I've been giving it some thoughts and I have discovered to my own surprise that I have come down on the side of being a proponent of it. There could be some tweaks to it, but I still think I like it.
Any review of the system would of course have to look at the 2000 Presidential election. There are a few ways to look at it. The first that jumps into most peoples mind is that the system is broken. More people voted for Gore so he should have won, but he didn't. That seems to be a pretty strong case for something being broken in a system where majority is supposed to rule.
But is majority actually supposed to rule? Is that the way the system really works, and if it is, is that the way we actually want the system to work? You could say that the electoral college did exactly what it should do in the 2000 election. It put the person with the broadest support into the whitehouse. Bush won more states and by far more counties than Gore (you can see a nice visual here, Bush=blue, Gore=red).
So because of the nature of the electoral college, the canidate with the broadest support won the election. That will only happen if those running are close enough in total votes that you can be assured they have enough support to govern effectively. I like this about the system. It is very similar to the compromise that created the house and senate. The house is representation by population, i.e. majority rules. The Senate is representation by region. Each state gets 2 votes. Since the number of electors for each state is choosen based on how many representatives you have in congress (senate + house), the electoral college rolls all that into one.
I would like to see more states do what Nebraska and Maine does. The majority vote in the state gets 2 electoral votes, just like the senate representation. The other votes are all based on the house voting districts. Whoever wins that district gets the electoral vote. This is exactly like the system for the federal representation. Though under this system Bush would have won in a landslide. But you don't have to have the all or nothing approach we have.
But my point and feelings are, that I don't want a majority rules elected president. I want one that has the broadest support because the country is so large and diverse, that I feel that is required.
But basically fix some of the all or nothing aspect. If you break it down into the districts at least your vote is more likely to make a difference. The issue here is do the populous areas now get overridden by the rural areas? And of course redistricting becomes and even bigger issue. But yeah, most states are not as polarized as they are made out to be. Of course this system would have made it a landslide victory for Bush and might exasperate the problems.
Edit: I said Kansas when I meant Nebraska. I also remembered the other state was Maine.
Any review of the system would of course have to look at the 2000 Presidential election. There are a few ways to look at it. The first that jumps into most peoples mind is that the system is broken. More people voted for Gore so he should have won, but he didn't. That seems to be a pretty strong case for something being broken in a system where majority is supposed to rule.
But is majority actually supposed to rule? Is that the way the system really works, and if it is, is that the way we actually want the system to work? You could say that the electoral college did exactly what it should do in the 2000 election. It put the person with the broadest support into the whitehouse. Bush won more states and by far more counties than Gore (you can see a nice visual here, Bush=blue, Gore=red).
So because of the nature of the electoral college, the canidate with the broadest support won the election. That will only happen if those running are close enough in total votes that you can be assured they have enough support to govern effectively. I like this about the system. It is very similar to the compromise that created the house and senate. The house is representation by population, i.e. majority rules. The Senate is representation by region. Each state gets 2 votes. Since the number of electors for each state is choosen based on how many representatives you have in congress (senate + house), the electoral college rolls all that into one.
I would like to see more states do what Nebraska and Maine does. The majority vote in the state gets 2 electoral votes, just like the senate representation. The other votes are all based on the house voting districts. Whoever wins that district gets the electoral vote. This is exactly like the system for the federal representation. Though under this system Bush would have won in a landslide. But you don't have to have the all or nothing approach we have.
But my point and feelings are, that I don't want a majority rules elected president. I want one that has the broadest support because the country is so large and diverse, that I feel that is required.
But basically fix some of the all or nothing aspect. If you break it down into the districts at least your vote is more likely to make a difference. The issue here is do the populous areas now get overridden by the rural areas? And of course redistricting becomes and even bigger issue. But yeah, most states are not as polarized as they are made out to be. Of course this system would have made it a landslide victory for Bush and might exasperate the problems.
Edit: I said Kansas when I meant Nebraska. I also remembered the other state was Maine.
---
It's all just zeroes and ones and duct tape in the end.
It's all just zeroes and ones and duct tape in the end.