Content area
Full Text
After the 2000 presidential election, twenty-one states considered legislation to award their presidential electors using the district system, wherein one elector is awarded to the popular vote winner of each congressional district and the two state electors are awarded to the popular vote winner statewide. Historically, the district system is viewed as the politically feasible alternative to direct elections because it removes the distortions of the winner-take-all system and can be enacted by state law rather than constitutional amendment. However, the ultimate desirability of the district system lies in how it would change the conduct of presidential campaigns, not the counting of electoral college votes. Under the district system, presidential campaigns would shift their priorities from battleground states to battleground districts. The complexity and uncertainty in targeting these districts would force candidates to contest a larger and more geographically diverse percentage of the population than the current system. Moreover, the changes in presidential campaigns would increase the likelihood of presidential coattails and the prospects for unified government by increasing the competitiveness of congressional elections in swing presidential districts. Finally, the district system has a conservative bias because the swing battleground districts favor Republican presidential candidates and have fewer minority residents and recipients of public assistance than the nation as a whole.
The smoldering issue of electoral college reform has flared anew in the wake of the 2000 electoral college misfire. Despite opinion polls demonstrating that two thirds of Americans support direct election of the president, the reform receiving the most consideration is the district system, wherein one elector is awarded to the popular vote winner in each congressional district and the two "Senate" electors are awarded to the popular vote winner statewide. In 2001, twenty-one states were considering joining Maine and Nebraska in using the district system to allocate their presidential electors (Drage 2001).
Historically, the main argument in favor of the district system has always been its political feasibility rather than its inherent desirability. Like the direct election alternative, it would end the distortions of the winner-take-all aspects of the electoral college wherein the candidate with the plurality of votes receives all of the state's electotal college votes. Howevet, unlike direct elections, the disttict system preserves the power of small states and could...