Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
I understand that but the population density differences are SO VAST across the states if it really only went by popular vote as a reflection of who should win middle America may as well not vote at all.  |
On that note, you might be interested in
this concept. Back in March, someone proposed merely amending the electoral college to more closely reflect the popular vote.
From where I stand, the premise behind founding the electoral college is simple: the average Joe cannot be 100 percent informed about the issues, the ramifications of them, or what impact a political decision may have. Fair enough. That's the purpose of having the electors to begin with, and as much as we think we're more informed, misinformation still fills the airwaves and the Internet. The logic behind having one is sound.
The problem is, the electoral college's process is currently flawed, due to pledges to vote for certain parties and candidates, and also due to gerrymandering. But you don't junk a car because it has a broken spring. You fix the parts that don't work. If we realign the electoral college so it's proportional to the popular vote, it could work better, and more accurately and consistently reflect the will of the people.
Try on their math for size. By these projections, Obama would still have won 2012, and Hillary would have slam-dunked this one.