TUCK Percentage Proportion System In To Electoral College Voting For Fair, No Disenfranchisement Elections

Transcription

1 TUCK Percentage Proportion System In To Electoral College Voting For Fair, No Disenfranchisement Elections By JOEL D. PINLAC MDM MBA Election Reforms 4 America Movement

2 Copyright ---joeldpinlac, Sept 25,2017 Published by Election Reforms 4 America Movement May,2018 Temecula, CA Send correspondences to: jodpinpps@outlook.com

3 i PREFACE In the November 8, 2016 US elections, Republican candidate Donald Trump became the 45 th President of the United States under the Electoral College Voting System of winner-take-all by winning 30 states which brought in 304 electors, or 57% of the total allocation of 538 electors in the entire country. He needed only at least 270 votes. Democrat Hillary Clinton received over 2.86 million more votes than Donald Trump in the popular votes nationwide, which was a margin of over 2.1%. This big disparity between the numbers of popular votes and the Electoral College s balloting system may perhaps be the turn key for the much-needed electoral reforms in this country. While there had been a lot of clamors for election reforms years back, only Maine (since 1972) and the State of Nebraska (in 1996) had instituted changes in the manner with which they elect their States electors to the body which decides who runs this country. The incorporation of the Percentage-Proportion System (PPS) in to the Electoral College voting and doing away with the current winner-take-all scheme at the Electoral College in choosing who becomes the President of the United States, is being advocated here as a step towards electoral reform in this country s future elections. O-O-o-o-O-O

4 ii Definition of TERMS Electoral College The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. A state s allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for Senators. Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. Popular Vote The number of actual individual votes for a candidate or an issue, especially in contrast to the number of Electoral College votes in a presidential election. In a presidential election, the popular vote simply means an aggregate of all voters from all states in America. The candidate who gets the most votes nationwide is said to have won the popular vote. Percentage-Proportion System (PPS) proportions the States Allocated Electors (SAE), to each candidate based on their respective voting percentages (CSP) per the State s Total Votes (STV), to determine the candidate s votes in the Electoral College(CEV). The State s CEV s is then added all together with CEVs from other states, to determine if any of the candidates meet the minimum majority required 270 or more votes for the Presidency of the United States. Abbreviation of terms under the Percentage Proportion System CSP = Candidate s State Percentage, obtained by dividing CSV/STV, where CSV= Candidate s State Votes STV= State s Total Votes, then multiplying the result by 100 and annex the per cent sign. SAE= represents the State s Allotted Electors; CEV = is the Candidate s Electoral Vote in the State, obtained by getting the Candidate s Electoral Percentage (CEP) first, by multiplying CSP X SAE, and rounding off to the nearest whole number as per Microsoft s Excel auto calculations.

5 III Table of Contents PREFACE... i Definition of TERMS... ii Electoral College... ii Popular Vote... ii Percentage-Proportion System (PPS)... ii Abbreviation of terms under the Percentage Proportion System... ii The 2016 Presidential Elections... 1 Fair. Votes Matter. No Disenfranchisement... 2 How does this Percentage-Proportion System work?... 3 Application: Example of COMPUTATIONS... 4 What happened or what will happen with the one stray elector?... 6 SOLUTIONS: By Political parties Control of the House of Representatives... 6 AWARD or WASTE?... 7 HOW the 2016 election went... 9 What would have been the results under PPS:... 9 House of Representatives Votes House vote not needed in In Summary: How do we solve it then? References... A Table U S Presidential Election using PPS Calculations... B Appendix A - The Electoral Vote... C Appendix B- ME and NE s Congress District Proportion Method... D Appendix C- How Electoral Votes are Awarded... E Appendix D What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?... F

6

7 1 The 2016 Presidential Elections Democrat Party candidate Hillary Clinton garnered a total of 65,853,516 votes in the official results released by the Federal Election Commission dated January 30, 2017 for the November 8, 2016 general election. That is equivalent to 48.18%, total votes nationwide. Mr. Donald Trump on the other hand got 62,984,825 or 46.09% votes; with a difference of over 2.68 million votes. That s a margin of over 2.1% (see Table 2 - Official 2016 Presidential General Election Results). Winning the popular vote, however, did not win the Presidency for Mrs. Clinton because Mr. Trump received the majority of the electoral votes. Mr. Trump won 30 states, which under the current system of winner-take-all brought in 304 electors, or 57% of the total allocation of 538 in the entire country. All a candidate needs is a majority of at least 270 electoral votes. Percentage-Proportion System: The Key to Electoral Reform The Percentage-Proportion System (PPS), is being advocated here to be tucked in to the Electoral College voting, as a step towards a fair and no disenfranchisement electoral reform incorporating the present Electoral College System of voting and doing away with the current winner-take-all practice as the basis for determining the electoral votes for the Presidential candidates. Percentage-Proportion System (PPS), as the name suggests, proportions the States Allocated Electors (SAE), to each candidate in relation with their respective voting percentages (CSP) relative to the State s Total Votes (STV), to determine the candidate s votes in the Electoral College(CEV). The State s CEV s, is then, of course, added all together with CEVs from other states, to determine if any of the candidates meet the minimum majority required 270 or more votes for the Presidency of the United States (see Appendix A-The Electoral Vote). It kind of follows the Maine and Nebraska s Congress District proportion method of allocating its electors, in some ways, but deviates from it to a large extent (see Appendix B- ME and NE s Congress District Method). Proportions the State s allocated electors (SAE) to the percentage (CEP) each candidate receives in each State, converts to CEVs; Then sums up all CEVs from other states = 270 or > elects the President of United States

8 2 Fair. Votes Matter. No Disenfranchisement The BIG pull of the percentage proportion system (PPS) for future Presidential election is: PPS is FAIR where one s choice matters as every vote gets counted! This proponent believes that this system is THE KEY for an election reform for this country. With PPS, VOTES MATTER and there s no room for disenfranchisement. At the current winner-take-all system practiced in 49 states 1, the candidate who gets the highest number of votes in the State or better known as popular vote, gobbles up ALL Electors allocated for the state going to the Electoral College (see Appendix C How electoral Votes are awarded). A case in point: in the State of California, where Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pulled off 8.75 million votes, which was about 4.27 million more votes than the Republican Candidate Donald Trump s 4.48 million votes, had taken all the 55 electors allocated for the Golden state. Under the Percentage-Proportion System, this should not be the case. And the reason being, counting all those electors for one candidate prevents people's votes from having an impact on political outcomes, which tantamounts to "indirect" technique of disenfranchisement 2. Disenfranchisement, direct or indirect, is meant to be taken in the way University of Michigan, on its website (umich.edu) means it- "Direct" disenfranchisement refers to actions that explicitly prevent people from voting or having their votes counted, as opposed to "indirect" techniques, which attempt to prevent people's votes from having an impact on political outcomes (e.g., gerrymandering, ballot box stuffing, stripping elected officials of their powers). Under this Percentage-Proportion System, Clinton should have gotten only 34 electoral votes and not the entire 55 electors. Trump on the other hand, would 1 Maine and Nebraska follow their Congress District Method. 2 Techniques of Direct Disenfranchisement, June 2017 accessed

9 3 have had 17 electors instead of Zero. Refer to calculations following below for a better explanation. The voters who voted for the candidate who fell at the shorter end of the count in the State level under the current winner-take-all scheme, get disenfranchised and feel that their votes DID NOT REALLY MATTER. One family in Southern California, with no declared political affiliation but voted Republican anyway in the last election, declared that, Their votes did not really matter since they were voting in California. For this family to have their votes to really matter, meant that their vote should have had significance and be relevant, and should have had made a difference on the choice of presidential aspirant. Under this proposed PPS system, every vote cast is represented in the Electoral College. No voter gets disenfranchised when the college electors are proportioned (as part of the percentage) with the number of votes cast for each candidate! How does this Percentage-Proportion System work? The very first step is to determine the Candidate s State Percentage (CSP) which is based on the votes cast for a candidate in the state [CSV] in reference with the total number of votes cast in the State [STV]. Once the candidate s percentage [CSP] had been determined, the next step is to find out what percentage of electors (CEP) that CSP represents. Calculating for the CEP is done by multiplying the candidate s State percentage [CSP], by the number of electors the state is allocated [SAE] for. Utilizing Microsoft Excel formula settings, calculations are convenient and precise. Automatic calculations results are rounded off to the nearest individual count of electors that a candidate would have for the state.

10 4 With CEP at hand, then the State s Elector Vote (CEV) for individual candidate for the State can then be determined. Simply stated, the formula goes: CSP = Candidate s State Percentage, obtained by dividing CSV/STV, (multiplying the result by 100 and annex the per cent sign) where CSV= Candidate s State Votes STV= State s Total Votes, SAE= represents the State s Allotted Electors CSP = CSV / STV CEV = is the Candidate s Electoral Vote in the State, obtained by getting the Candidate s Electoral Percentage (CEP) first, by multiplying CSP X SAE, and rounding off to the nearest whole number as per Microsoft s Excel auto calculations. Application: Example of COMPUTATIONS Let s try the formula above and take the State of Indiana, as an example: the Federal Election Commission reported 2,734,958 total votes (STV) of which Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton had 1,033,126 votes (CSV). The Republican candidate, Donald Trump on the other hand, had 1,557,286 votes for CSV. Following the formula above, we take the CSP that s the percentage the candidates got for the State in relation total votes cast in the States of Indiana thus: For Clinton: 1,033,126/2,734,958= Converting the result to percentage, that becomes 37.77% after annexing the Per cent sign. For Trump: that would be 1,557,286/2734,958 = or 56.94%. Having gotten the CSP, next step is to multiply that percentage with the State s Allocated Electors (SAE) which in this example, 11, as Indiana has that much number of allocated electors. State of Indiana, as an example: 2,734,958 STV Hillary Clinton (D) had 1,033,126 votes for CSV Donald Trump (R) had 1,557,286 votes for CSV. For Clinton: 1,033,126/2,734,958= Converting the result to percentage, that becomes 37.77% after annexing the Per cent sign. (CSP) For Trump: that would be 1,557,286/2734,958= or 56.94%. (CSP)

11 5 This is to get the State s Elector Percentage (CEP)- Thus: For Clinton: 37.77% or (37.80% when rounded off using the Microsoft Excel Program) X 11 electors= or or 4.16% when converted to percent (CEP) - (Excel automatically converts the figures); she gets 4 electors(cev). And for Trump, 56.94% (56.90 in Excel) X 11= (or in Excel which becomes 626 when Excel converts it and becomes 6.26% when converted to CEP so then he gets 6 electors for CEV. Now with the CEP known, the number of electors each candidate should receive can be determined (see Table U S elections using PPS Calculations). Candidate s Elector Percentage (CEP) CEP=CSP X SAE Thus: Candidate s Elector Percentage (CEV) CEV=CEP X SAE Thus: For Clinton: 37.77% X 11 electors= or or 4.16% when converted to percent; she gets 4 electors. For Trump: 56.94% (56.90 in Excel) X 11= (or in Excel which becomes 626 when Excel converts it and becomes 6.26% when converted to percentage. He gets 6 electors. The formula above and the computations that ensued may simply be plugging in the numbers. However, the results get embroiled in some sticky situations. In the sample computation above using the State of Indiana case, Clinton should have 4 electors and Trump, 6. Right? But that doesn t add up! Indiana has 11 electors. That s the problem:

12 6 Problems: The likelihood of at least one elector is lost or doesn t get accounted for in very critical and closely contested states, as in our sample, the State of Indiana or more so typically in swing states, like Arizona, Colorado and Florida. What happened or what will happen with the one stray elector? The discrepancy happens because the votes for candidates that are lumped into the category of Others somehow eats up some portions of the percentages. These votes do not represent a single particular candidate 3.The total votes for Others, however for the 2016 elections, accounted for over six percent of the votes nationwide. Now, how do we count the stray votes? BIG Question: IS there any other way that can be done so that PPS ensures that such determination of CEV is fair and the right one for all those involved? SOLUTIONS: There definitely are ways to resolve the conflict. 1. By Political parties: For one, the State s political parties, can or must decide on, how to handle the situation per CEP for CEV, during its convention or through its national central committee, as mandated by the Constitution (see Appendix A Electoral Vote). State s political parties, can or must decide on, how to handle the situation per CEP for CEV, during its conventions or through its national central committee as mandated by the Constitution (see Appendix A Electoral Vote). 2. Control of the House of Representatives. As provided for in the Constitution, the House of Representatives elects the President (see Appendix D What happens if no candidate gets 270?). 3 There were 27 other candidates besides Clinton and Trump during the 2016 elections; for the State of AZ, Others candidates accounted for 159,597 out of the state s 2,73,165 votes.

13 7 Or the best one yet and a sure winner: The best one yet and a sure winner: Control of the House of Representatives As provided for in the Constitution, the House of Representatives elects the President in case not one candidate meets the minimum 270 electoral votes (see Appendix D What happens if no candidate gets 270?). AWARD or WASTE? For one, the State s political parties or its central committee, can or must decide on how to handle the situation of stray CEP for CEV as demonstrated above for the State s electors to the College. (see Appendix C How electoral Votes are Awarded). To work out the impasse, PPS offers to either award the candidate the higher CEV if he/she gets the higher CEP or a straight split based on CEP, whichever is more workable, (and to a point obviously), to the advantage of the political party. As suggested: If and when there are candidates from among the wide field, whose CEP comes close to a count of one (1) then he/she should get the corresponding elector as his/her CEV. A point in case: (Please refer to the table below for the following statements.) using the split system in the State of California, Clinton s CEP of 33.94% should get her 34 electoral votes and should not had been the entire SAE of 55 for CEV; Trump s 17.38% for his CEP in CA will have 17 electors and not Zero. However, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson got 478,500 votes from supporters which accounted for 3.37% CEP. When converted to CEV, it is equivalent to 1.85 or two electors. Dr. Jill Stein, on the other hand, garnered 278,657 votes equal to 1.96 CEP which should have entitled her to one elector in California (1.96 X 55 = 1.07 = 1 elector). That should explain, under PPS, the accounting for 4 electors (34 for Clinton, 17 for Trump, 3 for Johnson and 1 for Stein, or a total of 55 electors for California.

14 8 Under the current winner-take-all scheme, both Johnson and Stein did not get any. Just to repeat, Clinton got all 55 CA electors, Trump zero, nada, zilch! Based on CEP, using the straight split in the states of Arizona and Arkansas, for example; Clinton and Trump would have each 5 electors in AZ (11 SAE) and 2 and 4, respectively, for each candidate out of 6 electoral votes allocated for the state of Arkansas. In similar case, as with our sample State of Indiana, we can see that using the Straight split in AZ, one elector is unaccounted for by simply getting the CEP based on Candidate s State Percentage (CSP). WASTE IT! The circumstances as portrayed above, raise one question: Who should get the supposedly errant Others votes. Give the CEV to whoever deserves it out of calculations: e.g. -Johnson 3, and Stein 1, the rest - to NO ONE! And what should be done with the stray votes? Wasting a stray elector vote is kind of justified. Why? Because people who voted for these candidates, knows beforehand that their candidates do not stand a chance against the candidates of the two major parties so they know they were just wasting their votes but still expressing and practicing the rights to vote. Votes are expressions of desire, will and choices and should not be denied to people or taken away with winner-take-all, that doesn t happen. Such practice displays a form of disenfranchisement. However, the award (or not) of a stray elector to the candidate with the higher CEP matters a lot as one vote can make or break the presidential aspirations of a candidate and the political party that will run and change the fate of this country.

15 9 HOW the 2016 election went Based on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) s official results for the 2016 elections, Democrat Hillary Clinton received 65,853,516 or 48.18%, total votes nationwide. Mr. Trump on the other hand got 62,984, % votes; with a difference of over 2.68 million votes. That s a margin of 2.1% (see Table Presidential General Election Results PPS Calculations). However, Mr. Trump won 30 states, which under the current system of winner-take-all brought in 304 electors, or 57% of the total allocation of 538 in the entire country. All a candidate needs is a majority of at least 270 electoral votes. Wikipedia commented that, He won the perennial swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Iowa, as well as Clinton's "blue wall" states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which had been Democratic strongholds in presidential elections for decades. Leading up to the election, a Trump victory was considered unlikely by almost all media forecasts, Wikipedia concluded. What would have been the results under PPS: Under the Percentage-Proportion System, the following tabulation resulted: STATES Electors under Winner-Take-All Clinton (D) Trump (R) Others Electors - Straight- Split (CEV) Clinton (D) Trump (R) Others AWARD of Electors >CEP=>CEV Clinton (D) Trump (R) National See Table 1 - for the possibilities for each State using PPS Calculations. Others Using the Straight Split, per Microsoft Excel computations, Clinton s CEV would only be 256 which is 6 more than Trump s 250 CEVs. Awarding the higher CEV for the candidate who gets the higher CEP, under PPS, for Mr. Trump would have gotten 265 electors against Mrs. Clinton s 261. It is clear, under either assumption of the PPS, neither Trump nor Clinton received the required 270 minimum majority votes for the White House Office.

16 10 House of Representatives Votes With the counts standing as calculated above, using the Percentage- Proportion System, Mr. Trump would still be elected President of the United States because of the Constitutional provision whereby, it states that, the House of Representatives elects the President in the eventuality that no candidate meets the minimum majority requirement. Considering the current party breakdown of the 114 th Congress per House Gallery of Dec 5, 2016, showed that there were 247 Republicans as against 187 Democrats, the decision would still favor Trump for the Presidency. House vote not needed in 2016 However, the House voting procedure described above was not needed as history will ingrain what happened on that November 2016 elections. Again, 304 electors where counted for Donald Trump from 30 states while Clinton had only 227 elector votes. There were 7 write-in votes, uselectionsatlas.org reported. There were 27 other candidates besides Clinton and Trump during the 2016 elections; e.g. - for the State of AZ, Other candidates accounted for 159,597 out of the state s 2,73,165 votes.

17 11 In Summary: HAD the Percentage-PROPORTION SYSTEM, as being proposed here, been incorporated in the last elections, NEITHER Clinton nor Trump would have met the required minimum majority of at least 270 electoral votes. Using the straight split, Democrat Candidate Hillary Clinton would have 256 elector votes while Republican Party bet Donald Trump would be six vote lower with only 250 electors. Awarding the stray electors, Democrat Hillary Clinton would have had 261 electors four less than what would have been received by Donald Trump with 265 electors going to the Electoral College. The difference in the number of electors goes to the third party Others, if the CEP would show it. Wouldn t awarding the higher CEV for the candidate getting the higher percentage of electors something similar to winner-take-all scheme, on a lower scale? In principle, YES! But for the sake of simplification, don t we want to award the candidate who gets the higher percentage (>CEP) get the higher number of electors (=>CEV)? No way! In tight contests where one vote matters, this cannot be allowed. How do we solve it then? Win the majority seats in the House of Representatives during local and midterm (2018) and special elections. This is a must for the party to ensure seating the party s candidate to the White House. On the other hand, to consider either the straight split and/or award or waste, electors votes, as PPS suggested above, should be decided by the political parties during its conventions and caucuses with concurrence of Congress will have to do the trick, in cases where no candidate meets the minimum vote requirement.

18 12 The intricacies and methodologies of how to proportion the electors by percentage of votes (CEP) for the state s CEV, is something both parties of Congress to decide on. Amendments to the Constitution will have to be made. Congress must act on electoral reforms. But would Congress undertake such moves? LET S DO AWAY WITH THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL SCHEME AND RALLY CONGRESS TO MAKE SWITCH TO PERCENTAGE-PROPORTION SYSTEM! Citizens will have to find out if: they are happy with the way current election is run in this country? And with the election s eventual result? Was it FAIR? Do we want our votes to matter? LET S ALL RALLY TO MAKE SURE OUR VOTES MATTER! Do we want some reforms in the way who decides who runs the fate of this great nation? LET S RALLY TO MAKE THIS REFORM! How the Percentage-Proportion System affects the future elections is something to see if ever there is going to be a move towards adapting such system- LET S RALLY TO MAKE THIS REFORM! But come to think of it Do we want our votes to matter? Would California Republican voters be always disenfranchised? LET S ALL RALLY TO MAKE SURE OUR VOTES MATTER! Do you see the merits of taking out the winner-take all practice and replace it with the Percentage-Proportion system? Is this something that we can look forward to choosing our leaders in the future? Jodpinpps@outlook.com x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

19 A References: Congress.gov. Dec 5, David Cook Political Political Fairvote.org accessed 15Dec2016 NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) Accessed 15Dec2016. Official 2016 Presidential General Election Results - Federal Election Commission. Date: January 30, 2017 Source: State Elections uselectionsatlas.org accessed June 26, 2017 University of Michigan. Techniques of Direct Disenfranchisement, June 2017 accessed Wikipedia States presidential election,_2016 accessed 25 June 2017

20 B Table U S Presidential Election using PPS Calculations 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker Compiled from official sources by: David Cook Political *Denotes Official/Final/Certified Results; "Swing State" defined as state that flipped from '12 or was decided by 5% or less. Table U S Presidential Election Results Using PPS Calculations election Commision SOURCES: 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker Compiled from official sources by: David Cook Political Denotes Official/Certified Results; "Swing State" defined as state that flipped from 2012 or was decided by less than 5%. and from the FEC results Federal Election Commission Official 2016 Presidentail General Elections Results ALTERNATE PROPORTIONING OF ELECTORS UNDER Percentage Proportion System (PPS) Candidates State Vote (CSV) Candidates State Percentage (CSP) State Allocated Electors (SAE) U.S. Total 65,853,516 62,984,824 7,801, ,639, % 46.10% 5.70% Swing States 21,433,214 22,249,342 2,348,069 46,030, % 48.30% 5.10% Non-Swing States 44,420,302 40,735,482 5,453,377 90,609, % 45.00% 6.00% Candidate's Electoral Percentage (CEP) Electors WON under Winner-Take-All^^ Straight Split Candidate's Electors Vote (CEV)^^^ Award of HIGHER CEP for higher CEV^^^^ State Clinton (D) Trump (R) Others^ Total 2016 Votes Clinton % Trump % Others % Clinton (D) Trump (R) Clinton (D) Trump (R) Others Clinton (D) Trump (R) CLINTON (D) TRUMP 13 Swing States Arizona 1,161,167 1,252, ,597 2,573, % 48.70% 6.20% % 5.36% Colorado 1,338,870 1,202, ,866 2,780, % 43.30% 8.60% % 3.90% Florida 4,504,975 4,617, ,178 9,420, % 49.00% 3.20% % 14.21% Iowa 653, , ,379 1,566, % 51.10% 7.10% % 3.07% Maine* 357, ,593 54, , % 44.90% 7.30% % 1.80% Michigan 2,268,839 2,279, ,902 4,799, % 47.50% 5.20% % 7.60% Minnesota 1,367,716 1,322, ,146 2,944, % 44.90% 8.60% % 4.49% Nevada 539, ,058 74,067 1,125, % 45.50% 6.60% % 2.73% New Hampshire 348, ,790 49, , % 46.50% 6.70% % 1.86% North Carolina 2,189,316 2,362, ,617 4,741, % 49.80% 4.00% % 7.47% Ohio 2,394,164 2,841, ,318 5,496, % 51.70% 4.80% % 9.31% Pennsylvania 2,926,441 2,970, ,228 6,115, % 48.60% 3.60% % 9.72% Wisconsin 1,382,536 1,405, ,330 2,976, % 47.20% 6.30% % 4.72% Non-Swing States Alabama 729,547 1,318,255 75,570 2,123, % 62.10% 3.60% % 5.59% Alaska 116, ,387 38, , % 51.30% 12.20% % 1.54% Arkansas 380, ,872 65,269 1,130, % 60.60% 5.80% % 3.64% California 8,753,788 4,483, ,997 14,181, % 31.60% 6.70% % 17.38% Connecticut 897, ,215 74,133 1,644, % 40.90% 4.50% % 2.86% Delaware 235, ,127 20, , % 41.90% 4.70% % 1.26% District of Columbia 282,830 12,723 15, , % 4.10% 5.00% % 0.12% Georgia 1,877,963 2,089, ,306 4,092, % 51.00% 3.10% % 8.16% Hawaii 266, ,847 33, , % 30.00% 7.70% % 1.20% 3 1 voted for Bernie Sanders Idaho 189, ,055 91, , % 59.30% 13.20% % 2.37% Illinois 3,090,729 2,146, ,680 5,536, % 38.80% 5.40% % 7.76% Indiana 1,033,126 1,557, ,546 2,734, % 56.90% 5.30% % 6.26% Kansas 427, ,018 86,379 1,184, % 56.70% 7.30% % 3.40% Kentucky 628,854 1,202,971 92,324 1,924, % 62.50% 4.80% % 5.00% Louisiana 780,154 1,178,638 70,240 2,029, % 58.10% 3.50% % 4.65% Maryland 1,677, , ,349 2,781, % 33.90% 5.80% % 3.39% Massachusetts 1,995,196 1,090, ,957 3,325, % 32.80% 7.20% % 3.61% Mississippi 485, ,714 23,512 1,209, % 57.90% 1.90% % 3.47% Missouri 1,071,068 1,594, ,026 2,808, % 56.80% 5.10% % 5.68% Montana 177, ,240 40, , % 56.20% 8.10% % 1.69% Nebraska** 284, ,961 63, , % 58.70% 7.60% % 2.94% New Jersey 2,148,278 1,601, ,835 3,874, % 41.40% 3.20% % 5.80% New Mexico 385, ,666 93, , % 40.00% 11.70% % 2.00% New York 4,556,124 2,819, ,795 7,721, % 36.50% 4.50% % 10.59% North Dakota 93, ,794 33, , % 63.00% 9.80% % 1.89% Oklahoma 420, ,136 83,481 1,452, % 65.30% 5.70% % 4.57% Oregon 1,002, , ,827 2,001, % 39.10% 10.80% % 2.74% Rhode Island 252, ,543 31, , % 38.90% 6.70% % 1.56% South Carolina 855,373 1,155,389 92,265 2,103, % 54.90% 4.40% % 4.94% South Dakota 117, ,721 24, , % 61.50% 6.70% % 1.85% Tennessee 870,695 1,522, ,407 2,508, % 60.70% 4.60% % 6.68% Texas 3,877,868 4,685, ,311 8,969, % 52.20% 4.50% % 19.84% 36 1 voted for John Kasich and 1 for Ron Paul Utah 310, , ,523 1,131, % 45.50% 27.00% % 2.73% Vermont 178,573 95,369 41, , % 30.30% 13.10% % 0.91% Virginia 1,981,473 1,769, ,836 3,982, % 44.40% 5.80% % 5.77% Washington voted for Collin Powell; 1 was cast for Faith Spotted 1,221, ,179 3,365, % 36.30% 11.90% % 4.36% 8 Eagle West Virginia 188, ,371 34, , % 68.60% 4.90% % 3.43% Wyoming 55, ,419 25, , % 68.20% 10.00% % 2.05% NOTES: ^ Others - cumulative votes of other Presidential candidates; 2016 elections had 27 other candidates besides the two major parties' candidates ^^ Winner-Take-All -- Current election practice ^^^ Proposed alternate Straight Split proportioning of electors using the MS Excel calculations. ^^^^ Proposed alternate proportioning of electors whereby candidate who gets the higher CEP awarded the higher CEV *Maine **Nebraska - States that use the Congressional District Method

21 C Appendix A - The Electoral Vote There are 538 total electors in the Electoral College, who are chosen by each state of the United States and by the District of Columbia, National Archives and Records and Records Administration (NARA) explains in its website which provides a wealth of information regarding the electoral vote and its mechanism. The number of electors for a state is based upon the voting membership of that state in Congress i.e. the number of representatives in the House plus the number of senators. There is a total of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress; so along with 3 electors from the District of Columbia that brings the total number of electors to 538. A presidential candidate needs 270 (just over 50%) electoral votes to win, NARA explains further. Here is the number of electoral votes for each state: States Electoral Vote Source: NARA State Electoral Votes State Electoral Votes State Electoral Votes North Alabama 9 Kentucky 8 3 Dakota Alaska 3 Louisiana 8 Ohio 18 Arizona 11 Maine 4 Oklahoma 7 Arkansas 6 Maryland 10 Oregon 7 California 55 Massachusetts 11 Pennsylvania 20 Colorado 9 Michigan 16 Rhode Island 4 Connecticut 7 Minnesota 10 Delaware 3 Mississippi 6 Washington, D.C. South Carolina South Dakota 3 Missouri 10 Tennessee 11 Florida 29 Montana 3 Texas 38 Georgia 16 Nebraska 5 Utah 6 Hawaii 4 Nevada 6 Vermont 3 Idaho 4 New Hampshire 4 Virginia 13 Illinois 20 New Jersey 14 Washington 12 Indiana 11 New Mexico 5 West Virginia Iowa 6 New York 29 Wisconsin 10 Kansas 6 North Carolina 15 Wyoming

22 D Appendix B- ME and NE s Congress District Proportion Method Maine and Nebraska use what they call Congress District Method. The fairvote.org site explained that, With the district method, a state divides itself into a number of districts, allocating one of its state-wide electoral votes to each district. The winner of each district is awarded that district s electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state s remaining two electoral votes. Fairvote.org further added that since both states have adopted this modification, the statewide winners have consistently swept all of the state s districts as well. Consequently, neither state has ever split its electoral votes. The website also noted that, Maine had 4 electors going for Trump while Nebraska had 5 electors for Clinton in the 2016 voting.

23 E Appendix C- How Electoral Votes are Awarded NARA added further that, In all states except Nebraska and Maine, electors are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. This means all electors/delegates in a state are awarded to the winner of the popular vote in that state. So in a closely contested election like 2000 (Bush v. Gore), when George Bush won Florida with a roughly 50-50% split of the popular vote in that state, he won all 27 electoral votes for Florida. Maine and Nebraska use a slightly different method for allocating electoral votes. In the "Congressional District Method", one elector within each congressional district is selected by popular vote in that district. The remaining two electors (representing the 2 U.S. Senate seats) are selected by the statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Nebraska since 1996 and in Maine since 1972, NARA explains further. It should be noted here however, that there were seven (7) electors that did not follow through with their Electors mandate. Of the 4 electors supposedly going for Clinton in Hawaii, one voted for Bernie Sanders. The 38 votes for Texas, which went Republican, Trump only got 36 as one voted each for John Kasich and Ron Paul; and in the State of Washington, Clinton had only 8 instead of having 12 as 3 electors voted for Collin Powell and the Faith Spotted Eagle got one vote.

24 F Appendix D What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes? NARA answers that, If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice- President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

25 The proponent, Joel D. Pinlac, would rather describe himself as to had been neutralized with the American ways of life, as he hails from the Philippines, as contrasted to being naturalized. He served in the US Navy and holds two Masters Degrees one in Development Management from the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) in Makati City, the Philippines and the other one, an MBA with specialization in Organizational Leadership from the National University in San Diego, Ca. Joel believes that a lot of reforms are needed in various fields, including but not limited to the education system, so that financial subjects and management should be among the lessons taught in schools as early as the freshman year. This is to inculcate understanding of the financial fields to give students a thorough understanding of and about money, the banking system and taxation and all the intricacies and processes involved in them and to be aware of the responsibilities attached to them and its benefits. Students should likewise be educated on wealth management to prepare them for better life. Students should be exposed aggressively to advances in technology and to have such fields and its entities form part of curriculum development and instructions in schools. Character development among individuals and as a member of group/s should be imparted well considering the very deviant societies that comprise America for a harmonious co-existence guided by and in the belief of the One All Mighty Being. Jodpinpps@outlook.com

26