ShawnG

That would work too. More evenly distribute the Electoral votes than they are now.

__________________
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." -Adlai E. Stevenson

Ironduke

How about awarding an elector to the winner of each Congressional District, and the electoral votes for both Senate seats in a state to the winner of the state?

A USA Today article about a proposal to do that in CA:
Calif. electoral-vote plan could sway '08 race - USATODAY.com

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

samardza

Actually, the method for the states to choose thier electors is entirely up to the state legislature. Constitutionally, if a state decided to simply appoint them, and not hold a popular vote it would be finr. I wonder how many states are actually in violation of thier state constitutions by using the popular vote.

One thing that's not thoughtof any more, the President is the leader of the UNITED States, not the people.

I wonder how many of the states that are saying that they will choose electors based on the national popular vote will try to change thier minds if the PV doesnt go the way they hope. Trying to change the decision AFTER the vote IS Unconstitutional.

gunnut

There are pluses and minuses for each system.

In a popular vote system, the smaller states will have less proportional representation in their say. There will no longer be any "battle ground" states. The candidates will focus on a cohesive national campaign rather than state to state campaign. More conservatives from the huge liberal states will vote because their voices will make a difference now. Same with liberals in conservative states, but the difference will be smaller because other than Texas, there aren't any other big states dominated by conservatives.

If you ask me, if we change to a popular vote system and dump the electoral college, democrats stand to lose.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

So instead of winning states, each candidates go for the congressional districts?

California conservatives are pushing for something similar. They want our electoral votes apportioned by the county instead of winner-take-all.

JOgershok

The winner takes all method, currently in use by the electorial college is the problem. If it were a percentage then the candidates would be forced to campaign in ALL the areas of ALL the states not just the major cities.

Look at the truth, our forefathers, who were not perfect, determined that the average American could not be trusted to chose the President of the United States. Were they wrong?

gunnut

The other side of the argument is that the president is the president of the union, not of the people. The people express their wishes to the state, and then the states vote in a weighted system. It's like if I am 65% for the republican and 35% for the democrat, I can't seperate my vote. I must pick one. The states have to choose, with a single voice.

Ironduke

At one time, senators were appointed by state legislatures.

ShawnG

After seeing all the valid points being made, I don't think EC should be dumped... but the whole 2/3, 1/3 splitting of the Electoral votes would more evenly distribute the popular vote, incorporating it into the EC system. IMHO

dalem

The EC was never intended to reflect any sort of popular vote. The three pillars of American government were designed, not simply stumbled upon.

The House (and for a while now the Senate) is proportional and directly elected, the Judiciary is appointed by the Executive, and the Executive is elected via the weighted Electoral College.

The odds that we'll somehow screw up all three, given their different terms and conditions, are pretty long. So in my opinion looking at the EC by itself is a foolish waste of time because it's designed to be exactly the way it is in concert with the rest of the Federal system.

A different angle:

You see me crying over McCain? Anyone think I'll cry and wail if Obama or Hillary gets the big chair? Hell no - as soon as the Presidency moved out of the reach of someone I really respected I started thinking about House and Senate seats.

-dale

ShawnG

Now I know. And knowing is half the battle.

JOgershok

I am more inclined to this method as being consistent with a representative democracy and will avoid the tyranny of the masses.

Bluesman

Take THAT, Cobra!

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Pablo Cortez

The Founding Fathers were not only wise enough to write the Constitution, but also to provide for a means to amend it. The system today doesn't work the way they intended anyway---they saw the electors as exerting much more independence, not just voting en bloc the way their states voters balloted. Technically this is still the case, but the reality is that the electors just rubber stamp the popular election in their states.

As many have mentioned, the problem is not really with the method of electing, it's getting qualified candidates to run. Wags are dead on when they note that the only requirements for the Presidency (age and citizenship by birth) are a lot less demanding than those for fast food workers.

Thanks to Ironduke for the invitation.

marklv

Sad. Most British people actually look at the Irish with affection; I agree that in the past this has been a 'master-servant' relationship, but religious bigotry had a lot to do with it. Your celtic neighbours in Scotland and Wales managed to stay united with England, but they were mostly Protestant nations; unfortunately Ireland suffered from the idiocy of religious fanaticism. I really regret this, but I can't change history unfortunately.

It makes no sense geopolitically for Ireland to be independent. Likewise for Scotland and Wales. I think a confederate British Isles along the lines of Switzerland would be a good idea, with a central London parliament only responsible for things like trade and defence. England would also have its own parliament, etc.