At 10:40 PM 12/17/00 -0600, you wrote:
>I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of tossing the baby out with the
>bathwater and completely ditching the electoral college. While I agree that
>the electoral college as it exists today does not always accurately reflect
>the will of the people, it does give candidates a reason to acknowledge the
>needs of those voters not living in the big cities.
>
>I'd be interested in seeing some modifications made, though. One proposal I
>saw (can't recall where, unfortunately) was to split the electors, so that
>102 electors (2/state plus DC - the "senatorial electors") were awarded to
>the candidate that received the majority (or plurality) of the popular vote.
>The rest of the electors could be awarded on the basis of states carried,
>maybe even the way Maine and Nebraska parcel theirs out.
>
>Your thoughts?
>
>Adam C. Lipscomb
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>ICQ# 32384792
>
The 20th Century Fund proposed this to a House/Senate committee that was
studying alternatives to the Electoral College in 1978. Arthur Schlesinger
(who worked on the proposal) has written about it in numerous articles
since. The House/Senate committee rejected it as "too complicated". I like
this idea, not least because it is a compromise.
adios
john
