>>>>>A subtler but IMO more important change is that it really would become one man, one vote. Under the electoral college system only a dozen or so states, the so-called battleground states, really matter. It's rare when the candidates even visit the other states. What motivation do residents of those states have to go out and vote other than a commitment to the democratic process? They know their votes don't matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's time for a change in the name of fairness and equality.
>>>>
>>>>Last time I remember there (or here?) was a suggestion to remove electoral college but keep the electoral votes - and assign them automatically in the proportion of the popular vote in each state. Not the "winner takes the whole state". So if one state has 6 votes, and one candidate has, say, 61%, he gets 4, the opponent gets 2. In case of 51%, it would be 3:3, not 6:0 as it is now.
>>>>
>>>>Which would be an interesting exercise if it was applied to the numbers for the last century or two. It would be closer to popular vote, for sure, and the swing states wouldn't carry more than one vote this way or the other. And a third candidate would have more chance to spoil the big guys' game.
>>>
>>>Why just come close? Why tinker around the margins with a broken model?
>>
>>Because you can change the way states allocate electoral votes without a Constitutional amendment. Each state gets to determine how to allocate its EVs.
>>
>
>I have heard about that and still consider it tinkering around the margins. IMO the Electoral College should be as dead as lamplights and roadsters. One "man," one vote. If we really are the united states let's at least try to act like it.

But you cannot trust the vote of the individual. What does the individual know? Individuals are guided all to often my emotion. We need a computer to settle such matters. Now who will program it? :)