Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumPresidential Nominations and the Electoral College

Suppose a state legislature is debating a bill to replace its current winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes with a proportional allocation system, where electoral votes are distributed based on the percentage of the popular vote each candidate receives in the state. Which of the following is a likely political consequence if all states were to adopt this proportional system?

  1. Candidates would have an incentive to campaign in a broader range of states, including traditionally safe states, rather than focusing their resources on a few swing states.Answer
  2. B
    It would guarantee that the candidate who wins the national popular vote wins the presidency, eliminating the possibility of a divided election outcome.
  3. C
    It would transition the presidential election into a participatory model of democracy by transferring the power to choose electors from the voters to political party elites.
  4. D
    It would require electors to act strictly as trustees rather than delegates, allowing them to vote for whichever candidate they personally believe is best qualified.

Answer

Candidates would have an incentive to campaign in a broader range of states, including traditionally safe states, rather than focusing their resources on a few swing states.
The correct answer is that candidates would have an incentive to campaign in a broader range of states. In a proportional allocation system, every vote contributes to the potential of winning additional electoral votes, even in historically non-competitive states. Consequently, candidates would spend resources in populous states like California and Texas rather than concentrating almost entirely on a small list of swing states.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the mechanics of the current winner-take-all system.
Under the current winner-take-all system, candidates focus their campaign efforts on competitive swing states because winning a plurality of votes in those states yields all of their electoral votes, while safe states are ignored.
To understand how the proposed change affects candidate behavior, we must first establish the baseline behavior under the status quo.
2
Evaluate the impact of a proportional allocation system on campaign strategy.
Under a proportional system, candidates can win electoral votes in any state in proportion to their share of the popular vote. For example, a Republican candidate could win electoral votes in California, and a Democratic candidate could win electoral votes in Texas.
This shows how the incentives of the candidates shift, encouraging them to seek votes nationwide rather than in just a few swing states.
3
Assess the validity of the distractors based on constitutional design and political theory.
Proportional state-by-state allocation does not guarantee a match with the national popular vote due to the federalist design of the Electoral College (e.g., the extra two electors per state representing senators). Additionally, this change does not empower party elites to choose electors (which would be an elite model, not participatory) nor does it legally or functionally convert electors into independent trustees.
Eliminating incorrect choices requires applying the definitions of democratic models (participatory vs. elite) and representative roles (trustees vs. delegates) and calculating the mathematical realities of the Electoral College.

Key Concept

The Electoral College and its influence on presidential campaign strategy
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Presidential Nominations and the Electoral College

More questions from this topic