With the Presidential election a little more than 1 year away, do you think it's time for a better method of electing the President?
As we all know, we (as citizens) do not elect the President. We vote for him, sure. But it is the Electoral College that actually matters. In all but 2 states, if a candidate gets a majority of the popular vote, they get all of that state's electoral votes. 1 vote for each Senator, and 1 vote for each of the state's Congressional districts.
What this means is that if 50% + 1 votes for candidate "A", he gets 100% of the Electoral votes. Candidate "B" gets squat.
Would dividing the Electoral votes by district be a fairer way to elect our highest Office? The majority winner would get the 2 Senatorial Electoral votes, and the Congressional Electoral votes would go to the candidate that won that particular district.
I'll use California as an example. There is currently an initiative there to do just that.
In 2000, Al Gore won the majority in California, and all 54 of California's Electoral votes. Under the proposed method, Gore would have 35 and Bush would have received 19. In 2004 (55 votes then) Kerry would get 33 and Bush 22.
Over all, if the whole country had used this method, Bush would have won 291-244 in 2000 (vs. 271-266) and 323-213 (vs. 286-252) in 2004.
While the Democrats are obviously steadfast against such a proposal, it would make a vote cast in Alpine Village, Fresno or Blythe carry the same weight as a vote cast in San Francisco, Sacramento or Los Angeles.
The Democrats cry disenfranchisement in every election, but the current Electoral system disenfranchises millions of voters across the Country. 4.4 million in California, alone.