krylex wrote:
I have to agree with the solution the second mentions. The best way would be to truly even out the college. If Rhode Island was as important as New York, Texas, or California, then we could really see what the states need. This, however, would still leave open a large possibility that the candidate could win the popular vote and not the presidency.
Are you kidding? It would
increase the chances of winning the popular but losing the election.
Here, think of it like this: You've got big state, and small state (in terms of population). Now, if the big state has a hundred voters, and the small state has ten, but both states have the same or nearly the same number of Electoral College votes (let's say, ten apiece), then the voters in the big state are disenfranchised. Their one hundred votes only influence ten EC votes, while the small state's ten voters influence a the same ten EC votes, effectively giving the each individual citizen in the large state a tenth, a
tenth, of the say in the actual election. Let's say ninety of the the big state's voters go Republican and the other ten Demecrat, while just six of the small state's voters go Democrat and four (a very large minority) vote republican. In total, you'd have ninety six Republicnan votes, sixteen Democrat votes, and ten EC votes for each party. The Republican candidate, who has more than four times the Dem.'s support, would be be at a stalemate for an office that he really should be able to take.
I say get rid of the EC. The only real beneficeries are the people who live in the country of the more populous states, and that is achieved at the expense of the majority.
_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven