wrote in message .. .
In article , rw56
says...
Bob Weinberger wrote:

With the exception of provisional ballots (which are still in somewhat of a
judicial limbo), every example you have put forth could not have occurred
without the consent of at least 3/4ths of the states.

That's exactly what I'm proposing would be a fair outcome w.r.t. our
archaic and divisive and undemocratic electoral system. Do I think it
will happen, at least in my lifetime? No way. I'm afraid we're stuck
with it, until the revolution. That doesn't mean the present system
doesn't suck.

As would all other systems.

The current systems gives small population states a little more weight,
big deal.

Personally, I think the electoral system is okay, I'd just change the
winner-takes-all element of it. At least it would make it worth
Republicans trying to win over Californians and Democrats trying to
win over Texans.
- Ken

i always found the all or nothing concept odd.....a republican voter
in MA knows it is essentially useless to vote repub in a Preidential
election; MA always goes Dem, so a Repub vote is wasted.....here in
Maine they split electorals by congressional district.....i think
tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting
climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining
# of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular
vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the
popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral
votes....