Here's your task: You have to reform the Electoral College,

[elperromagico]

but you can't get rid of it.

What do you do to make it work better? What reforms do you put in place?

[bluestateguy]

1. District System

One electoral vote per congressional district. +2 for winning the popualr vote in a state. This would give more Americans the chance to participate in the campaign. There are competitive districts in Texas and New York, for example.

[DieboldMustDie]

6. With Republicans controlling both houses of Congress...

this would pretty much guarantee a Republican presidential victory. It's a good idea only if gerrymandering can be done away with.

[maggrwaggr]

2. how about changing the stupid primary system?

so it doesn't start in freaking Iowa of all places?

As a Californian, I am deeply annoyed by this. I can't even vote for the candidate I want, because he's already dropped out of the race thanks to the Iowa caucuses

That's fucked up!

[elperromagico]

4. Look, I don't get to vote until 18 May.

So I don't want to hear any bellyaching from Super Tuesday voters. ;)

[Kitsune]

3. Make it proportional, not winner-takes-all.

So, if I win 47% of the vote in a state, I take 47% of the electors with me.

Fractions can be resolved by cutting an elector in half or something. :evilgrin: Or a coin toss, if you're squeamish.

A few states (Maine, Nebraska, and one other, I think...) have something kind of like this, IIRC.

[baldguy]

5. Easy

Expand if from 538 to 200,000,000.

[JNelson6563]

7. I would make it more representative like Congress

You get as many electoral votes as your population warrants.

Julie

[bonemachine]

8. I'd make it irrelevant

By implementing IRV and/or proportional representation.

[locustfist76]

9. how about this

Create Electoral State College and have them play Electoral College in a winner takes all football game.

[TacticalPeek]

10. LOL!

(But what if they don't make it through the play-offs?)

[PVnRT]

11. First

a Constitutional amendment outlawing the practice of gerrymandering. Use a mathematical model as well as population density number sto create districts reflective of population. Yes, it can be done, everyone in college calculus has done problems similar.

Second, enact one electoral vote per Congressional district, and give the two extra votes (for the senators) for whoever gets the most districts. If it's a tie, one vote goes to each candidate.

That is how I would reform it. If gerrymandering is not outlawed, then it should be a proportional-representation deal, kind of like how they do the primaries.

[TacticalPeek]

12. An important change that's needed, and, I think, doable.

Any of these changes that effect the current distribution of power are extremely unlikely ever to come to fruition.

However, the effect of the following change would be so general and unbiasing in nature, and is so plainly in our country's tradition that it would meet wide acceptance and support.


Amend the Constitution to require direct popular election of the Electors.

What? You think you already have that power?

Think again. The Constitution assigns that card to the hand that your state legislature holds. Just as it originally did the election of Senators, until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913.

The state legislatures in their statutes have traditionally 'allowed' the people to vote for the Electors, but nothing requires that they so do.

An excellent case in point is the theft of the Florida election in 2000. The Florida leg was meeting and letting everyone know that they would crown Bush Electors if necessary. And if the counting had been halted with GORE ahead by 500 votes, do not think for one minute that they would not have voided that result and sent their own Electors.

This is archaic, undemocratic and UNACCEPTABLE!

[SinkingInTheRain]

13. No thanks

Our founding fathers got it right. No small state needs to be controlled by NYC or SF.

[stevedeshazer]

14. It works just fine right now.

I agree with some who have posted above that the primary system needs revamping, but that is irrelevant to the Electoral College.

G.W. Bush as president is an anomaly.

The 2004 election will prove it.

Some day, someone here or their descendants will cast votes in an election that will be decided in their favor by minority vote nationwide. Not the first time nor the last.

Nevertheless, the Constitution will stand, unless we ignore it.

Suggesting screwing around with the Constitution now, when Republicans hold the Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and Media branches of the government is madness.

[elperromagico]

15. I never suggested "screwing around with the Constitution,"

I asked what people would do to "fix" the Electoral College if they had the chance. They will probably never have the chance, so the question is rooted squarely in fantasy.

[BillZBubb]

16. Simple (and elegant) solution

Each state gets a number of electors equal to its number of representatives in the House of Representatives.

Two electors, for the state's senators could be used. If used, they would automatically both go to the winner of the popular vote in the state. I really don't like including these two, because it is unfair to voters in large states. But, it wouldn't be the end of the world if they were included.

The other electors must, by law, vote in proportion to the popular vote in the state in the method explained next.

Any candidate who gets too few votes to get at least one elector is removed from the field.

The electors are then divided among the candidates with enough votes to get at least one elector.

All fractional electors go to the winner of the popular vote in the state. This will add value to actually winning the state.

For instance, say California has 54 "proportional" electors plus two senatorial electors. The Democrat wins 55% of the vote, the Repug 41%, the Green 3%, the other odd candidates 1%. Since 1% of 54 is less than 1, all the odd candidates are removed from the elector field.

The Green, with 3% would get .03 times 54 or 1.62 electors. Since they can't have fractional electors, they get 1.

The Repug, with 41% would get .41 times 54 or 22.14 electors. Again stripping off the fractional part, they get 22.

The Democrat, being the winner would get 54 - 22 - 1 + 2 or 33 electors.

The candidate with the most electoral college votes nationwide wins the presidency.