After Donald Trump won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by the largest margin in American history, it’s understanding to think some people might want to change how we elect our Commander-in-chief, and some Virginia legislators have conflicting ideas on how we should do that.



After Donald Trump won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by the largest margin in American history, it’s understanding to think some people might want to change how we elect our Commander-in-chief, and some Virginia legislators have conflicting ideas on how we should do that.

As it sits now, the electoral college consists of 538 electors with members from every state (and DC) having different values depending on the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Virginia, as with most states, uses a “winner takes all” approach to allocating electoral votes with the president needing 270 total votes to win.

Check out this video from the US National Archives which offers a very very dry explanation of the system.

While this system has worked for centuries, its not the only option, lets take a look at two alternatives being proposed this year at the 2017 General Assembly:

First up is HB 1425 and SB 837, two mirror bills in the House and Senate submitted by GOP legislators Del. Mark L. Cole (R-88) and Senator Amanda F. Chase (R-11). Their “allocation of electoral votes by congressional district” bill would do away with the “winner take all” approach and allow the electoral votes from each congressional district (13 in total) go to the respective winner of that district.

If this were to pass, Virginia would not be alone in this method; Nebraska and Maine have two state-wide Electors but allows each Congressional district to pick the winner based on their local popular vote. This system allows the Electors from Nebraska and Maine to be awarded to more than one candidate.

For the 2016 election, that would have given Hillary 7 Congressional District votes and 2 Senate-district votes, and Trump 4 Congressional District votes. Hardly a large impact on an election where Trump won so many states. But Ravi K. Perry, an Associate Professor of Political Science at VCU, points to states like California, with its 55 electoral college votes, where Republicans could make serious gains with a new system in place.

“Even if they could get a dozen or so more votes, it would help out in the grander scheme of things,” Perry said in an interview with RVA Mag.

Up next is the Dem’s idea of an update, HB 1482, submitted by Delegate Marcus B. Simon (D-53), the “National Popular Vote Compact.”

The method is in the name here, folks; according to this bill, whoever wins the national election by popular vote would get VA’s electoral votes (no matter the state’s popular vote). This bill has been floating around for a bit as part of a national push to unite several states as a voting block adding up to 270. This means if all the states who agree to this plan (RI, VT, HI, DC, MD, MA, WA, NJ, IL, NY, CA have all signed on so far) then whoever would win the popular vote would win the White House without issue.

So are either of these a good idea? Perry thinks both sides offer interesting incentives for those involved.

“[The electoral college] is an institution that’s lasted this long, which suggests it’s got some significance to our American Democracy,” he said. “But I think it’s not being utilized as it was originally intended.”

Perry said the system is supposed to serve two purposes: to act as a check on the public with state leaders selecting electors who would cast official ballots taking into account national interests. It also was made to ensure smaller and Southern, enslaved majority states, had equal footing when electing the president.

But in the 250+ years since then, Perry thinks the system has gotten away from its original purpose. Especially at the start of the 20th century with the advent of a two party system.

So does the GOP method, breaking electoral votes down to the local level, make for a better democracy? Perry says yes… if you’re a Republican.

“Because districts are determined by state legislators, where the GOP has the majority in 3/4s of states… they don’t want the winner of the national or state vote to automatically get the votes,” he said. “It’s a great way to increase [power] in small states and conservative interests because they historically know the fewer people who vote, the better chances they have of winning… that is not a new phenomenon.”

But the National Popular Vote Compact isn’t perfect either, though it would help advance Democratic interests.

“If it were to work as the function it was designed to be, with reasonable individuals making decisions not influenced by the news or political parties, it would ensure the person we send to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave best serves the interests of the country as a whole,” he said. “The whole point of [the electoral college] was to limit foreign intrusion in American affairs, and as we’ve seen with this incoming president, we’ve already messed this up.”

Will any of these new bills proposed survive the 2017 GA and make it to the Governor McAuliffe’s desk? Probably not, but as American Democracy continues to move further from the middle, alternatives might not be better than the original if the founder’s vision continues to be ignored.