One of the great debates about the 2000 presidential election is that because Gore won more votes than anybody else the "will of the people" was circumvented by the anachronism which is the Electoral College.

Another arguement centered around the "Winner-take-all" method of selecting electors which is followed in all but two states. That a 51-49 split of a state's popular vote has the same electoral college effect as a 76-35 split seems inherently unfair. States where the results were essentially a foregone conclusion (CA, TX, etc) probably had lower turnouts where those on the losing side simply felt their votes did not matter.

How would you feel about a system which keeps the Electoral College but gives the state winner the two Senatorial electors and assigns the others based upon the winner in each Congressional district (the Nebraska and Maine(???) model)? Alternatively, a state's electoral votes could be split proportionally. This could mean that a 3rd party candidate could actually get an electoral vote is some states (a 5% popular vote could mean two electoral votes in CA).

There are, I believe (your view may differ), legitimate arguements on both sides of the "abolish the Electoral College" debate. I would very much appreciate NOT having that discussion in this thread. I would like this thread to focus on whether these proposals are more "fair" than the current system. I would also appreciate your points being based on the concept itself, without regard to how it would have affected the 2000 election.