Should the US switch to popular vote vs. electoral college?

[Zakuvia]

I applaud the thought (woo meritocracy!) but implementing it would be a trainwreck. Having not only one, but two provisos to having the right to vote, as well as trying to implement some system of recording that service seems excessive. Additionally there's all manner of ethical conundrums about what is taught in those philosophy classes, who gets to decide if one has passed, how long one has to serve in a service and what actions count towards it. The goal is good, but the means are untenable.

Well the Philosophy/Government/Principles class (comparable but not exact same to the "History and Moral Philosophy" taught in SST) would simply be a part of high school curriculum and wouldn't be a GPA/grades based class but simple pass/fail that only the most idiotic of idiots could fail. The curriculum would be fixed as far as describing the government and why it is set up as it is on practical, principle, and philosophical levels, no revisionism being changed later on. The service term would be based on what you were in (military would be probably a year/two years with a reserve period lasting 10-20 years unless you went career, and that would be the baseline based on the difficulty and danger of the service chosen.) We could then do away with the draft (except in a situation of absolute necessity, I mean like not just WWIII but WWIII being fought and the entire military, reserve and active, being deployed elsewhere and an enemy shows up on our shores). The EC would be moot since the entire electorate would be the "elite class." Of course we'd have to restructure the military so that it not only trains its members but actually sets up various hardships in order to weed out those who are unfit for service (fitness being physically, mentally, and, of course, with a strong enough will to lay down one's life for his country, whether he's an infantryman or a desk jockey.), as well as introduce a USMC-esque "every man a rifleman" credo, and possibly devolve some jobs to civilian contractors (not that out of place though, my great-grandfather, though having administrative duties for the unit he was under, was an infantryman first and foremost. Of course at higher levels (company up) staff positions not be required to be combat personnel, but still.)

Most of all however, the vote wouldn't be something given freely:

"that which is free holds little value, that which costs much to earn is valued highly"


And service could be anything that requires personal sacrifice, as the book Starship Troopers says (despite my system not being a full copy of SST),

"if you came in here in a wheelchair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find you something silly to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe."

Now I have to be a bit harsher. That system reeks of military worship and smacks dangerously of fascism, which is hilarious considering we were trying to find a fairer, more reasoned alternative to democracy. Honestly, it reminds me of nothing more than Juche. And I'm fairly sure the average North Korean would take democracies most flawed election to...well, being in North Korea.

[Free Missouri]

Well the Philosophy/Government/Principles class (comparable but not exact same to the "History and Moral Philosophy" taught in SST) would simply be a part of high school curriculum and wouldn't be a GPA/grades based class but simple pass/fail that only the most idiotic of idiots could fail. The curriculum would be fixed as far as describing the government and why it is set up as it is on practical, principle, and philosophical levels, no revisionism being changed later on. The service term would be based on what you were in (military would be probably a year/two years with a reserve period lasting 10-20 years unless you went career, and that would be the baseline based on the difficulty and danger of the service chosen.) We could then do away with the draft (except in a situation of absolute necessity, I mean like not just WWIII but WWIII being fought and the entire military, reserve and active, being deployed elsewhere and an enemy shows up on our shores). The EC would be moot since the entire electorate would be the "elite class." Of course we'd have to restructure the military so that it not only trains its members but actually sets up various hardships in order to weed out those who are unfit for service (fitness being physically, mentally, and, of course, with a strong enough will to lay down one's life for his country, whether he's an infantryman or a desk jockey.), as well as introduce a USMC-esque "every man a rifleman" credo, and possibly devolve some jobs to civilian contractors (not that out of place though, my great-grandfather, though having administrative duties for the unit he was under, was an infantryman first and foremost. Of course at higher levels (company up) staff positions not be required to be combat personnel, but still.)

Most of all however, the vote wouldn't be something given freely:

"that which is free holds little value, that which costs much to earn is valued highly"


And service could be anything that requires personal sacrifice, as the book Starship Troopers says (despite my system not being a full copy of SST),

"if you came in here in a wheelchair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find you something silly to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe."

Now I have to be a bit harsher. That system reeks of military worship and smacks dangerously of fascism, which is hilarious considering we were trying to find a fairer, more reasoned alternative to democracy. Honestly, it reminds me of nothing more than Juche. And I'm fairly sure the average North Korean would take democracies most flawed election to...well, being in North Korea.

What other meritocracy is there that would work?

Intelligence? No, for France's democracy turned oligarchy turned dictatorship was field by scientists and social scientists and a "cult of reason"

Class? Nope,


Authority, of which the franchise is an exercise of, can only be justified by responsibility. Perhaps a cult of personal responsibility, of which willingness to risk life and limb in the military, as a firefighter, serving some type of service not just to benefit others but that makes one earn it through grueling and hard work. Things like FEMA Corps or a more disciplined version thereof. Things like the Peace Corps. Services where people willingly put life and limb on the line in grueling service for others. Only then should one be granted franchise.

[Zakuvia]

Now I have to be a bit harsher. That system reeks of military worship and smacks dangerously of fascism, which is hilarious considering we were trying to find a fairer, more reasoned alternative to democracy. Honestly, it reminds me of nothing more than Juche. And I'm fairly sure the average North Korean would take democracies most flawed election to...well, being in North Korea.

What other meritocracy is there that would work?

Intelligence? No, for France's democracy turned oligarchy turned dictatorship was field by scientists and social scientists and a "cult of reason"

Class? Nope,


Authority, of which the franchise is an exercise of, can only be justified by responsibility. Perhaps a cult of personal responsibility, of which willingness to risk life and limb in the military, as a firefighter, serving some type of service not just to benefit others but that makes one earn it through grueling and hard work. Things like FEMA Corps or a more disciplined version thereof. Things like the Peace Corps. Services where people willingly put life and limb on the line in grueling service for others. Only then should one be granted franchise.

I take it then that you disagree with the concept of franchise as a right of birth?

[Free Missouri]

What other meritocracy is there that would work?

Intelligence? No, for France's democracy turned oligarchy turned dictatorship was field by scientists and social scientists and a "cult of reason"

Class? Nope,


Authority, of which the franchise is an exercise of, can only be justified by responsibility. Perhaps a cult of personal responsibility, of which willingness to risk life and limb in the military, as a firefighter, serving some type of service not just to benefit others but that makes one earn it through grueling and hard work. Things like FEMA Corps or a more disciplined version thereof. Things like the Peace Corps. Services where people willingly put life and limb on the line in grueling service for others. Only then should one be granted franchise.

I take it then that you disagree with the concept of franchise as a right of birth?

Yes, something given freely has no value. Something as important as the franchise, as the power to choose the path of the country, should be treated as something with great value. Unfortunately, this is not currently the case with most people, as evidenced by the choices we had, and many of the reasons that many had for voting for one or the other, and a memetic dead gorilla, a baseball manager, an NFL quarterback, Colbert, "I just can't," multiple forms of abstain, sweet giant meteor'o death, both bushes, the ghosts of Reagan, JFK, and NIXON, "bey" (I suppose that is Beyoncé), Batman, Rocky, pope francis, Darth V himself, multiple country music stars, and JJ Watt all got a vote. And that's just in Texas.

[Zakuvia]

I take it then that you disagree with the concept of franchise as a right of birth?

Yes, something given freely has no value. Something as important as the franchise, as the power to choose the path of the country, should be treated as something with great value. Unfortunately, this is not currently the case with most people, as evidenced by the choices we had, and many of the reasons that many had for voting for one or the other, and a memetic dead gorilla, a baseball manager, an NFL quarterback, Colbert, "I just can't," multiple forms of abstain, sweet giant meteor'o death, both bushes, the ghosts of Reagan, JFK, and NIXON, "bey" (I suppose that is Beyoncé), Batman, Rocky, pope francis, Darth V himself, multiple country music stars, and JJ Watt all got a vote. And that's just in Texas.

As much as I'd wish they'd put their vote to one of the actual candidates, I think you're mistaking a statement of public voter abstention with devaluation of their right to vote. Yes, it's not getting anyone elected to vote for Darth Vader, but it is putting out a statement, which I think speaks more strongly than someone who simply checked the line vote on their ballot box and never gave it a second look. Honestly, I think the people who voted for Batman and Harambe are likely the kind of people more 'deserving' of the vote than the people who voted for either Trump or Hillary.

[Free Missouri]

Yes, something given freely has no value. Something as important as the franchise, as the power to choose the path of the country, should be treated as something with great value. Unfortunately, this is not currently the case with most people, as evidenced by the choices we had, and many of the reasons that many had for voting for one or the other, and a memetic dead gorilla, a baseball manager, an NFL quarterback, Colbert, "I just can't," multiple forms of abstain, sweet giant meteor'o death, both bushes, the ghosts of Reagan, JFK, and NIXON, "bey" (I suppose that is Beyoncé), Batman, Rocky, pope francis, Darth V himself, multiple country music stars, and JJ Watt all got a vote. And that's just in Texas.

As much as I'd wish they'd put their vote to one of the actual candidates, I think you're mistaking a statement of public voter abstention with devaluation of their right to vote. Yes, it's not getting anyone elected to vote for Darth Vader, but it is putting out a statement, which I think speaks more strongly than someone who simply checked the line vote on their ballot box and never gave it a second look. Honestly, I think the people who voted for Batman and Harambe are likely the kind of people more 'deserving' of the vote than the people who voted for either Trump or Hillary.

When the could've spent their vote helping the libertarian party to get to 5%, then I think it's a waste of a protest vote when they could've taken up the responsibility for change.

[Calimera II]

This is not what this thread is about. Its about switching to popular vote only. The US should absolutely do it. Its not fair or democratic when someone gets almost three million more votes than the other and is not elected. If that means only a few places decide the election i really don't care. if some farmer in Oklahoma doesn't like i could care less.

Every other country in the world that directly elects its President uses popular vote only. Brazil is a very urbanized country and no one complains about large cities along the coast deciding the election. No one complains about Lima deciding elections in Peru or Buenos Aires and other large cities deciding elections in Argentina. People there are adults and accept that cities have more people and don't seek to marginalize their votes with outdated systems.

Well unlike you, I am one of those farmers in the midwestern states so I actually do fucking care. In Brazil and Argentina, their system is set up differently. They are centralized republics, not federal ones. And they have governments that, for the most part (disregarding the dictators we propped up at times), don't want to subvert their constitution constantly. They don't have entire parties which show absolute disdain for their countries' founding values. They don't have large groups of people who mourn and speak favorably of murderous dictators and systems of government that are downright horrible. and most of all, they are neither as large, nor are they as sparse and spread out, as the United States.

And again, I promise you I'll fight to the death to stop a plurality-based popular vote.

Brazil and Argentina are federal republics.

[Itoshiki]

As much as I'd wish they'd put their vote to one of the actual candidates, I think you're mistaking a statement of public voter abstention with devaluation of their right to vote. Yes, it's not getting anyone elected to vote for Darth Vader, but it is putting out a statement, which I think speaks more strongly than someone who simply checked the line vote on their ballot box and never gave it a second look. Honestly, I think the people who voted for Batman and Harambe are likely the kind of people more 'deserving' of the vote than the people who voted for either Trump or Hillary.

When the could've spent their vote helping the libertarian party to get to 5%, then I think it's a waste of a protest vote when they could've taken up the responsibility for change.

To be fair, this is literally the "What's Aleppo?" candidate we're talking about.
Really, the only good choice in the elections are Clinton and McMullin...but they're obviously the evil establishment shill.

[Post War America]

But wouldn't Democracy stand as a speedbump to that erosion of freedom? If you reduce the distance to power to <50% of the population by removing democracy, doesn't that make it easier to implement illiberal plots?

Actually, I don't want to put words in your mouth. What would you promote, at least conceptually, as an alternative to democracy, irrespective of the type?

a mix between meritocracy and limited-franchise democracy based on precepts like in Starship Troopers where one must both complete a philosophy course explaining the system and why it is designed as a limited-franchise democracy as well as serve a term in some type of federal service (not bureaucratic, an actual service, be it military, humanitarian, disaster response, certain diplomatic roles, etc. etc. etc. something that requires you actually earn your franchise and that actually benefits others) before being enfranchised or holding office.

So let me get this straight. You hate any form of government bureaucracy that exists to protect people from unsafe food, fake medicine, and predatory financial practices, but you want to create a massive bureaucracy that exists for the sole purposes of ensuring only people that you like get the vote?

[HMS Vanguard]

No, since the only reason to do so would be to give Hillary Clinton a do-over, but 2020 likely won't be Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump, and even if it is the electorate will be different, so it may well be that in 2020 the electoral college could be used to skew the election in favour of the Democrats rather than the Republicans.

If the electoral college had been used to skew the election in favour of the Democrats rather than the Republicans, we would have heard no complaints about it, and lots of boilerplate about how the founders intended precisely that outcome. As indeed my Facebook was full of such nonsense while there was even a 1% chance that faithless electors would veto Trump.

Stop thinking in the past and trying to fight the last war.

[HMS Vanguard]

a mix between meritocracy and limited-franchise democracy based on precepts like in Starship Troopers where one must both complete a philosophy course explaining the system and why it is designed as a limited-franchise democracy as well as serve a term in some type of federal service (not bureaucratic, an actual service, be it military, humanitarian, disaster response, certain diplomatic roles, etc. etc. etc. something that requires you actually earn your franchise and that actually benefits others) before being enfranchised or holding office.

So let me get this straight. You hate any form of government bureaucracy that exists to protect people from unsafe food, fake medicine, and predatory financial practices, but you want to create a massive bureaucracy that exists for the sole purposes of ensuring only people that you like get the vote?

Rubbish, it doesn't need to be massive. When Britain had a property franchise - less than 100 years ago - the British state consumed only about 5% of GDP.

[Spirit of Hope]

No, since the only reason to do so would be to give Hillary Clinton a do-over, but 2020 likely won't be Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump, and even if it is the electorate will be different, so it may well be that in 2020 the electoral college could be used to skew the election in favour of the Democrats rather than the Republicans.

If the electoral college had been used to skew the election in favour of the Democrats rather than the Republicans, we would have heard no complaints about it, and lots of boilerplate about how the founders intended precisely that outcome. As indeed my Facebook was full of such nonsense while there was even a 1% chance that faithless electors would veto Trump.

Stop thinking in the past and trying to fight the last war.

How about trying to improve the representation of the United States. This isn't about Hilary Clinton, I've been complaining about the EC before her, and didn't even vote for her.

The Electoral College serves no purpose now, and has never worked as intended. So why should we keep it? Other than it serves your political interests to disenfranchise those you d on't agree with?

[HMS Vanguard]

No, since the only reason to do so would be to give Hillary Clinton a do-over, but 2020 likely won't be Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump, and even if it is the electorate will be different, so it may well be that in 2020 the electoral college could be used to skew the election in favour of the Democrats rather than the Republicans.

If the electoral college had been used to skew the election in favour of the Democrats rather than the Republicans, we would have heard no complaints about it, and lots of boilerplate about how the founders intended precisely that outcome. As indeed my Facebook was full of such nonsense while there was even a 1% chance that faithless electors would veto Trump.

Stop thinking in the past and trying to fight the last war.

How about trying to improve the representation of the United States. This isn't about Hilary Clinton, I've been complaining about the EC before her, and didn't even vote for her.

The Electoral College serves no purpose now, and has never worked as intended. So why should we keep it? Other than it serves your political interests to disenfranchise those you d on't agree with?

It's not a question of "improving", it's a question of what counts as good representation.

Popular vote always reflects the plurality view, but the plurality can be highly geographically and socially concentrated; the electoral college system ensures that votes must be reasonably spread throughout the country, and favours a strong minority candidate like Trump over a weak plurality candidate like Clinton.

I am a British citizen and in Britain we elect our parliament and hence government by an "electoral college"-like system. This system was recently endorsed by a large majority in a national referendum. It is not an expedient solution to poor communications, it is a conscious choice to have governments that reflect a wide range of people rather than just the largest number.

[Vassenor]

How about trying to improve the representation of the United States. This isn't about Hilary Clinton, I've been complaining about the EC before her, and didn't even vote for her.

The Electoral College serves no purpose now, and has never worked as intended. So why should we keep it? Other than it serves your political interests to disenfranchise those you d on't agree with?

It's not a question of "improving", it's a question of what counts as good representation.

Popular vote always reflects the plurality view, but the plurality can be highly geographically and socially concentrated; the electoral college system ensures that votes must be reasonably spread throughout the country, and favours a strong minority candidate like Trump over a weak plurality candidate like Clinton.

I am a British citizen and in Britain we elect our parliament and hence government by an "electoral college"-like system. This system was recently endorsed by a large majority in a national referendum. It is not an expedient solution to poor communications, it is a conscious choice to have governments that reflect a wide range of people rather than just the largest number.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... ndum,_2011

Less than half of the electorate is not "large majority".

[Spirit of Hope]

How about trying to improve the representation of the United States. This isn't about Hilary Clinton, I've been complaining about the EC before her, and didn't even vote for her.

The Electoral College serves no purpose now, and has never worked as intended. So why should we keep it? Other than it serves your political interests to disenfranchise those you d on't agree with?

It's not a question of "improving", it's a question of what counts as good representation.

Popular vote always reflects the plurality view, but the plurality can be highly geographically and socially concentrated; the electoral college system ensures that votes must be reasonably spread throughout the country, and favours a strong minority candidate like Trump over a weak plurality candidate like Clinton.

I am a British citizen and in Britain we elect our parliament and hence government by an "electoral college"-like system. This system was recently endorsed by a large majority in a national referendum. It is not an expedient solution to poor communications, it is a conscious choice to have governments that reflect a wide range of people rather than just the largest number.

Yes, the electoral college is good for disenfranchising the urban population. Which isn't why the electoral college was implemented. I don't see why a candidate who gets less votes should win, unless you are endorsing the idea of minority rule. Which has always worked so well.

Th British parliamentary system isn't like the electoral college. Pretending it is misses so many of the issues with the both the British Parliamentary system and with the electoral college.

[HMS Vanguard]

It's not a question of "improving", it's a question of what counts as good representation.

Popular vote always reflects the plurality view, but the plurality can be highly geographically and socially concentrated; the electoral college system ensures that votes must be reasonably spread throughout the country, and favours a strong minority candidate like Trump over a weak plurality candidate like Clinton.

I am a British citizen and in Britain we elect our parliament and hence government by an "electoral college"-like system. This system was recently endorsed by a large majority in a national referendum. It is not an expedient solution to poor communications, it is a conscious choice to have governments that reflect a wide range of people rather than just the largest number.

Yes, the electoral college is good for disenfranchising the urban population. Which isn't why the electoral college was implemented. I don't see why a candidate who gets less votes should win, unless you are endorsing the idea of minority rule. Which has always worked so well.

Th British parliamentary system isn't like the electoral college. Pretending it is misses so many of the issues with the both the British Parliamentary system and with the electoral college.

I am not trying to persuade you, and as a non-American don't really care.

What I am suggesting is that you are mad at the EC because it "disenfranchised" (not the right word but I don't care to argue about it) Clinton voters but would have been fine with it if it had disenfranchised Trump voters. What I am saying is that the EC may well favour the Democrats in the future, so be careful what you do now. Your emotional reaction to the Trump victory won't undo it; abolishing the EC in 2 years' time won't un-president Trump.

[Lavochkin]

It's not a question of "improving", it's a question of what counts as good representation.

Popular vote always reflects the plurality view, but the plurality can be highly geographically and socially concentrated; the electoral college system ensures that votes must be reasonably spread throughout the country, and favours a strong minority candidate like Trump over a weak plurality candidate like Clinton.

I am a British citizen and in Britain we elect our parliament and hence government by an "electoral college"-like system. This system was recently endorsed by a large majority in a national referendum. It is not an expedient solution to poor communications, it is a conscious choice to have governments that reflect a wide range of people rather than just the largest number.

Yes, the electoral college is good for disenfranchising the urban population. Which isn't why the electoral college was implemented. I don't see why a candidate who gets less votes should win, unless you are endorsing the idea of minority rule. Which has always worked so well.

Th British parliamentary system isn't like the electoral college. Pretending it is misses so many of the issues with the both the British Parliamentary system and with the electoral college.

You're comparing an indirect electoral system with another. I'm American so I haven't experienced a parliamentary system at work, but I do believe you don't vote for your leader, instead you vote for the party, which I believe can change or choose their leader at will. That doesn't seem to be much of an improvement.

[HMS Vanguard]

Yes, the electoral college is good for disenfranchising the urban population. Which isn't why the electoral college was implemented. I don't see why a candidate who gets less votes should win, unless you are endorsing the idea of minority rule. Which has always worked so well.

Th British parliamentary system isn't like the electoral college. Pretending it is misses so many of the issues with the both the British Parliamentary system and with the electoral college.

You're comparing an indirect electoral system with another. I'm American so I haven't experienced a parliamentary system at work, but I do believe you don't vote for your leader, instead you vote for the party, which I believe can change or choose their leader at will. That doesn't seem to be much of an improvement.

It's pretty much an exact analogue of the EC in the UK system. You vote for a local member of parliament. The local member of parliament then endorses a national government. Majority governments elected with a minority of the votes are standard (of course there are also more than two candidates as standard, usually at least four or five with name recognition on any ballot).

[Vassenor]

Yes, the electoral college is good for disenfranchising the urban population. Which isn't why the electoral college was implemented. I don't see why a candidate who gets less votes should win, unless you are endorsing the idea of minority rule. Which has always worked so well.

Th British parliamentary system isn't like the electoral college. Pretending it is misses so many of the issues with the both the British Parliamentary system and with the electoral college.

You're comparing an indirect electoral system with another. I'm American so I haven't experienced a parliamentary system at work, but I do believe you don't vote for your leader, instead you vote for the party, which I believe can change or choose their leader at will. That doesn't seem to be much of an improvement.

Well it's alike in that it's a problematic system being propped up by those it keeps in power.

[San Lumen]

It's not a question of "improving", it's a question of what counts as good representation.

Popular vote always reflects the plurality view, but the plurality can be highly geographically and socially concentrated; the electoral college system ensures that votes must be reasonably spread throughout the country, and favours a strong minority candidate like Trump over a weak plurality candidate like Clinton.

I am a British citizen and in Britain we elect our parliament and hence government by an "electoral college"-like system. This system was recently endorsed by a large majority in a national referendum. It is not an expedient solution to poor communications, it is a conscious choice to have governments that reflect a wide range of people rather than just the largest number.

Yes, the electoral college is good for disenfranchising the urban population. Which isn't why the electoral college was implemented. I don't see why a candidate who gets less votes should win, unless you are endorsing the idea of minority rule. Which has always worked so well.

Th British parliamentary system isn't like the electoral college. Pretending it is misses so many of the issues with the both the British Parliamentary system and with the electoral college.

Yeah us city folk should have our votes count less. the famers needs are more important. We can't understand them and their needs. I should have to not be able to marry or go out with a non white person because they grow my food

[Greed and Death]

I have a compromise. How about we still have electoral votes, but we assign them by Congressional district with the winner of the state receiving the two senate votes.

[Greed and Death]

It's not a question of "improving", it's a question of what counts as good representation.

Popular vote always reflects the plurality view, but the plurality can be highly geographically and socially concentrated; the electoral college system ensures that votes must be reasonably spread throughout the country, and favours a strong minority candidate like Trump over a weak plurality candidate like Clinton.

I am a British citizen and in Britain we elect our parliament and hence government by an "electoral college"-like system. This system was recently endorsed by a large majority in a national referendum. It is not an expedient solution to poor communications, it is a conscious choice to have governments that reflect a wide range of people rather than just the largest number.

Yes, the electoral college is good for disenfranchising the urban population. Which isn't why the electoral college was implemented. I don't see why a candidate who gets less votes should win, unless you are endorsing the idea of minority rule. Which has always worked so well.

Th British parliamentary system isn't like the electoral college. Pretending it is misses so many of the issues with the both the British Parliamentary system and with the electoral college.

There is a problem with doing a pure popular vote.
It is often more difficult for voters in rural or suburban areas to have higher turnout. If you are an Urban voter you likely live 5 minutes away from your polling place and likely live 15 to 30 minutes away from where you work by mass transit. A rural voter might live an hour away by country road from their polling place.

Suburb voters will typically live within 15 minutes of their polling place but they may have an hour long commute into and out of the city to vote. The electoral college balances the life style effect on voter turn out to some degree.

Though I think as a compromise we should do electoral votes by congressional district with the winner of a state getting the two senate votes.

[Vassenor]

I have a compromise. How about we still have electoral votes, but we assign them by Congressional district with the winner of the state receiving the two senate votes.

Problem is that the congressional districts got gerrymandered to hell and back. So without some serious bipartisan boundary jiggery-pokery that's not a whole lot better.

[Greed and Death]

I have a compromise. How about we still have electoral votes, but we assign them by Congressional district with the winner of the state receiving the two senate votes.

Problem is that the congressional districts got gerrymandered to hell and back. So without some serious bipartisan boundary jiggery-pokery that's not a whole lot better.

Looking at how it would have given McCain the win in 2008 I think it is fine as is.

[Vassenor]

Problem is that the congressional districts got gerrymandered to hell and back. So without some serious bipartisan boundary jiggery-pokery that's not a whole lot better.

Looking at how it would have given McCain the win in 2008 I think it is fine as is.

...So we're back to "this approach is good because it allows the people I support to win".