Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Al Gore Calls for End of Electoral College [View all]BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)There are two big problems with the EC structure:
1) The small states are structurally over-represented. A resident of Montana's vote is worth much more than a resident of California.
2) As a winner-take-all arrangement, it nullifies nearly half the voters in 80% of the states.
But the EC has some virtues. The most important virtue is that it forms a firewall against state-level election fraud. Under the EC system, if Ohio's results are corrupt, that doesn't do anything to invalidate or nullify, say, Arkansas' votes. Another thing it does is to lock in a state's voting power for a decade, which I think is a good thing. A simple popular vote system rewards somebody who is able to load up a gay-bashing referendum on Utah's ballot, sure to gin up more right-wing voters out in that state, and that gives Utah (in this hypothetical) an unfair amount of representation.
The system that I believe would make sense is to have a modified EC system where each state gets one elector for every 100,000 residents of the state as of the last census. And those electors would be divided PROPORTIONATELY based on that state's popular vote. That would still preserve the firewall protection, but it would solve the two main problems with the EC.
This would change our elections dramatically. All of a sudden, Texan, Georgia, New York, and California are all worth campaigning in. In fact, you MUST campaign there because you will need your proportion of the electors even if you don't win the state. California conservatives and Texas liberals would, for the first time in modern history, have a voice in the process, and that would be a good thing.