dcraelin
VIP Member
- Sep 4, 2013
- 2,553
- 136
- 85
Actually Maine and Nebraska allocate electors by congressional district with the PV winner getting the other 2. I would like to see all states go to this method, electors would be more representative of the electorate because large cities couldn't determine all the electors for that State.
That would be the most democratic way to do it.
No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.
For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.
With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.
Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?
That returns us to the very nature of the Electoral College. It's simply not going to go anywhere because the small states will not hear of it. And, for a system that is so cumbersome with so many moving parts and the shifting demogrpahics of America, the opponents of the EC must admit that it's done pretty good in delivering us a winner who also won the PV.
I would favor a mandate that you must win the EV majority and a plurality of the popular vote.
I understand the argument of winning the PV without the EV even being considered but unless you want a system where the flyover states are totally ignored, the best bet would be to stick with what we currently have.
You know maybe one way would be to modify the Constitution so small states vote before the big states...not all on one day, say maybe 2 weeks apart, so that the small states feel they have a bit of a say in the matter.