>>>>Politicians will never do things the simple way. Just dump the electoral college and elect by popular vote. No. They have to dream up a convoluted scheme to elect by popular vote. Rube Goldberg couldn't do it any better.
>>>
>>>They can't just dump the Electoral College. That would require a constitutional amendment, which in turn, requires 2/3 of the congress and approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures.
>>>
>>>That's not happening.
>>>
>>
>>It sure isn't. The best hope seems to be that idea that was floating around about more states deciding to split their electoral votes proportionally, instead of winner take all. That would give as good an approximation of the popular vote as we are likely to get. But I don't have much hope it will happen, either.
>
>The plan that a couple of states (Nebraska, I think) use makes sense to me. Electors follow congressional districts, with the extra two electors for a state going to the candidate with the most votes. That would still give small states some possibility of being heard, while at the same time, making votes in big states more meaningful, since for example, a congressional district in Massachusetts might differ from the rest of the state. It would make all the states more purple, which would be a good thing.
>
>Of course, it would also give more incentive for gerrymandering in restricting, which is a very bad thing.
>

I don't know how much more gerrymandering there could be than we already have.

The two states are Nebraska and (drumroll please) Maine.