The Equal Voice Voting method takes place at the state level.
The following example shows how the electoral votes in the state of Oregon would have been allocated in the 2012 presidential election using the Equal Voice Voting method.
It's been well documented by the media that our current presidential electoral process is flawed. The current fix to this problem that is being considered is the National Popular Vote bill, which will also leave many voters underrepresented because it favors more densely populated areas of the country. The following six points provide examples and explanations of our current system at the national and state levels, and shows how the 2012 election would have looked using the Equal Voice Voting method.
The 2012 Electoral College results appeared in the media as only red and blue states.
The current Electoral College system does not provide representation to the voters. The chart below shows that fewer than 35% of the nation’s eligible voters were represented in the 2012 election. This is because all of the electoral votes in each state were given to one of the two presidential candidates, and the votes for the losing candidate in each state were not given representation.
For example, the state of Oregon has approximately 2.8 million eligible voters (2008 data) of which 76.8% are registered. Only 1,789,270 (63.9%) of Oregon’s citizens voted in the 2012 presidential election. Since Obama won the state’s election with 970,488 votes, the remaining 818,782 voters were NOT represented in the Electoral College! Therefore, something must be done to correct the problem.
The map below shows how the 2012 presidential election would have appeared in the media based on the Equal Voice Voting method. This map shows that by using the Equal Voice Voting method, where the popular vote that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney received in each state was divided by the number of electoral votes allocated to that state. The increased representation of each vote is apparent in the range of purples, reds, and blues shown in the map. Using the Equal Voice Voting Method, all candidates (including third-party candidates) may receive a portion of the electoral votes in each state.
Note: A full treatment of the Equal Voice Voting formula, along with multiple examples, is provided in the book, Equal Voice Voting.
The Electoral College cannot be abolished without a constitutional amendment. At this time, it is easier and more reasonable to modify the Electoral College at the state level than to eliminate or replace it.
A significant number of voters are disenfranchised when states use the winner-takes-all approach because their vote is not represented if their candidate does not win their state. Similarly, voters are not represented if a winner-takes-all approach is used at the congressional district level. The winner-takes-all approach should be reserved for only the national voting results. Electoral votes need to be split among candidates on a state-by-state basis.
Using only a simple popular vote approach does not give equal representation to the less populated areas of the country, and favors high density areas. Half the national population lives in less than one fourth of the country. Many of our natural resources, national treasures, and much of our food production are located in these less populated regions.
For example, in the state of Oregon, approximately one fourth of the state's 3,899,353 citizens reside in the greater Portland area. Consideration must be given to equalize rural area voter interests and needs.
Part of the low voter turnout can be attributed to voters who are disenfranchised due to a broken Electoral College system. They sense their vote does not matter.