Txdigest.com

I have always thought that instead of an electoral college a presidential candidate should have to win a majority of congressional districts. This would remove the advantage small states now have and also any possibility of an elector going against the wishes of the voters, while still requiring a nationwide consensus on a candidate.

Kiamichi wrote:I have always thought that instead of an electoral college a presidential candidate should have to win a majority of congressional districts. This would remove the advantage small states now have and also any possibility of an elector going against the wishes of the voters, while still requiring a nationwide consensus on a candidate.

Small states don't really have an "advantage". They just have a counterbalance to the advantage large states enjoy.

GRANDPA wrote:I agree. The candidate who wins the most congressional districts in the state also gets the two remaining electoral votes for that state. If the two candidates win the same number of districts in the state, they split the two.

States can use that system now, if they wish.

Sangersteve wrote:Ric, you really have to stop using logic.

It's mental turpitude; definitely not logic.

Nice grouping (of numbers) but way off center mass. In other words, a complete waste of ammunition
and the time it took to read it -- never get that sour taste out of my day.

Now that's the way to adumbrate bullets and guns.

Or bovine scatos.