Thoughts on a better system of presidential elections

[muon2]

The Constitution constrains most of the alternatives.  Changing the number of electors or imposing a uniform national method of selection requires an amendment. National popular vote totals with or without a runoff also would require an amendment. It seems unlikely that an amendment could muster anything close to 3/4 of the states to ratify a change that would certainly weaken the many small population states.

For that reason, most action has been at the state level. This includes the recent failed CO referendum and the current attempt to bind enough large states to effectively create a winner by national popular vote. The result in CO shows the reluctance of a moderate-sized state to give up the potential importance of winner take all. As small, homogeneous states, ME and NE have less to lose by using a district based vote for electors. Large states would have as much problem with this as the small states do with direct popular vote.

A second drawback to any district system, whether by CD or by a more numerous set of districts is that the districts are prone to be gerrymandered by their legislatures. At present only the House is affected, but  widescale adoption of a system like in ME/NE would extend the effect of partisan state gerrymandering to a second branch of government. Gerrymandering districts can have more impact as the number of distrcits increase, so the big states would be most affected.

If the ME/NE system should gain popularity, there should be a mechanism to control the use of gerrymandering the CDs, particularly in the large states. This one area where Congress can impose controls. Much like Congress required the states to create single member districts of contiguous territory for the House, it could impose more structured rules on the creation of those districts. Rules about compactness and maintaining intact political jurisdictions certainly would fall in Congress' purview.