The current system is that the winner of the popular vote in California takes all 55 Electors. The Los Angeles and San Francisco areas determine the Electors for the entire State.
This is not democratic and is unfair.
Call us: 916-230-2123

And finally, having grown up in Oklahoma, I can tell you that there are PLENTY of states who are completely ignored by the candidates now– the Electoral College certainly makes no difference.

First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Empire and Apocalypse by Gates of …

The nominations are in. Here is a rundown of this week’s Council posts … In Cutting the Biased Some Slack, Sundries Shack notes that all journalists appear to be on the same team. It just may not be the team of freeedom and democracy. Done with Mirr…

He also had running water and electricity. What’s your point?

How about keeping the EC but scrapping the winner-take-all distribution of electoral votes? Maine and Nebraska currently award each district’s one vote to the winner of that district, with the two senatorial votes going as a special reward to the statewide popular winner. It has the merit of awarding EVs with more proportionality. It’s more democratic than the current system because all voters are competing to put their guy over the top in districts of equal population density. The two senatorial votes DO give extra power to rural voters, but less than they now enjoy. A flaw to this idea is the vulnerability to gerrymandering, not to mention fraud. Currently in most states the fraudsters must swing the entire state popular vote to effect the electoral vote count but in Maine and Nebraska you can steal one district and swing that one vote. In 2000 it was certainly feasible that Nader could have carried a single district in one of those states, had he wished to concentrate on it — opening the possibility of a tie in the electoral college. But some kinds of fraud and gerrymandering would be mitigated by containing the damage to a single district. You would no longer be able to steal, say, the most populated county and then carry the state.

The other suggestion would be proportional awarding of electoral votes. Get 20% of the of statewide vote, and walk away with 20% of the EVs. Small states still get a boost based on the two senatorial votes.

I haven’t done any of this math so I have no idea who’d benefit but that’s irrelevant, right? The question behind all of this is, who should be picking the president: the states or the people?

And most Americans have been brought up to believe that this is a democracy so would probably say the people.

So you’ve replaced ignoring my direct argument to simply spouting talking points. Nice.

“You should be against the Senate. Why California has 20% of the population yet only 2% of the Senators? Even worse, California has the same power as New Hampshire to call a Constitutional convention?”

Here’s what I said about the distribution of powers in post #45:
“Naturally the constitution does contain mechanisms for protection of the minority, the method of Senate apportionment being an example, and it should. But election of the Chief Exectuitve was not supposed to be one of those, nor should it. Just as the Judiciary must be insulated from the whims of the majority the Executive must be directly beholden to it (with congress inbetween).”
Was that really so hard to read and understand?

Important point here- by “broader” you mean broader GEOGRAPHICALLY but not broader as in representing more people. In fact the system means they would be representing fewer by pandering to low density areas that carry a disproportionate amount of electoral votes. Pretty obviously that system is not optimal since it is people and not acres that vote.