It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.
I think just the opposite. The nation is a collection of states. The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives. But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union. When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit. Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.
In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California. One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.
how very generous of you.
Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.
I don't understand this argument. How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?
The current system clearly provides a disproportionate advantage to states with low population because of the fixed size of the House and the extra two electoral votes every state gets. Measuring from a one state one vote baseline is insane.
And claiming that your system which you made up out of whole cloth has more constitutional weight is just nuts. The only way you could argue that is by citing the procedure to elect the President in the House if there is no Electoral College winner, but they specifically made that not the preferred procedure.
