Quote:
Originally posted by Thoran:
I understand your point TL and agree with it, there are a lot of voters who's votes don't have an impact on the election at all (mine is often the case as I said), but without the electoral college cities like New York and LA would have even more influence. You'd end up with a situation where the megacities along both coasts would have either enormous or decisive control over elections. Certainly the E.C. isn't an optimum solution, but it was designed in a day when there weren't a lot of options (even popular vote would've been tough back then).
It sounds to me that an acceptable solution you might envision would perhaps apply the delegates of a state in proportion to the states vote as opposed to all or nothing. This sort of scheme I think would probably work even better than the current scheme, I'm not an expert on the E.C. so I'm not sure why it was designed as an all or nothing thing... but I'd certainly support that. What I don't think is a good idea is a straight 1:1 popular vote.
|
Thoran,
a couple of points.
1. Maine and Nebraska both assign their electors by congressional district, and the 2 "senatorial" electorals being given to the winner of the entire state.
2. While assigning electors by congressional districts sounds good, there is a MASSIVE problem with it. States by their very nature have borders that are unchanging. Congressional district borders change with every census. And they are changed by each states' legislature to the benefit of the party that controls the legislature. It's a process called "gerrymandering". Ever heard of it?
This would make assignment of electors MASSIVELY political. State legislatures could and WOULD draw up borders to benefit the majority party of each state. At least with winner take all, there's no gerrymandering state borders to play with election results.
I oppose this method for this reason.