A Red Play for The Golden State
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
13 August 2007 Issue
....
In February, a bipartisan coalition of former senators led by Birch Bayh, Jake Garn and Dave Durenberger unveiled a campaign for a national popular vote. Under the plan, state legislatures would pass bills that pledged to award their state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It's not clear which party this would help, but if adopted by as few as 11 states, it would guarantee that the candidate with the most votes actually won the election. Anybody got a problem with that?
2007-08-05 16:57:55 · 4 answers · asked by Habitus 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I defeats the purpose of the electoral college, which was to even out (slightly) the overwhelming impact of high-population states.
As you pointed out, about a dozen states would control the election, meaning 30+ states need not even bother voting.
A much better system is to make the state electoral votes pro-rated (percentage-based) rather than "all or nothing".
2007-08-05 17:14:01 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES! Let us rid ourselves of the electoral college!!!!
2007-08-05 17:34:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no because unfortunately many people are ignorant of todays political affairs.
2007-08-05 17:06:07 · answer #3 · answered by Bo Selecta 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes - but as you know it hasn't always worked that way!
2007-08-05 17:01:45 · answer #4 · answered by jrd 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋