I disagree with the Electoral College giving small states a disproportionate say in electing a President. The proponents forget they are called fly-over because they aren’t worth the time and money of a campaign in the state. For instance Idaho or the Dakotas going to vote for the Republican candidate so why campaign there.

            If we use the popular vote then every voter’s decision counts so it would be worth putting money and a nominee’s time in the state. On a winner-take-all basis, a few more votes for one negate the votes of the few less.

            In theory twelve votes are all that counts to win over the Electoral College. The electoral vote of only twelve states is enough to win over 270 votes. Theoretically, a nominee could spend hundreds of millions in each state on getting the independent voters and some of the other party in a state normally voting for the other party to win their electoral votes. A Republican might win New York and California as Reagan did or a Texas and Florida as Biden almost did.

            A compromise might be a proportional Electoral vote where some formula would allow every voter’s decision to count in deciding how many votes go to each nominee. Perhaps the top two nominees split the votes on a percentage basis. South Dakota’s three votes might be split if one nominee gets less than half so the majority would get two. If one got less than one-third then all three would go to the majority winner.

            The compromise would be fairer and America would be the Democratic country we espouse around the world and to ourselves.