Reply #50: Not a good idea

[liberalpragmatist]

Such a system offers few advantages over the current system. If Gerrymandering were banned, it might make more sense, but even then, many of the problems inherent in the current system remain. It's still possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but not the EC vote. It's been shown that if done by district in 1960, Nixon would have won. And Bush would've won without any help from his brother in 2000.

Now, I agree that it's a better system than the current system if gerrymandering is banned. Even so, I favor a direct-popular vote election. Why? The president is a national figure. Hence, it makes sense to elect him or her by national vote. And for the argument that small states will be ignored, they're already ignored. Most states are ignored. What small states are competitive? Outside Delaware, none, although Montana has been in the past.

Instead, all focus is on a small number of swing states. They are where the candidates campaign, and where most of the media is concentrated. Even large states are effectively ignored. Who bothers campaigning in New York or California or Texas?

Additionally, you can't just carry large urban areas and win. Dukakis won the urban areas, and he still lost. To win, you have to carry a vast swath of voters. Most voters are not just in California and New York, they're spread throughout.

As Akhil Reed Amar, constitutional law professor at Yale Law School said before Congress, if the system is so good as it is, why don't we use an electoral college to elect governors of large states? And, would strategies change THAT much? Since the winner of the EC usually wins the Popular vote, strategies shouldn't change DRASTICALLY. People would still put the greatest effort into where the largest number of undecideds and largest numbers of closely-polarized voters are, as they do now. However, they could spend more time campaigning in areas that get the shaft currently. See:http://www.house.gov/judiciary/222315.htm

Alternately, if you want to preserve the need for small states to have overrepresentation to compensate them, then at least talk about making electoral votes automatic and getting rid of actual electors. Break down the vote in each state proportionately to the nearest 100th. It would preserve overrepresentation of the small states, while giving individual voters more power, esp. in states where one party dominates heavily.