Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_im_god
we'll never see anything like this because election laws, including the way a state's presidential electors are selected, are up to the individual states.
it's in the interest of each state to have a winner take all system to maximize their influence in the election. as a candidate, are you going to campaign in the populous state with a few competitive districts or the less populous state with a winner take all system? a handful of electors in california or everyone in iowa?
no populous state is going to unilaterally disarm. they're already underrepresented in the senate. they aren't going to throw away whatever marginal benefit is extracted from the current system.
|
you're probably right. plus, not having winner take all could cause more issues than it solves. what if there were no candidate that received enough votes? a very real possibility if states split their vote, and didn't have winner take all.
then, there's what i thought of earlier this evening. look at the name of our country-not for nothing is it called the united states. no state is supposed to be more powerful than any other-no doubt the main reason there is an electoral college.