We think a better electoral reform would be to award votes by congressional districts. Nebraska does this, and Barack Obama actually won a Nebraska vote in 2008 even though John McCain won the state, because Candidate Obama won the most votes in one district. Critics worry that “gerrymandering” could be used to distort the districts to favor one party or the other – and it could happen, but it already happens today – and both parties try to do it when they can. The courts have even forced some states to gerrrymander districts to assure the election of candidates belonging to racial or ethnic minorities. We will not defend gerrymandering, but remember – Congressional districts are all the same size, except for states that have low populations and have only one Congressman. Each district in Pennsylvania has about 710,00 people; nationwide the average is about 650,000. (The districts are essentially equal within states, but vary from state to state because only whole numbers are used (no “half-districts”). The district boundaries are drawn by the state legislatures or by state commissions (or occasionally by the courts); gerrymanders by one party tend to be cancelled out by those of the other party. The districts are redrawn after each census, and the districts are apportioned at that time. Thus, New York may lose a seat while Texas gains one, based on the population changes from state to state. Perhaps if they were made more instrumental in the election of a president, the parties would take greater steps to assure that gerrrymandering does not occur.
The Congressional district method of allocating votes is the best way of equalizing the electoral vote and the popular vote, Two votes per state would go to the candidate who won the popular vote therein and the candidate who carried the district would win that district’s vote (such as Barack Obama did in Nebraska in 2008). This has the appeal of rewarding success, and is far more fair than the winner-take-all method, in which a candidate could win 49% of the vote and get 100% of the electoral vote.
The current system has worked well since its inception. There have been four cases in which candidates won the election despite receiving only the second-highest popular vote total. There also is some sentiment for electing the President directly on popular vote totals alone, without regard to district or state borders. This would truly make every vote equal; but the founders feared the heavy population centers dominating the electorate, so they developed the electoral college, which champions the federal nature of our republic. Each of these electoral reforms has its good points and bad ones, and unless a campaign for one of them truly wins the support of the majority of the people, America will continue to use the same system that has worked so well for so long.