In Bolivia we have a different problem, but also one which some people consider unfair. I understand that if any candidate gets an absolute majority ("50% + 1", they call it here), he - well, it is usually a "he" - will automatically be president. But if no candidate gets an absolute majority, then Congress has to chose among the two candidates that got the most votes. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that Congress members are more or less proportional to the popular vote. Now, this often leads to negociations in Congress, in the sense that a leading party may say to another party: if you give me the presidency [vote for my party], you'll get such-and-such ministries.

=====

Well, the above really doesn't answer your question. Somehow, it would seem that the entire voting system is flawed, as long as there are parties that above all watch for their own interests. I think that to have fair elections, first of all, people will have to apply several spiritual (or ethical, if you will) principles, foremost among which should be, to put the well-being of the nation (or of the World) above the personal well-being (or the well-being of the party, or of other select population groups). Also, I think the following elements should be abolished:

Political parties

Propaganda

Candidates

Let me note that elections without the above elements actually exist, for example, for the administrative bodies of the Bahá'í community. (However, to what extent the experiences of the Bahá'í community can be applied to national elections, I am not sure.)

>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.

Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)