Quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
The silly system is not really the electoral college, but rather the fact that most states use a Winner-Take-All implementation of it. The logical thing, if the electoral college can not be removed, is to make it standard that if 1/3rd of a state votes for A and 2/3rd votes for B then 1/3rd of the electors should be from A and 2/3rd from B and not all from B.
Now _THATS_ silly 
|
Good idea but it will lead to more serious problems than we have now.
As I have stated so many times, that entitles ALL candidates to get their percentage of electoral votes. That means if a 3rd party candidate, like Nader, gets 1% in a few states, which he does, if one of the main two candidates do not win by a large margin then no one gets to 270.
That means the votes are thrown out and the Congress elects thier President.
That senerio presents even more serious potential problems as ALL candidates are involved in Congressional voteing. Say Republicans want to sneak in some ultra Nazi right wing type that NO voter would vote for, well then they could get him in with not a single American vote cast his way.
That is just a rather extreme example and not very likely, but do you want to risk it?
Even a change in the electoral system in the way your suggesting would require a change in the constitution or would require every State to agree to go along with it (all states can do whatever they want with their electoral votes), and that would never happen. But if you could get the change in the constitution then why not just get rid of the damn thing instead of try to "change" it.
Not to mention I would not want to see uninformed voters trying to approve changes in the Constitution that need specially trained lawyers to understand them. I would much rather see a simple up or down vote on to keep it or lose it.