I know each state gets an equal number of electors as their representatives plus their senators, that most states are winner take all, and that 270 is needed to win.
My question is at the district level. Is each district winner take all for that district's elector, and then the state winner take all based on which candidate got the most electors? If so, gerrymandering sounds like a big issue.
If not, if it is just winner take all for the whole state, that is not as bad. However, I no longer think the electoral college is the best way to elect a national centrist. In theory, if the winner is disapproved of by 100% in one state, I think that state might be more likely to fight. The extra votes should matter. Also, in practice, if a state flips all or nothing on a close vote, that means a little bit of voter fraud goes a long away.
My compromise:
The problem with the direct popular vote is that most small states are conservative, which means the big state of Texas will never go long with it. I doubt the swing states will either. So it won't pass.
I have a more viable alternative.
We throw all vote 270 votes to the weighted popular vote. Make each state still worth a certain number of electors, but not winner take all. Each candidate gets a decimal fraction of the elector value of that state. That way, no votes are wasted, and the small states still have support. I suspect Texas would go along with that. We just need to launch the alternative inter-state-compact. Of course, liberal states would prefer the first. It is just a question of how badly we want to end voter fraud and gerrymandering in presidential races.
As polarized as our government is, I don't see many compromises every passing. That means that civil war and then dictatorship will eventually come.
= new reply since forum marked as read