it's broken, so let's fix it

[metaphorge]

Here's an idea I like a lot: a plan to correct the disproprtionate representation of less populous states in presidential elections by legally circumventing the Electoral College:

"Koza's scheme calls for an interstate compact that would require states to throw all of their electoral votes behind the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate wins in each state. The plan doesn't require all 50 states to join, but a combination of states that represent a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. If the largest states join in the agreement, only 11 would be needed."

If this is a go, then all that has to be done is to figure a way to counteract the disproportional representation of less populous states in the Senate. If we're going to claim that the United States is for "one man, one vote" then that should be what happens in practice.

Comments

[spc476.livejournal.com]

I see no reason that Rhode Island and North Dakota deserve the exact same voice in the Senate that California and New York have.

That's why we have the House of Represenatives, which gives proportional representation of each state according to the population.

And more imporantly, would you be for this if we've had a Democratic president for the past two elections? Answer honestly please.

It's interesting to read the Founding Father's intent with the Electoral college. The expectation was that rarely would a clear winner come through with a majority of the Electoral votes, so that the stronger two or three candidates would then be elected by Congress (both houses). And if we go with states giving Electoral votes proportionate to the popular election in each state, expect to see more Presidental elections settled in Congress.

I also personally would love to see the Presidential candidate who looses become the Vice President (which was the case until Jefferson I believe) but then again, I prefer a gridlocked governemnt (which is too busy trying to do stuff than actually doing anything) over a non-gridlocked government.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

would you be for this if we've had a Democratic president for the past two elections? Answer honestly please.

Yes. I've objected to the electoral college since 1990, and have written several extensive papers as to why in that time frame.

if we go with states giving Electoral votes proportionate to the popular election in each state, expect to see more Presidental elections settled in Congress.

That is not what is being proposed here, btw. (Perhaps you did not mean to infer that it did, but I wanted to state this for the sake of clarity.)

[spc476.livejournal.com]

It was one of the proposals in the article to split the Electoral vote proprtionally according to the popular vote that I was commenting on. Sorry about the apparent left-fieldness of it.

In relation to the article itself, it scares me that it would only take 11 states to determine the President (and I live in one of those states). As much as you feel oppressed (that is, if you do) by states like Wyoming and Nebraska, think how the population of those states would feel having the values of say, New York, imposed on them.


Even if we removed the Electoral College entirely, we could still end up with the fiasco of 2000 where the actual difference between the two candidates is smaller than the margin of error (and just to let you know, I'm more of Jeffersonian in nature, very limited Federal Government with State governments (or evel lower) having more influence).