Quote:
|
Originally Posted by awpitt Not true. If candidate X wins Maryland by one vote, candidate X gets all ten of Maryland’s electoral votes. That’s winner take all. In a sense, you’re right about the national popular vote being winner take all; however, in that case, the winner take all would match the candidate who gets the most votes. That’s not true with the current system. |
I mostly agree with the Nebraska/Maine idea, as it would be a far more representative vote were that enacted nationwide. I really see little if any advantage to what Dyson was speaking of in the link you sent. Wasn't the original intent supposed to be that a popular person, but one of bad moral character or other fault, would not be elected because the states would put people in the electoral college that actually were more educated about the candidates? We do have a republican form of government, not democratic, as far as the executive branch goes - that's what the constitution ensures us. Maybe the best bet would be to make no requirement for how the electoral college votes are allocated - just take ten random people off of the streets (say, one per county till you've gotten 'em all), give 'em the information as to how the state voted, and go from there?