clinton won 48% of the vote, and Trump won 47%. For simplicities sake, let's assume that the popular vote is the same in every state.
In the 8 states (Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming) that only have 3 electoral college votes, dividing them up between the candidates to most closely match the popular vote would be unfair to Trump. He would get 1 vote, but Clinton would get the remaining two (66.6% of the votes) simply because as the winner of the popular vote, she has to get more than Trump.
In states with 4 electoral college votes, the vote may be split either 2 per candidate, or if the rules say the winner of the popular vote has to win more electoral college votes, it would be even more unfair for Trump, as Clinton would get 3 votes, and Trump would only get 1.
As the number of electoral college votes increases, and assuming that "ties" are allowed (e.g. states can divide their electoral votes equally between the candidates), then the vote share would get fairer. For example, in California, Clinton would get 28 votes, and Trump would get 27.
