Ok ya i see your point. thats a great way of looking at it. I suppose i always just assumed that state issues could be dealt with fairly through congress regardless of who is president but that is not the case. I just look at a nation as a whole when a nation votes for a leader. But yes i understand that if it was majority vote the president would be more likely to just visit and make improving promises to the big populated states only.

The electoral college is needed in order to give the people of less-populated states some real voice in political matters. If the votes of, say, Idahoans and Vermonters were merely subsumed in the national total, those votes would be next to meaningless.

Moreover, there is very little tradition of proportional representation in the US. True, the states of Maine and Nebraska have chosen to part with this tradition, in the distribution of their electoral votes. And the Democratic Party has done likewise, in its allocation of delegates, according to the primary results. But I really cannot envision this as an improvement over the traditional, winner-take-all process.

After all, lots of major-league baseball teams have won three World Series games in a single post-season. But they still did not deserve 42.9 percent of the title, "World Champion."

Yeah, but I hear their frat parties are second to none.

__________________
WARNING! In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with anything stated in the above post, contact a clinical psychiatrist immediately.

Hardly. Electoral College sucks in that department as well.
Official partiest college is UM.

University of Miami named top party school by Playboy...
The Miami Hurricane, student newspaper of the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, since 1929.

Dude, that's only because the electoral college doesn't invite Playboy to its frat parties. Playboy is not risque enough for their taste.

Ask Hustler.

__________________
WARNING! In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with anything stated in the above post, contact a clinical psychiatrist immediately.

It's still National Popular Vote with less accuracy and it actually makes it harder for 3rd parties. Think about it. If a 3rd party candidate were to win the National Popular Vote, he/she would have to receive at least 34% in a three way race. If it was required to have a majority of the vote (50%) you can imagine a 3rd party candidate would never have a chance.

Under the current electoral system, a 3rd party candidate could theoretically win with only 15% of the popular vote. Now I know it seems really unfair that a person could get so little of the vote and still be President, but what's stopping the two major parties from winning in the same way? The chances of this happening could be reduced though if we awarded electoral votes based on district instead of winner-take-all.

__________________
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike..."
- Frédéric Bastiat

The best way to reform the electoral college is through the "proportional plan":

-American Government, 2005

__________________
"By joining a party he sacrifices a piece of his freedom, his political self-sufficiency and independence."
- William Traugott Krug

"Political platforms generally embody much truth; but it is truth more or less exaggerated and blended with error."
- Ezra Seaman

"As no one man can represent the whole of humanity, so no one party can represent the whole truth in politics.”
- Frederick Grimke

I'm honestly pretty fond of the idea of proportional representation. It would encourage voter turnout and put a major dent in the American duopoly.

__________________
X▲
▲ ▲

I like the $1million Voter Lotto better.

I like that idea. It gives voters in polarized states incentives to go and vote. Whether your a Democrat or Republican in Texas or NY if you go out and vote your candidate will get more points.

__________________
Republicans have never met a tax cut they didn't like.
Democrats have never met a spending bill they didn't like.