LuccaCardoso1 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:
The electoral college wouldn't be quite so bad if not for 3 things that make it the absolute worst:
- Winner-takes-all in almost all states. If there were a proportional system or at least a highest averages system in place which would split up the vote of any state proportionally between all the persons running for office, it could actually be somewhat decent.
- The 3 electoral votes minimum per state, which gives states with a low population way too much power as it currently stands. Doubly so as the electoral votes are calculated proportionally and then added 2 votes on top for everyone instead of doing it in one go, which further reinforces smaller states.
- The fact that you only vote for electors, which are not obliged to follow the people's vote.
Also, as far as I know, the electoral college is enshrined in the US constitution and thus exceedingly hard to get rid off.
My proposition for a temporary solution would be to expand the amount of electoral votes from 538 to something like 599. Not only would an uneven number help avoid a potential nightmare of having both candidates with the same amount of electoral votes, the expansion would mostly go to the bigger states and thus lessen the influence the states with a small population have by a lot and thus strongly weakening the impact of point number 2.
|
If you remove those three aspects, it would not be an electoral college anymore, it would just be popular vote but with the final numbers divided by x.
|
It would be a regional breakdown.
It would also bring one of the few advantages of something like the electoral college: that you could have regional parties which would go under in a national vote, but get some seats if you have a fixed allocation of seats for each state.
