castledoom.com

[Che]

I believe that the Electoral College has a vital role to play in U.S. politics, but, it does need to be reformed.

The "winner-take-all" format has marginalized many of the states. Little or no effort is made to campaign in these areas.

Two states have adopted a different model... one that deserves inspection and consideration.

The candidate which receives a state-wide majority is allocated two Electors... this represents each state's two Senatorial Districts.

The candidate in House Districts (each state has a minimum of one... most have more), which receives a majority, is allocated an Elector.

This reform would make every state a battleground... no longer will the majority of voters be written off by candidates.

This would also increase the chances of third-parties becoming part of the politcal process. A few Libs or Greens would alter how we elect a Chief Executive :D.

[Brf]

Che wrote: This reform would make every state a battleground...

It would make each region of each state a battleground. Illinois, for instance, usually votes Democrat because of the "Chicago Machine", which has half of our state's votes. If Illinois split its votes by Congressional region, the candidates could not ignore the "downstate" region, which is everywhere but Chicago. Traditionally, downstate Illinois votes almost exclusively Republican, but is overshadowed by Chicago.

[Che]

Correcto mundo... the fight for who gets the electoral vote will be decided more directly by the voters.

I'm really excited as to how such a reform... would allow third-parties to finally have some actual influence.

It's time to put this whole Tories and Whigs thingie behind us and move on.

The American people desperately need a third voice speaking for them.

[JuntaJoe]

I've always liked idea that individual Electors will pick the candidate that wins their region.

My only caveat is that it should not be federal law that makes the change.

A grass roots effort in all states to encourage state legistlators to adopt the law is the way.

I don't want a good idea to be imposed by federal mandate and undercut the principles of State's Rights.

[Eddy]

I'd like to see a change to proportional voting instead of the winner-takes-all system we have. It would not only make every state a battleground, but it would more accurately represent the will of the people. I know several Texans who loathe Bush, but their votes for Kerry basically didn't count. It isn't right that if you live in a state that is fairly conservative or liberal that your vote doesn't matter. Even in my state, which was a battleground, the people in flyover country (like me) were basically outvoted by the two cities we have.

I'd also love to see more third party involvement because as it stands now, they'll never win the presidency.

[JuntaJoe]

Texas had a number of counties go to Kerry.

Two of those counties had real population counts that would have translated into a couple of Electors designated for Kerry.

[Che]

Quote: My only caveat is that it should not be federal law that makes the change.

This reform would require a constitutional amendment... at the national level. If such a movement was to ever organize... I would support ratification of an amendment.

Quote: A grass roots effort in all states to encourage state legistlators to adopt the law is the way.


At the present time, this is the only course that voters have available. I would urge all Americans to contact their state legislative delegation and demand that reform become an issue.

Quote: Two of those counties had real population counts that would have translated into a couple of Electors designated for Kerry.

There would not have been any red and blue states on the map... election night. The map would have looked like it suffered from the Black Death... pustular and pock-marked :twisted:.