Com­pro­mise on elec­tion process

The Washington Times Daily - - EDITORIAL -

The de­bate about whether the Con­sti­tu­tion should be amended to change the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion process is on again. Some ad­vo­cate elim­i­nat­ing the elec­toral col­lege in fa­vor of a direct pop­u­lar vote for pres­i­dent, while oth­ers be­lieve the sys­tem should re­main un­changed. Just as com­pro­mise solved the ini­tial prob­lems of the Framers, so it is that com­pro­mise can solve this prob­lem.

The so­lu­tion is to change the elec­toral votes to elec­toral points and re­ward each can­di­date a per­cent­age of points based on the per­cent­age of pop­u­lar votes re­ceived in each state. This would elim­i­nate the win­ner-takes-all sys­tem, thus al­low­ing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to be­lieve that his vote counted when a per­cent­age of pop­u­lar votes is taken into ac­count. Fur­ther, this new sys­tem would rec­on­cile the de­sire for a pop­u­lar vote for pres­i­dent with the need for the in­di­vid­ual states to de­ter­mine who ac­tu­ally gets elected.

As for po­lit­i­cal pri­maries, the num­ber of del­e­gates awarded in each state should be de­ter­mined by the per­cent­age of votes won by each can­di­date.

For 2016, mul­ti­ply­ing the per­cent­age of votes each can­di­date re­ceived in each state by the num­ber of elec­toral votes in each state re­sults in the fol­low­ing: 256.985 for Hil­lary Clin­ton, 253.482 for Don­ald Trump.

JOE BIALEK Cleve­land

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.