What about awarding your state’s EV based on the person who gets the most votes nationwide.
Too many Democrats states have passed this rule to go in effect once 270 EV is reached.
What about awarding based on congressional district a candidate has won and award 2 to the winner of the state. This practice in ME & NE would be messy in larger population states.
What about awarding based on congressional district a candidate has won and award 2 to the winner of the state.
*************
Simple, but accurate.
I believe the original intent was that each House District have one Electoral College vote, based upon how the people in the district voted in a Presidential election.
After all each House Member represents the will of the total number of people in their district (one vote), whether a lot of people turned out to vote, or few people voted. The House Member represents the the total number of people in his or her district.
So too, should the members of the Electoral College vote according to the wishes of the district, whether a lot of people turned out to vote, or a few.
Before the 17th Amendment each state legislature decided how the two delegate to the Electoral College should vote.
I would love to see a study of how many electoral votes each candidate would have received, if the winner take all model were not used in previous Presidential elections.
If there were a federal law, or amendment that required the members of the Electoral College to vote per the outcome of the election in each Congressional District, we would see a more accurate representation of voters’ intent.
I believe Trump would have received electoral votes from California and other states, that were assigned to Hillary, because of the winner take all system. The reverse is also true, but looking at the red and blue electoral map, I think the Dems would have lost in previous elections that went their way.