AI Arguments For And Against SB 11

This is a production of Citizen in a Republic, which covers New Hampshire legislative politics.

Below are a few arguments in favor of and against SB 11, which would allocate New Hampshire’s presidential electors based on the statewide winner (2 at-large electors) and by each congressional district (1 elector per district), rather than by a statewide winner-take-all system.

Arguments For SB 11

  1. Closer Reflection of Voters’ Preferences

    • By allocating electors at the congressional district level, the results of presidential elections in New Hampshire are more likely to mirror how different parts of the state actually voted. Voters in a congressional district that favors one candidate would see their district’s elector cast a vote aligned with that preference, even if the statewide result went to another candidate.
    • This system is often referred to as the “Maine-Nebraska Model,” because those states also split their electors by district. Proponents argue that it better captures the will of voters in diverse regions within a state.

  2. Encourages Greater Voter Engagement

    • Candidates from major parties (and potentially third-party or independent candidates) might spend more time campaigning in both congressional districts if each district’s electoral vote is in play. This can increase voter turnout and strengthen civic engagement, especially in districts that might otherwise feel overshadowed in a statewide winner-take-all system.

  3. Discourages “Wasted Votes”

    • Under winner-take-all, votes for the “losing” candidate in the statewide total are sometimes seen as “wasted” because they do not translate into any electoral votes. Allocating by district means at least some portion of the state’s electorate could still see their preferred candidate earn electoral representation if they carry their home district.

  4. Promotes Moderation and Local Representation

    • Candidates must appeal to a variety of constituencies, including those that might differ significantly between two congressional districts. This can encourage more moderate or locally attuned campaigning in each district, as each electoral vote is a separate contest.

Arguments Against SB 11

  1. Potential for Gerrymandering Effects

    • One of the main criticisms of allocating electors by congressional district is that its fairness depends on how those districts are drawn. If districts are gerrymandered to favor one party, the electoral college results can be skewed, no longer cleanly reflecting the statewide will.
    • This opens the door for political manipulation in redistricting: whichever party controls the legislature may try to draw the lines to secure or block particular electoral votes.

  2. Reduced Influence of the State as a Whole

    • Under a statewide winner-take-all system, the candidate who wins a majority in New Hampshire receives all the state’s electors, making New Hampshire’s relatively small number of electoral votes potentially quite influential in a close national race. Splitting electors can reduce the “collective clout” of the state, diminishing New Hampshire’s role as a high-impact swing state.

  3. Complexity and Administrative Challenges

    • Allocating electors by congressional district adds additional layers of complexity and potential legal challenges, especially if results are extremely close in one district and require recounts or litigation. A single statewide result is more straightforward to tabulate and certify.
    • Voters may also be confused by the distinction between statewide and district-level allocations, particularly if there are differences in vote tallies across districts.

  4. Potential for Minority Rule in Certain Districts

    • Critics argue that there could be scenarios where a candidate wins the statewide vote by a clear margin but captures only the 2 at-large electors because the other candidate narrowly wins a majority of districts (or vice versa). In closely divided states, this can raise questions about whether the final electoral votes reflect the broader popular will of the entire state.

Summary

SB 11 would bring New Hampshire in line with the so-called “Maine-Nebraska” approach, potentially offering a more granular reflection of voter preferences by allocating electors both at-large and by congressional district. Supporters see this as fairer and more representative of local differences, while opponents caution that it may lessen New Hampshire’s overall influence, introduce the risk of gerrymandering distortions, and add complexity to the electoral process.