Electoral College & Grand Compromise - The American Way
I agree that the Electoral College system is outdated. BUT I completely agree with the principles it was founded on. Little old Rhode Island, New Hampshire & Vermont didn't want to be left with no voice based on New York & Pennsylvania's size & potential for all kinds of population growth. A strictly popular vote would give urban locales an unfair sway in who is in power. The compromise they came up with worked very well for at least 150 years. Its what has made the USA unique - we come up with some of the most convoluted ways of doing things that strangely seem to work.
I do think it is now officially broken though. But I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. The same concerns that RI & NH & VT are if anything, bigger & more important now than they were a quarter of a millenium ago.
I wrote an op-ed piece way back when Obama was first elected (it was equally broken then) with some ideas on how to change the current system to give Democrats in Idaho & Republicans in New York a more equal voice. Here's a run down of what I think would fix our Presidential election system:
I agree that the Electoral College system is outdated. BUT I completely agree with the principles it was founded on. Little old Rhode Island, New Hampshire & Vermont didn't want to be left with no voice based on New York & Pennsylvania's size & potential for all kinds of population growth. A strictly popular vote would give urban locales an unfair sway in who is in power. The compromise they came up with worked very well for at least 150 years. Its what has made the USA unique - we come up with some of the most convoluted ways of doing things that strangely seem to work.
I do think it is now officially broken though. But I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. The same concerns that RI & NH & VT are if anything, bigger & more important now than they were a quarter of a millenium ago.
I wrote an op-ed piece way back when Obama was first elected (it was equally broken then) with some ideas on how to change the current system to give Democrats in Idaho & Republicans in New York a more equal voice. Here's a run down of what I think would fix our Presidential election system:
- Limit the Presidential election length. As it is, we have 2 freakin years of campaigning all told. Absurd. Chop it into 6 months. 3 months for Primaries & 3 months for General Election.
- Eliminate the winner take all Electoral college system.
- Winner takes all "senator" electoral votes (meaning 2).
- Remaining "house" electoral votes (Idaho has 3, California has like - 80 or something) are split based on percentage of popular vote received by each candidate. (I believe Maine & Louisiana already do something like this).
- In the original spirit of the electoral college, eliminate the unfair attention given to "swing states" by doing the following
- Create 2 NATIONAL primaries.
- Any state that voted 60% or more for one party in the previous Pres. Election cycle gets to be in the FIRST primary, thereby giving Democrats in Idaho & Republicans in California an actual voice.
- Swing states vote after the initial primary & probably after some candidates have dropped off. They'll still naturally get more attention in the general election, but hey..
- In limiting the whole election cycle to 6 months (I'd even be willing to stretch it to 12) More attention can be given to non swing states.
- Create 2 NATIONAL primaries.
- 3rd party candidates be given a fair shake. Currently any "public funding" available for Presidential campaigning is currently only available to parties who received 5% or more of the popular vote in the previous presidential election cycle. That hasn't even occurred in my lifetime. What do the Republican & Democratic parties even need "public funding" for? Disqualify major parties from any special funding & give it to them. Or just eliminate the public funding option entirely. The last person to use public funding (to my knowledge) was McCain, and we all know how that worked out for him.
- Limit Presidential (and every other political) campaign spending to a reasonable amount. Even if you cap it at $5 per registered voter, that still is a ridiculous number. Buying the presidency should not be a thing. Aside from the election of DJT, EVERY election since they've kept track of spending has been won by the candidate who shelled out the most money. And with Trump, it could be argued that the amount of air time given by the media made up for $'s. Though I don't have much of a problem with that. They were a loudspeaker for his brand, whether they meant it or not. Maybe they'll learn from that, but probably not.
Last edited:
