Friday, September 07, 2012

Making Elections Interesting

I have long thought that we need to change the way Electoral votes are apportioned in this country.  All the states except Nebraska send all their electors for a particular candidate if that candidate won the popular vote in that state.  In Nebraska, if a candidate wins the state, that candidate wins the two Electors apportioned from the US Senate.  The rest are apportioned according to which one was victorious in each House district.

Picture the Electoral college map in such a scenario in, say, Texas.  Mitt Romney might have the two electors  from the US Senate.  Barack Obama, however, might just win a few in and around, say, Houston or San Antonio.  On the other hand, Barack Obama would easily take New York, but venture outside the concrete halls of New York City to the mostly empty spaces of western and northern New York, and Mitt Romney might just do well enough to sneak a couple Electors in to his pocket.  Except, of course, for the cities of Rochester and Buffalo (although Buffalo is a pretty Republican town, so who knows?).

Obama might even have had to campaign in his home state, convincing down-state Illinoisans that he deserves four more years.  As it is, the Prairie State is a lock and the President will be conspicuous in his absence as will Gov. Romney.

There would be a few states, to be sure, that would be off the Electoral radar, like Wyoming and, perhaps, Alaska.  New Hampshire might get a visit or two, as might Vermont.  California would be the real prize, with over fifty House seats, and most of them needed to keep the election out of the House of Representatives.

I suppose I'm dreaming here, because no part is going to pass a law in any state that would disadvantage its candidate in the Electoral College.  It would, however, steal elections away from consultants and the drone about "swing states".

Virtual Tin Cup

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More