Electoral college changes
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:53 amhttp://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... about.html
Little refresher on how it works.
I don't have much problem with most of the mechanics. It's a good way to ensure that all people are represented fairly, in principle. Or, at least, it affords the same amount of representation as our Congress.
My problem is that it doesn't quite live up to its billing. That's because the vast majority of states require for ALL of their electors to vote for the single candidate that garners the most votes in their respective state. So, if a state votes 43% for Obama, 37% for Romney, and 10% for various other candidates, then that ENTIRE state's electors vote for Obama. Contrast that with Congress, where each Rep or Senator would be free to vote as they pleased, which would (theoretically) result in 4-5 votes for Obama, 4 votes for Romney, and 1 vote for another candidate.
Because the election for President is clearly a matter of national priority, the Fed would be well within its rights to mandate certain voting laws for a Presidential election. The Fed should, therefore, enact a law saying that no state shall designate all of its electors, and shall instead apportion them according to the popular vote within that state.
This would result in every state being in play again, instead of just a few. While large states would receive more attention from candidates, the attention paid to each citizen would be roughly equal.
Our current system discourages voting in "safe" states by those who would vote for the candidate less likely to win. For instance, it's highly unlikely that Obama would win Louisiana. He spends almost no time running here. And, because everyone knows that all of Louisiana's electors will vote for Romney, why should an Obama supporter go vote? Conversely, if the electoral votes were apportioned, then there would be a good chance that Obama might get 2-3 of our 8 votes.
Little refresher on how it works.
I don't have much problem with most of the mechanics. It's a good way to ensure that all people are represented fairly, in principle. Or, at least, it affords the same amount of representation as our Congress.
My problem is that it doesn't quite live up to its billing. That's because the vast majority of states require for ALL of their electors to vote for the single candidate that garners the most votes in their respective state. So, if a state votes 43% for Obama, 37% for Romney, and 10% for various other candidates, then that ENTIRE state's electors vote for Obama. Contrast that with Congress, where each Rep or Senator would be free to vote as they pleased, which would (theoretically) result in 4-5 votes for Obama, 4 votes for Romney, and 1 vote for another candidate.
Because the election for President is clearly a matter of national priority, the Fed would be well within its rights to mandate certain voting laws for a Presidential election. The Fed should, therefore, enact a law saying that no state shall designate all of its electors, and shall instead apportion them according to the popular vote within that state.
This would result in every state being in play again, instead of just a few. While large states would receive more attention from candidates, the attention paid to each citizen would be roughly equal.
Our current system discourages voting in "safe" states by those who would vote for the candidate less likely to win. For instance, it's highly unlikely that Obama would win Louisiana. He spends almost no time running here. And, because everyone knows that all of Louisiana's electors will vote for Romney, why should an Obama supporter go vote? Conversely, if the electoral votes were apportioned, then there would be a good chance that Obama might get 2-3 of our 8 votes.
