At 10:40 PM 12/17/00 -0600, Adam wrote:
>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.
I don't like this at all.
Quite simply, there is no purpose to having an electoral college if the
electoral college will never produce a winner different than that of the
popular vote. Experimental evidence suggests that it is already very
difficult for the electoral college to produce a different winner than that
of the popular vote. Your proposal would make it so difficult as to
render the electoral college effectively meaningless.
I personally wouldn't mind seeing more States allocate electoral votes
based on Congressional District. The interesting thing, however, is that
it must be done on a State by State basis. Thus, this is most likely to
occur in States which are controlled by one Party, but voted for the other
Party for President. For example, States like MI and PA might be very
likely to do this, whereas TX and CA almost certainly would not.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
