Current election voting method is unfair, there are other options

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mike Johnson Stafford, VA
    Jan. 28, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    Maine and Nebraska may find a benefit, but why would a state like California--with about 55 electors do it, reducing its weight to about 30-35 vs 20-25 or a net 5-15 electors. Republicans would love it if California did that, but I can't see why the state would want to do that.

    However, those who attack one party for scheming to improve their odds should realize that both parties have been scheming for a long time. Both find ways to defend the status quo when it has most recently worked for them and suggest changes when it hasn't done so recently.

    It doesn't change the fact that about half the country will like and half will not whatever the result of a presidential election.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    I'm not sure why Republicans think people in rural areas should get more than one vote (as if acreage counts more than actual people). Either keep it the way it is, which has worked for over 200 years, or go to a system of proportional votes based on one person one vote.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 9:56 p.m.

    One person. One vote, equal among all.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 8:17 p.m.

    Truthseeker, may I make one change in your post? How about, "Their blatant STUPIDITY about it is astounding."

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    Jan. 27, 2013 5:44 p.m.

    How many more schemes will Republicans dream up to tilt elections in their favor?

    Their blatant boldness about it is astounding.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    This letter can't be serious, can they?

    Where was their concern over the "fairness" of the election process when their boy, Bush, was elected despite losing the popular vote? Where was your letter than?

    So it was fair when Bush won but somehow unfair because Obama won? Wow. Great logic.

    This just stinks of sour grapes.

    Repubs, you lost. NOW GET OVER IT.

    Rather than focusing your time and energy on repairing your own party and becoming more popular to the masses you are merely focusing on frivolous and ridiculous fantasies about a "more fair" system that would somehow help you to win elections.

    Just stop.

    Revamp your party! STOP trying to revamp our American election system.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    Hey, here's a novel idea: Whoever gets the most votes wins! The electoral college belongs with buggy whips in the dust bin of history.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 27, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    Without gerrymandering, and a consistent plan across the whole country, this could be fair.

    However, those proposing this scenario, in the states that are proposing it are looking for ANYTHING but fair elections. They are merely trying to game the system for their political motives.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 11:15 a.m.


    How long has the GOP opposed any changes to the Electoral College claiming that it is needed in the name of "Fairness?"

    But now that they lost another election, it's somehow time to change it in the name of "Fairness?"

    Not all Americans are as dumb as those who call themselves Republicans.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    Careful review of the 2012 election shows that a change such as the one proposed in this letter would actually result in less fair elections by making the counts of rural voters weigh more than the votes of urban voters.

    As an example: Obama won Pennsylvania by 5 points (roughly). Under the proposed change, Rommey would get the 12 electoral votes that represent the districts he carried, while Obama would get 8 - 6 for the districts he carried and 2 because he won the state overall. Even though the majority of Pennsylvanians live in urban areas/districts and voted for Obama, Romney would have gotten the majority of the electoral votes - making him the winner of Pennsylvania. This same scenario holds true of the other states where this change is being proposed.

    The last (only?) election where the winner of the popular vote did not win the majority of the electoral votes was Bush v. Gore. The proposed change would make that a common scenario.

    If we are going to make a change, award the electoral votes based on percentage - 55% of the popular vote equals 55% of the electoral votes. That truly makes all votes count the same.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    But if your main concern is fairness, then surely you would also oppose gerrymandering.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    So David, what you're saying is that because your candidate lost using the same criteria of the past 250 years it is unfair because the highly populated urban areas get more weight, is that right? Last I checked the POTUS is elected by citizens not geographical areas. Maybe the real answer to get your candidate elected is to get them to represent all the citizens and not just a small minority, like 2%. If you want to eliminate the electorial college then I will listen but any customized gerryrigging is nothing more than an attempt to kill democracy on behalf of plutocracy. Think about it.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 12:08 a.m.

    It seems that the only states that are considering this "more fair" option are states that generally go Democratic in the electoral college yet currently have Republican state governments. There is not a single state that generally goes Republican in the electoral college that is even thinking about making changes.

    In plain English, this is a Republican plan to rig the election.