I think a far better way to use the Electoral College would be to give the winner of each particular District that District's Electoral Vote.
The Electoral Votes are awarded to each state based on the number of Congressional Representative Districts, and one for each Senator.
Rather than a "Winner Take All" approach, if a particular District has a majority of their votes for the Republican Candidate, then that candidate gets that Electoral Vote. Same for a District that goes majority Democrat. The winner of the popular vote in that state would get both of the Senatorial Electoral Votes.
As an example, if California had run the 2004 Presidential Election that way, Bush would have received 22 California Electoral Votes (For winning 22 districts) and Kerry would have received 33 (For winning 31 districts and the 2 Senatorial Votes)
Maine and Nebraska have such a system, but has been inconsequential as both states combined have 9 Electoral votes.
There was an initiative to do just that in the California Legislature last year. However, since this type of system favors the rural and suburban (and traditionally Republican) Districts, there's no way that it would pass in any state with large urban (and traditionally Democrat) areas.
Another way would be to divide the state electoral votes based on the popular vote. If candidate "A" gets 55% of the popular vote they get 50% of the Electoral Vote, candidate "B" gets 40%, and other candidates on the ballot (Think Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, etc) get electoral votes based on their percentage. Say, 5% each. If their percentage was less than 1 whole vote, they would get none.
But the only way these could really be fair, is if ALL the states adopted them, or a change to the US Constitution to mandate it.
The current system disenfranchises Democrats in largely rural states and Republicans in states with many large urban areas.
Remember Jacques Chirac of France?? Most of the French Couldn't stand him. However, he used a platform that combined authoritarianism and anti-semitism to get france's far left and their arab immigrant voters to form a rather bizzarre voting block, that was just big enough to beat out the many other more moderate candidates that ran.
When too many major candidates run (as they do in parts of Europe and much of the third world) the downside is that you often (if not most of the time) get someone that is objectionable to most of the population...
Last edited by eliminatedsprinter; 06-24-2008 at 11:57 PM.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
I am for either getting rid of it or do something like BC said, I live in cali and for all of my voting life have felt like my vote doesnt count due to the winner take all system.
Rex Marine Home Rex Marine Shopping Mike 909-476-0335
See my photo gallery at mikegeephotos.com
A tribute to the victims of 911 - Never Forget! A Tribute to our Troops (Remember Me)
Please Spay & Neuter your Pets (a video) Please adopt and learn about the huge problem of overpopulation (a video)
Please Feed a Shelter Dog (It's Free) - Your clicks can mean the difference between life and death.
“He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” Immanuel Kant