Electoral college compromise idea

[Alcon]

Personally I think that Congressional Districts should just start from one corner of the state, and go horizontally (typewriter fashion) and should be able to be generated by computer. But, of course, that would never happen.

So you want a district that has the northern Seattle suburbs, and a strip of land along the Canadian border all the way to Idaho?

Well, not necessarily horizontally. Whichever direction results in the smallest district, and most square-ish.

[Ebowed]

There are a lot of reasons why I don't like the idea.  One I didn't see mentioned (I skimmed the second page, so bear with me) was that this system would basically eliminate any significance of third parties.  A third party candidate getting 15% in a state would be basically ignored unless he won another state.  This would in essense make the two party system even harder to destroy.

[muon2]

The presidential race is not the only race that Republicans (and Democrats) wish to win. However, winning that race is based on the rules that exist at that time. It's not surprising that the parties that compete will use the rules that exist as much to their advantage as they can.

However, there are races all the way down the ballot that are contested. In many of these state and county races the Republicans are actively seeking to broaden the base. CDs do have an influence on the smaller state and local districts that are within their borders and vice versa. Proposals that broaden the base at the Federal level help those local districts and many in the party know it.

On the flip side, many posters from the Dem side have noted the need to improve the Dem message. The way I read the posts, that includes a broader appeal. If I read correctly, rules that force both sides to broaden their appeal would move the Dems in the way that those posters have suggested.

Blah blah blah. You're a fool if you think the Republicans are reaching out. As I said before, they could care less how they do in federal races in Vermont and Massachusetts. The non federal races are different, they're less partisan. Kansas, Wyoming, and Montana have Democratic governors

It is extremely narrow to think that officeholders don't see the connection between federal and non-federal offices. In the great majority (if not all) states they do see the connection. Support between levels is well-established, whether through direction of funds from the top down, or by creating policy venues from the bottom up.

Areas with single-party dominance use the positive reinforcement between levels to support candidates and expand the base. Successful minority party candidates in those areas look at ways to create a message that crosses traditional lines. In contestable areas, like I suggest through better redistricting rules, that need to broaden one's appeal increases.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Another reason why the Nebraska/Maine method is terrible.
As it is now, only about 10 or 15 states out of 50 are swing state.
However, it gets worse at the Congressional district. Only a few dozen out of 435 Congressional districts and DC are competitive.

If you want competitiveness everywhere, the only logical option is using the nationwide popular vote. As it is now, no on cares about votes in Wyoming or Utah. Those will suddenly matter under a popular vote system.

[Alcon]

Another reason why the Nebraska/Maine method is terrible.
As it is now, only about 10 or 15 states out of 50 are swing state.
However, it gets worse at the Congressional district. Only a few dozen out of 435 Congressional districts and DC are competitive.

If you want competitiveness everywhere, the only logical option is using the nationwide popular vote. As it is now, no on cares about votes in Wyoming or Utah. Those will suddenly matter under a popular vote system.

Just because a CD is competitive on a congressional level does not mean it is presidentially. For instance, Bush won WA-3 by about 5 points. The incumbnent liberal Democrat won it by a 2-to-1 margin. Heck, the Democrats even have a congressman from Utah.

[minionofmidas]

There are a lot of reasons why I don't like the idea.  One I didn't see mentioned (I skimmed the second page, so bear with me) was that this system would basically eliminate any significance of third parties.  A third party candidate getting 15% in a state would be basically ignored unless he won another state.  This would in essense make the two party system even harder to destroy.

Not at all. They'd still have what minimal advantagesthey have now, except the hope for a faithless elector.
Under this system, winning a state with 35% of the vote is a ltot worse than winning a state with 65% of the vote. Currently it doesn't matter. Of course it'dstill be just as hard for third parties to win anything as itis now.

[Emsworth]

The compromise seems very interesting. Unfortunately, it might provoke even more public opposition than the Electoral College, because the votes for the losing candidates would be very plainly and obviously "wasted," even more plainly than is presently the case.