Obama's Final Two Years

So, you are, in fact, proposing going back to pre-12th amendment electoral procedures.

No, prior to the passage of the 12th Amendment the voters directly elected the electors. That is not what I am proposing be done.

PrintSmith wrote: No, prior to the passage of the 12th Amendment the voters directly elected the electors. That is not what I am proposing be done.

But you are, in fact, advocating a two elector vote per state, right?

No, I'm advocating a return to two equal votes for president per elector and the number of electors per State continues to be equal to their total representation in Congress. How an elector votes is dependent upon the popular vote results within the individual CDs of the State. Montana has one CD, so the results of the general election Statewide would decide who those two equal votes were cast for. The two electors which represent their Senate representation, 4 votes total, would also be apportioned to those same two candidates. In Colorado, we have 7 CDs and 2 Senators for a total of 9 electors. If we went with the results of the last election in our State, then both Obama and Romney would have received 9 electoral votes from Colorado, which more accurately represents the will and intent of the citizens of Colorado than 9 votes for only one of them does.

I don't mention their VP candidates because there would be no VP candidates, the VP would be the candidate who received the second highest number of electoral votes. Obama would have gotten an electoral vote from the 5th CD here in Colorado, a CD in which many Democrats currently feel disenfranchised, which encourages their participation in the process more than the current system does. Same holds true for the 1st and 2nd CDs in Colorado, only there it would be Romney who received an electoral vote and the Republicans who became more enfranchised than they are at the present time.

Another point. If the Democrats and the Republicans want to occupy both the office of the president and the office of the Vice President they have to run at least 2 candidates on the final ballot. I'm presuming that the current minor parties would be happy with one or the other, at least initially, and be running only one candidate from their party. This gives the Greens, the Libertarians, the Constitutionalists and the Communists some chance of winning a few electoral votes. Under the original Constitution, if no candidate received the number of votes necessary the top 5 are considered by the House of Representatives and one of them chosen by that body. The VP becomes the one with the highest number of votes that wasn't chosen as president. If 2 tie, then the winner is chosen from between only those 2 with the other becoming VP.

I think the people would be better served under this system than they are currently. It would require that the candidates work for votes in every State, not just the "battleground" ones as there would no longer be the opportunity for California to cast all of its votes for a single candidate, or Texas, or any of the other States. Under this system the minority voice in every State would still have their voices heard in the electoral process of choosing the president and vice-president of the Union.

Please don't misunderstand me here because I think I may be misunderstanding you. So, I'm asking for a clarification again. I'm having trouble figuring out the math you present for Colorado. You said:

In Colorado, we have 7 CDs and 2 Senators for a total of 9 electors. If we went with the results of the last election in our State, then both Obama and Romney would have received 9 electoral votes from Colorado, which more accurately represents the will and intent of the citizens of Colorado than 9 votes for only one of them does.

The way I read this, Colorado would have 18 electoral votes, which it does not.

As to the rest of your post, I'm not opposed to doing away with the "winner takes all" provision of allocating electoral votes.

I am concerned about what arguably will happen when the President is from one political persuasion and the Vice President is from the opposite political persuasion. How would you address that reality?

Electoral College reform is necessary - of that I think we can agree. The type and extent of said reform is still open for discussion.

At first glance, a direct popular vote to elect a "ticket" appears to be tantalizing. I, personally, tend in that direction. I also recognize that type of system has inherent flaws. How those flaws might be completely and totally addressed, just as would be the case with any kind of Electoral College reform, would need to occur before implementation.

Yes, Colorado does currently have 18 electoral votes. 9 for president, 9 for vice president.

PrintSmith wrote: Yes, Colorado does currently have 18 electoral votes. 9 for president, 9 for vice president.

I'm not so sure about that:

www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Candi...lectoralCollege.html

That's OK, I am. Here's the text of the 12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 . . .
www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/const...mendments_11-27.html

What this clearly states is that a separate vote is cast for president and vice president, which means each elector is still casting two votes, they just are no longer equal votes. One vote is cast for president, one vote is cast for vice-president by both electors.

PrintSmith wrote: That's OK, I am. Here's the text of the 12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 . . .
www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/const...mendments_11-27.html

What this clearly states is that a separate vote is cast for president and vice president, which means each elector is still casting two votes, they just are no longer equal votes. One vote is cast for president, one vote is cast for vice-president by both electors.

Well, it may be nit-picking (probably is), but according to the State of Colorado website, Colorado has a total of 9 electoral votes. How that breaks out is thus:

Following the presidential election, Colorado’s nine designated electors meet in the Governor’s office to cast their votes for president and vice president. In 2016, the electors will meet on December 19, which is the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

Under Colorado law, each presidential elector must vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who received the highest number of votes in Colorado’s General Election.

My take on that, because in this state winner does, in fact, take all, is that 9 electoral votes are currently cast which includes for both the President and Vice President simply because, as it currently stands, they are on the same ticket. I'm not saying this is the way it should be, necessarily. But my interpretation of this is apparently different from yours.

If there are 9 electors and each elector casts a vote for president and a vote for vice-president, how many total votes have been cast?

The answer to this word problem is 18 total votes have been cast because (9x2)=18

Read the amendment again Z:

. . . and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President . . .

Do I really need to provide another vocabulary lesson so that you understand the use of distinct with regards to the ballots cast for Vice-President?