[Torie]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Awarding electoral votes by congressional district is an absolutely insane idea. The party winner of the presidency for the decade could all be wrapped up by who gets the largest share of the gerrymandering pie, and the stakes riding on the gerrymander would be huge. Also, presidential candidates as the congressional districts are currently configured would really only need to campaign, and send mailers into, and advertise in, about 30 congressional districts. The rest would be irrelevant.

[aristeides]

It may be true that only 30 congressional districts are competitive, but isn't that largely because the system has been rigged so much in favor of House incumbents? Is it really true that only 30 or so districts would be competitive in presidential races?

Also, aren't you ignoring the two at-large electoral votes for each state? That's 102 electoral votes. And I would think at least 50 or so of those would be competitive.

[aristeides]

True that the congressional-district system would give a lot of weight to gerrymanders. But the current system gives a lot of weight to electoral fraud in the cities. In my opinion, that's worse.

[Morgan in Denver]

I agree with you. Besides, the whole concept of state rights comes into play and I do not think most people would want the populous states to dominate elections. Too many people are too quick to dismiss the Tenth Amendment and the rights of states. The USA is/was created of united states and states should develop their own formula for elections.