We’re two weeks away from the election, which looks like it’s going to be a nail biter. Most of you, though, needn’t bother to vote. Mark is free to make a statement with his vote, because Texas is deep red. For the time being. A California Republican is useful as an ATM, but not much more. As a resident of Virginia, my vote is being heavily courted.
The electoral college is the appendix of our constitution, prone to getting infected from time to time. As I love irony, I was hoping for Kerry to win Ohio in 2004 so that Bush would lose the presidency while winning the popular vote. Right now, Nate Silver has a 6% chance of Obama winning the election while getting fewer votes than Romney. There’s a 2% chance of the converse result. That puts the total odds at about one in twelve.
My modest suggestion would be to reform, but not eliminate, the electoral college. As every congressional district is electing a representative, one can also tally presidential votes by district. Winner of a state’s popular vote gets the bonus two electoral votes. Nebraska does it this way; I think one other state does as well. Maine, perhaps? DC gets a number of delegates that reflect its population, rounded up to an even number to eliminate the possibility of a tie. We keep the pomp and circumstance of the electoral college, but effectively it’s a popular vote.
The bonus being that certain states don’t get lavish attention. I’m not worried about all the political ads. With Virginia being a deciding state for president and senator, we get a truckload of them. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Ohio has done very well in terms of federal contracts by being the swingiest of swing states.
As long as I’m proposing a significant change to elections, I would also suggest changing the terms of House members from 2 years to 4 years and having the entire House elected with the president. Or half and half if you’re into mid-terms. It’s interesting that the House has flipped only in mid-terms in my lifetime.
Well, I’m off to my bike. C’ya.
BB
