i really should test this theory...
Nov. 2nd, 2004 11:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyeara way to eliminate the electoral college and yet still keep a degree to which the states as well as the people decide the presidency:
1) each congressional district gets 1 vote, decided upon by majority-popular vote of its constituents
2) each state gets 2 votes, decided upon by majority-popular vote of its constituents.
thus, taking whole states can still make a difference, but can't overwhelm a majority win of the people. or vice-versa -- the dense cities might take the state votes, but the rural congressional districts could out-count them.
no, its probably not perfect, but it would be relatively easy to test if there was a simple way to get at all the data. it would certainly require testing it against the last 5 or 6 elections just to see how it compares against the electoral-college-based results.
--
one of the problems with the current system is that it was devised at a time when people from one state were ALWAYS from that one state, and knew they always would be.
that's not the case today. a large portion of the population moves regularly, and not just because of the military. People who want their vote to matter are sometimes in a state where it simply doesn't, like California or Mass (overwhelmingly Democrat, but for different reasons), or Kansas (now rediculously Republican), and thus grow increasingly disenfranchised.
To make matters worse they're occasionally told "go move to a state where the rest are like you", which 1) is impractical as there may not be a job for them there (hell, there probably already isn't a job for them where they're at, but that's a different issue entirely), and 2) just further divides the nation into extreme states and extreme politics.
1) each congressional district gets 1 vote, decided upon by majority-popular vote of its constituents
2) each state gets 2 votes, decided upon by majority-popular vote of its constituents.
thus, taking whole states can still make a difference, but can't overwhelm a majority win of the people. or vice-versa -- the dense cities might take the state votes, but the rural congressional districts could out-count them.
no, its probably not perfect, but it would be relatively easy to test if there was a simple way to get at all the data. it would certainly require testing it against the last 5 or 6 elections just to see how it compares against the electoral-college-based results.
--
one of the problems with the current system is that it was devised at a time when people from one state were ALWAYS from that one state, and knew they always would be.
that's not the case today. a large portion of the population moves regularly, and not just because of the military. People who want their vote to matter are sometimes in a state where it simply doesn't, like California or Mass (overwhelmingly Democrat, but for different reasons), or Kansas (now rediculously Republican), and thus grow increasingly disenfranchised.
To make matters worse they're occasionally told "go move to a state where the rest are like you", which 1) is impractical as there may not be a job for them there (hell, there probably already isn't a job for them where they're at, but that's a different issue entirely), and 2) just further divides the nation into extreme states and extreme politics.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: As for me...
Date: 2004-11-02 09:05 am (UTC)no, its better that the death of the president doesn't work to anyone's particular benefit.