In response to:

The Electoral College, Under Attack

ksatifka Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 10:58 AM
The small states are already over-represented in the EC. If we are to keep the EC, it should at least be changed to reflect the vote of each House district (I think 2 states already do it this way). The 2 senatorial votes could go to that states winner. I never understood how the winner-take-all formula was a fair way to elect the President.
jmonaco Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 1:38 PM
The beauty is that each state may define how it apportions their vote. (States rights).

Residents of a corrupt state will need to either change the state's election laws, move to another state, or accept the situation.
jmonaco Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 1:34 PM
As Ed MacMahon used to say to Johnny Carson: "You are correct, sir!"
nbetland Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 1:33 PM
be increased. Our population has grown from 123 million to 309 million since 1930 yet the size of the House remains the same. This is unacceptable. In North Dakota we at one time had 3 representative and now we have 1 despite having virtually the same size population now as then. Why should we have lost 67% of our representatives despite having the same population?
nbetland Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 1:30 PM
This is slightly inaccurate. The Connecticut Compromise was the compromise between big and little states in which one chamber of Congress would be apportioned by population giving more power to big states, and one chamber would be apportioned equally to all states, giving more power to little states. As far as any history book, I've read the compromise had little to do with the presidential electors and more to do with legislative representation.

Even today, though, with the size of the House locked at 435, the Connecticut Compromise is bust, since California has 53 reps and Wyoming has 1, even though California's population is like 66 or 67 times as large. It may waterdown the power of small states, but the size of the House needs to
ksatifka Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 12:12 PM
Also, Paulus, your 2nd paragraph about the Founders original intent sounds great in theory, but I think they were too idealistic here. In practice,whoever controlled the legislature would send people who would vote for their party's candidate. If our country changed to this, might as well take the presidential vote off the ballot.
ksatifka Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 12:03 PM
On second thought, Paulus, I retract my idea that the EC should be based on which candidate won each congressional district. The problem with this idea is that 'gerrymandering' is now such a science that it could easily happen that the losing candidate in that state could come away with more electoral votes. So, can't go this route unless the congressional boundaries are decided by independent commissions.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 11:37 AM
Agreed on the "winner-take-all" formula, but that was the inevitable result of the state legislatures turning selection of the electors over to the popular vote.

In the original (far superior) idea of the Founders, the State Legislatures were to send a group of upstanding citizens to Washington to vote for whomever they pleased.

Regarding "over-representation" of the small states, the original idea of the Constitution was to be a compact among co-equal states. The "over-representation" is one way of preventing the small states from being dominated by the large states.

As Tuesday’s election ticks ever nearer, my fervent wish is a solid electoral college win for Mitt Romney. Not to get greedy, but I’d like it in the bag before the wee hours of Wednesday morning.

I hope this is not asking too much. October’s poll swing and a broadening visceral sense tell me this election may not feature the nail-biting closeness we have been told to expect for months.

But if we are to be ensnared by a down-to-the-wire finish, get ready for the attendant micro-focus on the Electoral College, and the resulting debate over whether it should...