I think most people would agree that the electoral college is not the optimal way of electing a president. Most seem to feel the optimal way of going about this is through the popular vote. I don't think that's ideal either, however.
Over the past few days, I've read and heard multiple people throw out the idea of basing the electoral college on percentages. For example - at this current time, Obama has received 59% of the vote in California, while Romney has received 39%. The state is worth 55 electoral votes, so Obama would receive 32.5 (.59 x 55) and Romney would receive 21.5 (.39 x 55).
The most recent person who shared this idea with me contended that Mitt Romney would have won the election if this had been the electoral college format. After going through the numbers, however, I can say that's not the case. The final electoral vote numbers would have been much closer, but President Obama would still have been elected to a second term in the Oval Office. At this time, he'd come away with 270.8 electoral votes and Romney would have 258.4.
I'm not entirely certain that this would be the best way to go about electing a president, but do think I like it better than the current or popular-vote format.
The most recent person who shared this idea with me contended that Mitt Romney would have won the election if this had been the electoral college format. After going through the numbers, however, I can say that's not the case. The final electoral vote numbers would have been much closer, but President Obama would still have been elected to a second term in the Oval Office. At this time, he'd come away with 270.8 electoral votes and Romney would have 258.4.
I'm not entirely certain that this would be the best way to go about electing a president, but do think I like it better than the current or popular-vote format.
Comments
Post a Comment