Modified Electoral college?

Question

How would you feel about a modified electoral college for the U.S. Presidency?

This system would designate that the total electoral votes for your state be divided up by percentages (for instance, if 40% republican, 40% democrat, 20% other parties, the electors would be divided up the same way).

What would you think about that idea?

Answer 1

The problem with this idea is that it is mathematically equivalent to using a straight-up popular vote with the votes weighted in such a way as to increase the effect of a small-state vote. While this remains somewhat true of the electoral college, the current system for electing executive branch officers is actually a series of state-wide elections, rather than a national one. The federal government would have a harder time justifying this statistical reality than the current one. Also, this idea doesn't accomplish what the primary stated goal of the electoral college is, in that it doesn't create an incentive for campaigning in the smaller states, because all of the 3 electoral-vote states would break 2-1, no matter how much work is done, as opposed to in states like California and Texas, where a 5% swing in the popular vote could throw a significant number of electoral votes one way or the other.

While the electoral college is not by any means a perfect system, it does serve a purpose. To me, the best way to look at reworking the system (short of a complete overhaul) would be to change the way in which electoral votes are assessed. For example, rather than by the arbitrary reps+sens formula, to use a formula that actually is representative of the percentage of the country's population that a state actually has. Thus, people's votes across the country would have similar value, even if you would end up with a few states in which there is rarely any drama .

Answer 2

A very good question. I have always had misgivings for a system that allows a candidate with less actual popular votes to win an election.

It spits in the face of the old adage that every vote is important and counts.

An overhaul of the electoral college is long overdue. Your suggestion would be an excellent start - but I would go so far as to say, "Just count the damn votes and forget about red and blue states - just add 'em all up and whoever gets the most actual popular votes wins the election." No gray area there - maybe that system would be too simple?

Answer 3

Then it just becomes a popularity contest. We all remember back in high school when we voted for a class president, usually the most popular kid won and they never did anything but look good? I dont necessarily agree with the electoral voting system either but we must keep a check and balance in place.

Answer 4

Mmmm . . . maybe.

I still think the Electoral College serves a decent purpose. It makes sure candidates show strength in many regions of the country.

What would happen if a candidate got, say, 80% of the votes in the northeast, or deep south, but almost none anywhere else? They would win, but would be a strictly "regional" candidate, with little national support.

You seem to be trying to address this, to a degree.

I do not think it should be scrapped altogether.

Answer 5

One or two states do that now.

I think it's a great partway step towards fixing the inherent problems with the electoral college system.

But you are incorrect in how you describe the electoral process. Votes are not allocated for parties. They are allocated for specific candidiates.

Answer 6

Good luck. They won't even let a third party vote here in oklahoma unless they ask 'Permission'. That sounds like unconstitutional to me. I think it shouldn't BE about parties, but voters.

Answer 7

Free elections are a myth. The Illuminati control all elections. Whom they want in power, they put in power.