How about one vote per state. If you win the state you get the one vote. Since they already think DC is a separate state leave it in place as the tie breaker.

I am in favor of something that will never happen - a nationwide change to a popular vote in *every* state. Although I voted for the winning presidential candidate two elections in a row, I would accept a popular vote that doesn't always go my way.

Except for politicians, I think most Americans feel almost hopeless about going back to the drawing board and fixing all that is broken. No presidential candidate will ever be elected who does not have (1) personal wealth, and (2) the ability to attract more wealth. That is a shame, and the obscene amount spent on campaigning is money that could do so much good elsewhere.

Along with all of that, I want my President (or Senator, or Congressman) to spend his/her four years in office working for the good of the country....not planning the next election. I don't expect to see changes in my lifetime, but that's my dream list!

This change would be unfair because most congressional district are gerrymandered and would favor Republicans. To make this change the drawing of districts both at the state and federal level must be done by an independent body and not by the politicians. Today many Georgians are under the illusion that they pick their representatives .They really don't, most politicians pick them through gerrymandering. Today some states are have in place a nonpartisan board to make this decision, two that come to mind are Iowa and California. Gerrymandering is unfair and undemocratic and has led to a congress that is so divided that we can't get anything done.

What George said.

What George said! I grew up in a district in California that had UC Santa Cruz, the Fort Ord Army Base and Carmel and many small farming communities in between - whose consitutents had VERY diverse views, which our then-US Representative, Leon Panetta, took into consideration when voting as our Congressman. He represented us all, unlike I see with many Congressmen in Georgia nowadays.

I am open to all the different view except George Wilson's. He's such a flaming liberal I've quit for the most part in even reading any of the Patch Comment section in order to avoid his flaming liberal comments.

Mr. B. said:
"George, Did you have a problem with this during the 135 years the Democrats controlled the state house and drew the congressional districts?"
Now, now, Mr. B., why would you ask such a dumb question? It's only wrong if it might make things fair to the party that he opposes. :) We need to overhaul a LOT of stuff in our political system for sure, but so that NO ONE - neither side - is able to cheat or get favors.

Chris P. You are so right. Look at what happened in Philadelphia. It's so corrupt there that nobody even challenged it because they knew that the control there was almost mafia-like, and to challenge it would be futile.

I have always felt that assigning electoral votes based on whoever received more votes in a congressional district to be more representative of the will of the people. Instead of candidates trying to appeal to certain states it would force them to focus on the entire country. It is an idea well worth discussing.

Where was this discussion following the 2000 Presidential election, when George W. Bush was elected as our President?

Chris is right - I actually remember this being up up for discussion BIG TIME. Not sure where you were David, but I remember this being front page news for a long time. Chris, I thik it's time for this to be discussed. You are correct, candidates now focus only on certain states and their urband areas (both candidates did it) to the exclusion of the little people. I feel that every voice is not being heard. It's certainly time to at least get a discussion started.

@All
"To make this change the drawing of districts both at the state and federal level must be done by an independent body and not by the politicians."
If you would pause to read my comment ,I believe I said I'm against both parties gerrymandering districts.It is not fair,it is not undemocratic and it leads to the mess we are in now.

@David my entire comment was factual especially the second sentence. When you make a comment such as yours, be prepared to be called out out on it.

@ George Wilson,

Points one and two are totally false and you know it.
Point three if you want to prohibit contributions from corporations fine as long as unions are prohibited from contributing as well.

Given that the good people of Georgia voted to have majority republican representation who are you to deny the will of the people? If more people educated themselves there would be dramatic shift away from the Democrat party and probably more towards Libertarian.

yeah Chris - Unions are big political contributers. Wonder why it is that Georgia,being represented by republicans (as by the will of the people) is somehow in error, but not the states that have heavily democratic leanings? What applies to the goose has to apply to the gander.

We can watch, in real time, as our troops do battle on the other side of the earth, and yet we have to allow someone else cast our vote for the man who sends them there. I have long been against the electoral college. 'We the People' have the power to case votes. Maybe this would have greater impact if more then 10 percent of the voters actually voted!
But, we need to end the gerrymandering, the pandering, lying and other atrocities in the name of politics first, starting with the superpacs. When I was young, and it was not THAT long ago, anyone could still hope to be president. the superpac had ended that. Now you need money,(LOTS OF IT), power and influence just to step into the starting blocks, much less run and win the race!

Let's break down some of the opinions posted here as it pertains to gerrymandering:

"They started it"

American Patriot said: "@Patricia I agree with your entire post except for the popularly elected president part. I hate to say it but far to many Americans are not smart enough to elect a politician. Frankly I would leave the current system for the president and amend the 17th amendment so senators are elected by their state legislators. I would like to see the states become stronger. I believe this would restore balance to our system."
Oh my how right you are!!! That's what I liked about Romney - he was about returning rights to states. Too bad the presidency has become a popularity contest where the best looking man with the ability to be cool wins. Look at what that candidate has done to us yet they follow blindly. We have a government where the rich and powerful in politics can get off scopt free no matter what they do (think benghazi). Campaigning is more important than our people in trouble around the world. I heard the hearings and it was disgraceful. But what's disgraceful seems to be in vogue these days.
I would also add term limits for Congress to complete your thought. ANd JK is right too. Money and political power (who can do what yfor who) is what it's about now. Sad day for our country.

Here we go again - Love is pattient, love is kind, love does not keep a record of wrongs...
Can we just stay on topic for once? And be honest, it does seem a little strange that someone would not remember the big hullabaloo that took place in 2000 over this very thing. Jut say, "my bad, I must have forgotten". It's ok to be wrong now and then. It just sounds like a covenient jab at President George Bush that backfired. leave it alone and let's move on.

MK- lol That's about the truth. It really is both sides of the issue.

Mr. B said;
"Why would it take anyone longer to vote than the next person. If you show up at the polls with proper identification, are registered to vote, and prepared, then the voting machine is open to the next in line. No discrimination on how you vote, the poll workers don't know or care. If anyone stands in line longer than the person in front of or behind them, its their own fault."
I wondered the same thing. I don't think lines discriminate? The only way you'll lose your place in line is by stepping outside for too many cigarette breaks. lol
Seems as many on here missed that class on researching information. lol

They were David. I'm honest. Just reminding you not to take all of this too seriously. No need for high blood pressure moments. I wish I had learned earlier in life how to choose my battles, but I did eventually learn (now that I'm old darn it!) You want to live life to its fullest. :)

David if you feel insulted that's your problem not mine. Too bad you didn't take Tammy's advice earlier.

David, can you admit your comment was wrong? I was not disrespectful to you, I only stated the obvious. As I just stated if you feel insulted, thats your problem not mine.
I suggest you get yourself a good nights rest and try to think before you post a comment.

David,
If you felt my comment was inappropriate you certainly had the opportunity to flag it as such. Regarding the "Terms of use" and "Acceptable Use", where does it say that an accurate statement is not acceptable? There was no profanity or name calling used at any time.

Perhaps you have too thin of a skin to be commenting on political subjects.
End of conversation.

Chris I think that's a great idea. I have been having a pleasant and productive conversation on two other posts and the side conversation people have been completely ignored. That's what I do. I have been simply flagging people. Otherwise, the conversation becomes about individual people drawing attention to themsleves. I think we need to stop reewarding that. I've enjoyed the freedom of actually keeping the conversation as close to topic as possible. It's been nice for a change. I wish moderators would come on more often. That would let people know to mind their p's and q's and keep it to a minimum at least.

Tammy you are a very wise person!!!

Chris, if I had a thin skin, I'd have to burn my computer. lol