Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
Perhaps, but some states already
allocate their electoral votes in the same manner.
The winner-take-all for the larger states seems rather outdated.
Actually this method might even REDUCE lawsuits because there
will not be such a large number of electoral votes in question.
|
Quote:
Except in closely fought swing states, voter turnout is largely insignificant
due to entrenched political party domination in most states. The Electoral College
decreases the advantage a political party or campaign might gain for encouraging voters
to turn out, except in those swing states. If the presidential election were decided by a
national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive
to work to increase turnout everywhere.
Individuals would similarly have a stronger incentive to
persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote.
The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states
under the current electoral college system suggest that
replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely
increase turnout and participation significantly.
|
from
Wiki
I think my suggestion (Pretty sure I'm not the first) could be an effective "middle ground"
between the two options mentioned above. In a sense, a best of both.
Quote:
In practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's electors
generally decreases the importance of minor parties.
|
This makes it an even better idea.