TITLE: Electoral college
QUESTION [8 upvotes]: "Recall that" [if one can pardon that expression] the Constitution of the United States provides that
(1) the president is elected by a college of electors, and that
(2) there are as many of those from each state as there are senators and representatives in Congress, and that
(3) there are two senators from each state and a number of representatives from each state approximately proportional to the state's population, and that
(4) the legislature in each state decides how the electors are chosen.
All but two of the 50 states give all of their seats in the electoral college to the candidate winning a majority of the votes in that state.  The other two, Maine and Nebraska, elect one elector in each congressional constituency (or "district") separately and the other two electors are chosen by a vote of the people of the whole state.
The legislature of Maryland has passed a law saying all of its electors will be of the party that wins a majority of the popular vote across the whole country, provided a specified number of other states pass the same law.  This law is supported by Democrats.
Now in one or more states, Republicans in the legislature have introduced bills to adopt the system used in Maine and Nebraska.
It seems to me that the Maryland bill goes all the way in a certain direction, but this last noted bill goes only part-way in the same direction; it's the same thing but less extreme.  They're both moving in the direction of making the electoral college vote more likely to agree with the popular vote, but the Republican bill doesn't go as far.
But some Democrats have bitterly accused the authors of the Republican bill of trying to "rig" the electoral college's vote.  I haven't seen any specificity about their rationale.
Is there some mathematical reason to view the Republican bill as other than something between the current system and the system proposed by the Maryland legistlature?

REPLY [2 votes]: Republican legislators who want to split state electoral votes in states that have recently voted Democratic in presidential elections, do not want to split electoral votes in states that recently voted Republican in presidential elections. 
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. 
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. 
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 "battleground" districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92%  of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if  a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally. 
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Obvious partisan machinations by Republicans now should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws and redistrict with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, is needed now more than ever.
Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President. 
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes, 
* 71% favored a national popular vote; 
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and 
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide). 

A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President. 
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes, 
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
NationalPopularVote