|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 8
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
It is an interesting idea. I do believe this - a replacement for the electoral college system is needed.
That system was created at a time when there was no 24-hour news, no instant access to information, etc.
During that era, the concern was that in a popular election, a candidate would just have to focus on the population centers to get the election thus making the votes in the south not worth much.
In our information saturated present, I do not have to have Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain come to my district to try and sway my vote. People in my town of 50,000 have the same information about each candidate that a person in New York City, Chicago, or Houston has. In a popular vote system, my vote counts just as much as a vote in Boston. A vote in Butte, Montana counts just as much as a vote in Miami.
The electoral system in the modern era is fundamentally flawed. If a state has 20,000,000 voters, and Mr. X gets 10,000,001 votes and Mr. Y gets 9,999,999 votes, Mr. X receives 100% of the electoral votes.
As a compromise, (not my first preference) I could support a proportional electoral system. In that state of 20,000,000 lets say there are 50 electoral votes. With the count of the popular vote above, Mr. X would receive 26 electoral votes, and Mr. Y would receive 24.
...just a thought.
|
