Suppose you had to pick one of the following two options for an EC system for President. Which would you prefer?
States get votes proportional to their population, with no “2 Senators” bonus. Winner takes all votes. So a state that today has 12 votes would have 10 for the winner of the popular vote in that state.
States have the same number of votes as today, but they’re awarded proportional to the state vote, with 2 going to the overall winner. So a state with 12 votes who goes 60/40 would send 4 votes for the loser and 6+2=8 for the winner.
Yes, I know there are other options and systems, and yes, I know there are better, “fairer” ideas than these. But I’m asking you to choose between these two, and no others.
I think it’s more important to give the losing side some votes, so the minority vote counts for something. The +2 “senate bonus” that favors small states is a big advantage, but I think it’s necessary to acknowledge states as entities themselves, not just the sum of their people.
I completely disagree. A ‘state’ is useless. We don’t need a North and a South Dakota and they certainly don’t need two senators each, representing more cows than people.
We need to acknowledge that the “leader of the free world” that “spreads democracy around the world” failed when it faced the biggest test of a democracy: choosing a leader. There is no acceptable Electoral College. Abolish or nothing.
I suggest that you read about the constitutional conventions, and the concept of federalism. Our nation is called the United States. The union exists for the benefit of the states, not vice versa. There is no possible way to turn the country into a unitary republic.
Sure there is: just de-emphasize the states, until they’re no more important than counties in England of states in Germany. Let the states continue to do local administration, but reduce their actual legislative power.
This happened on a big scale in 1865 and forward; it could easily happen today on a small scale, and more slowly.
So long as all the states are required to distribute electors proportionally, yes, I agree, and that’s how I voted. But letting some states do it while others don’t kills the proposal.
Neither. Electors should be selected by sortition from foreign countries where the USA presently has troops. Let the citizens be represented by Congress.
I have advocated the former system. (It would have reversed 2000, but not 2016) The problem with the second, as well as direct popular voting is the 2000 scenario. Imagine the Bush and Gore of a future election trying to do a recount on a national basis just to pick up the odd votes here and there that might make the difference.
I picked 2 but I kinda like the system as is. The current system reduces national campaigning to manageable proportions. If candidates didn’t have “locked” states, they’d have to campaign everywhere. It’s a huge country. The campaign is way too long as is.
