So what happens if we get a virtual replay of the 2000 election and we end up waiting weeks or months to find out for sure whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is the new President? And what if it was Florida again? And what if Obama had 50.4% of the popular vote like Al Gore did but loses by a hanging chad anyway? The first time was comedy; the second time would be farce. Surely we'd take a better look at the nuts and bolts of our electoral system if we have two debacles in the space of 12 years. Would the potential reforms be worth the aggravation and the gloating of the rest of the world? I would have to hope that was so, but I don't think I believe it.
A change that might be interesting is to increase the granularity of the electoral vote. Instead of each state giving all of its electoral votes to whoever wins the state, tie each electoral vote to a congressional district. It might better represent the desire of the people.
There are more districts then electoral votes in most States, maybe Alaska and Wyoming are different, have to check and if you up the electoral votes to match the districts your going to end up with unfair representation which the Supreme Court has already deemed unconstitutional. One man One vote. This is why we can't have a popular vote.
Because the elections will be decided by the handful of States with large populations. Small populated States might as well not even bother voting. By the time half the country has voted the election will already be decided.
Not exactly. There is 1 electoral vote for each representative and each senator that a state has (plus another 3 for DC). Most states break up so that each district elects one representative and half the state elects each senator. They would just award their electoral votes according to the same boundaries. It might create an interesting dynamic where the preferences of a huge city like New York won't disenfranchise the people in the rest of the state. At the very least, it would make the red/blue map look even more red. . .
Maine and Nebraska already do this and it is not really obvious that it makes that much of a difference.
It is the Media that has a huge role in selecting the Candidates and the media that has the biggest role in the outcome of elections. Why, because they pick and chose the information they report and each "Station" is either backed by Liberals or Conservatives and owned by Liberals or Conservatives therefore making them biased. The only way a voter should determine who they will vote for is to do their own research to find the Candidate that best represents their views. Relying on the medias information, T.V. ads or other ads is nolonger reliable. Ignore the ads and rhetoric from both sides and make your decision on your on research.
Those two states are pretty monochromatic. I'd be really interested to see what it would do in a state like New York, Illinois or California. It would give the republicans a few of those states electoral votes instead of automatically giving all of them to the dems.
I'd love to have us ditch the Electoral College, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen. We could have 20 of these kinds of elections in a row, and we still probably wouldn't change it. There's a better chance that more states would simply convert to a split vote system for electoral votes rather than a winner takes all system.
The 2000 election would have been fine if the supreme court would have stayed out of it. There are provisions in our constitution to address the situation that occurred in 2000. And to add Chief Justice Roberts aint stupid enough to even hear another case like the nutjob Rehnquist did in 2000.
