If I'm not mistaken, awarding electoral votes by congressional district would actually _increase_ the chances that the popular vote winner would lose the electoral vote. --That may in fact be correct, but I don't have a problem with that. The presidential election process was designed to avoid the popular vote. If you went by district instead, the Minor party candidates would have increased chances of getting electoral votes, something that would give minor parties actual clout and attention. Keep in mind, most congressional districts are roughly equal in population size. It means that if you live in an area that skews against your state, your vote still matters. The presidential winner would generally be the one with the broadest national support (2 votes for winning each state) but with support in the most districs across the state. The issue here is really threefold: 1) the increased possibility of throwing elections into the House (where DC loses its voice) causing more chaos, 2) the "florida" situation being enacted in congressional districts all across the country and 3) Gerrymandering. I don't know how this would have influenced previous elections - I don't know if anyone has run the data. It could be really messy, but it could also be a bit better - certainly, candidates would have to pay attention to almost every district and I sense it would cause turnout to increase. In fact, small states might actually get more attention, because that 1 district in Wyoming is worth 3. Ultimately, I think it would make calculating so hard that the candidates would have to go just about everywhere. I think it would be worth it to ensure that the winner of the popular vote actually won the election. Obviously we disagree here. I'll wait until the day when a candidate gets a majority (over 50%) and loses for that - we'll note that this has never happened. I think, it is crucial for the Presidential election system, whatever it may be, require the president to get a Majority of votes, and that it not require a runoff. To be honest, as I consider it, I'm not sure my system is ideal because it's too complicated to calculate and predict results. As messy as the EC is, I'm not certain that throwing it out is the right way. I think the president needs to be able to command a majority of something, and that the electorate needs to be able to understand what it is a majority of. Otherwise you have some legitimacy issues - which propped up again in '92 because Clinton only got 43%. (GHWB can thank Perot again for that) --Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST