Reply #13: This has been proposed before, but there are problems with it.

[Xithras]

The concept is sound, in theory, and it has the advantage that it could be implemented on a state level without the federal government or courts even having a say in the matter...the U.S. Constitution declares that the President will be selected by electoral votes, but leaves the METHOD of selecting the electors completely up to the states. While I strongly suspect that both major parties would oppose a move in this direction, the fact that the STATES decide would make these types of changes far easier to implement.

The big problem with the concept is gerrymandering. The idea of providing one vote per Representative sounds good, but MANY of those districts are horribly gerrymandered (by BOTH parties) to supress one population or enhance another. By making the Presidents office beholden to the majority opinions expressed by each of these districts, we would only be increasing the pressure to further gerrymander these districts. A great example of this is Stockton California...a city with an overwhelming Democratic majority. To neutralize that majority, the city was cut in half...with one half lumped into a heavily Republican district, and the other half lumped into a split Zell Miller style conservative Democratic district. The urban progressive vote in Stockton, a city of over 300,000 people, was completely eliminated. Until you can figure out a way to solve the gerrymandering problem, this idea isn't worth considering.

As for the people who want a straight majority election: Forget about it. A straight majority election would require an amendment to change the Constitution. That amendment would disempower the very same smaller states that would need to approve it in order to get the 2/3 vote, so it would NEVER pass. The legislatures of the smaller states would never pass an amendment that would effectively strip their residents of their voice in Presidential elections.