(01-28-2020 11:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:58 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think awarding one elector to the top vote getter in each Congressional District plus two based on statewide results could be a compromise. You still would have candidates screaming about not getting more votes because they won District 1 by 80,000 votes and lost in District two by 7,000.

I think this is a great idea OOwl. Nebraska and Maine actually allocate their electoral votes this way already. In 2008, Nebraska's 2nd district sent a single electoral vote to Obama.

Allocating electoral votes by congressional district would be insane and encourage gerrymandering even more.

My proposal if we want to avoid a true popular vote (which would require a constitutional amendment) would be to have electors allocated by proportion of popular vote each candidate receives in a state with the 2 bonus electors (representing the senators) going to the candidate who received a plurality. Not sure if it would help or hurt either party, but it would at least force presidential candidates to campaign in every state and speak to issues that matter to the voters in every state. The current system encourages the candidates to only go to 10 or fewer states.

I think "insane" is way too strong of a word, but it true that any system will have its pluses and minuses, and increased gerrymandering is one of the minuses of this plan. Of course, we are talking about currently gerrymandered districts.

I just want to remind you that gerrymandering is something done by both parties. When Democrats get control, they gerrymander in their favor. When Republicans gain control, they gerrymander in their favor. This is not 'good" party vs. "bad" party. The solution, of course, is to win the statehouse elections. Elections have consequences, I have heard.