Submitted by Sam Davis, Aug 6, 2007 09:21

Years ago, a proposal was floated to give one electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote in each House district, and two to the winner of the statewide vote. The proposal was structured as a proposal federal constitutional amendment, and if passed would have been binding on the states.

This method would result in a more accurate reflection of the popular vote in the electoral college, but would still leave open the possibility of someone getting elected while losing the popular vote, although that possibility would likely be reduced.

Such a system also would reduce the top-heavy power of voters in large states. Under this proposal, each voter would help decide how three electoral votes are cast, no more, no less. Currently, a voter in California helps decide how more than 50 votes are cast, while voters in many states only three. Few have mentioned the glaring inequity of an electoral system that rewards voters for living in extremely popular states with more influence on presidential elections than those who live in sparsely populated states.

Would that system have made any difference in 2000 or 2004? Probably not. Electoral votes gained by the Republicans in California and New York would have been offset by loss of some electoral votes in the South, notably Florida. The bottom line would have been about the same both times out. Bu the proportional system would skew toward more accuracy and fairness to voters.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.