Thread: What method for electing a President do you think best represents voters intentions and why?

It's a great question. I don't know exactly what would be better, but I'm sure we could make many improvements. It seems to me that the winner-take-all electoral college is very unfair, especially when it comes to very large states like mine (California). There are simply too many votes that don't count at all with this system. Additionally, I think our options are narrowed too quickly and the political parties have too much power. We need more options on our general election ballot. Often, I feel so compromised by the choices that I'm discouraged from voting at all. Don't even get me started with the primaries. They are much worse than the general election.

I love the idea Moglie mentioned about having more candidates on the ballot and ranking them.

I tjomk the current Electoral college program keeps the "big States" from crowning the Pres every time. I like the Early Stae deal too, as it requires the candidates to meet the people in Nevada, Iwoa and NH.

The Super delegates, and "winner take all" Delegate deal needs to go though.

I have changed my answer. Moglie has the best plan. Too many people feel that they must cast a vote for a likely winner rather than the best candidate. By allowing voters to rate all who are on the ballot, we will be lessening the practice of voters choosing between 2 evils.

Popular vote. If we keep the same system we should have the primaries for all states on the same day. That would be fair for all candidates and keep the media from picking their favorites and only do a lot of coverage on them. Then of course there is that money thing (they've got to have lots)! Too bad.

Popular vote would NOT be the way to go. First off, the candidates would have to campaign in all fifty sates which would require too much time and money. Second, there would be a great loss of federal power. States would have less say in the race, and small states with a small population such as Wyoming or Alaska would be pretty much useless in the race.

I have heard of a plan called the National Bonus plan that sounds pretty good. It is the same as the electoral college, except the winner of the popular vote is granted an extra 102 electors. This would hopefully ensure that the winner of the popular vote would still win the election.

I have many times heard people say how elections should be determined by the popular vote. I have noticed that most of the time, by far, those people have been Democrats.

Doesn't it seem ironic, to say the least, that even though it is always they, who are the one's you'll hear crying about disenfranchised voters.
Always claiming foul play in the voting process of some district, or state.
Claiming some plotted scheme to take the vote away from some minority group or another.

Yet thats what the electoral college, which all of them wanted to be bypassed for "Gore's" sake, is there to protect against.

Without the electoral college, entire states of American citizens would be left without a voice.

However, since it would be "they" that would cause that to happen. If many of them had their wish. Then, it wouldn't count. Suddenly, it wouldn't be evil anymore.

It's only a terrible injustice when in their delusional conspiracy theories it's the other people that did it.