Government & Elections

For the longest time (200 years) we have been voting in the same way for major elections...we vote, the electors vote, and someone is elected.
4 or 5 times in our history the popular vote has not elected the president, the 2000 election wasn't the first time. However, never has this sparked such controversy as it did this time around.
The Democrats are calling for a "redo" and want us to get rid of the electors and go straight up with a vote of the people, "one person, one vote".

There is a grave problem with this kind of voting. The polulation centers of our country would elect the next president.
Why would this be a bad thing?
It would only take 9 total states to elect the next president. 9 out of 50 states. That isn't even close to a majority. Even if we compensate for "red" vs "blue" states, it would still fall on 13-14 of the 50 states to elect te next president. This means that 36 states would have no voice.
Yes, it is a government "of the people"...but the Federal Government is also to represent the interest of the States. States, not as entities in and of themselves, but States as in the grouping of people within sovereign boundaries called States.
The major population states would make all the decision in this country, which might not be the best decision for the states with lower populations. Most of these states are technology, industry, and tourist centers.
Places like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, and Colorado would be completely ignored in the election process.

Ok, so how do we fix this?
Well, first off, we (that is, the United States) are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. The difference is, in a Democracy there is no need of "representation" via a senate, as all things are decided by the voice of the people. This works great in the States (smaller functioning communities) but not on the Federal level, because there are simply too many people in too few places.
A republic governs by taking representation of the states and using them to enact the "will of the people".

To facilitate this "representation" we must somehow garner the will of the people of the states by using what we call electors in the electoral college.
Electors are a good thing. They break down the populations into simple representations. It makes it harder for a single state to "carry the day"...HOWEVER, this can only happen if the electors are "unbound".
Currently we have 2 kinds of electors, "bound" and "unbound". Bound electors vote as a whole (the state "carrying the day") while unbound electors are free to divide their vote. Unbound electors, however, normally vote together anyway.
For instance, Washington has 11 electors. If 2/3rds of Washington's population votes democrat, then 2/3rds of the electors should vote democrat.
This way, the population is represented, which is what the electorate system was really designed to do.

This would force the politicians to go looking for votes whereever they could find them, because California would no longer be 55 votes, but some fraction of that number. Utah, Colorado, and the other "small" states would regain their voice.

This doesn't, however, fix everything...
We currently have a 2 party system, with a few other parties that represent other interests of some of the people.
Currently, our system won't support more than the two, because voting for the Libertarians takes votes away from the republicans, which ensures the Democrats will win, and the political philosophy of the Democrats is further from Libertarian than the Republican's philosophy is.
The solution to this is quite simple.
Allow people to vote for a primary candidate and a secondary candidate. This way, each person will "vote twice" but only one vote will count.
If their first vote (primary candidate) does not get enough votes, then the person's vote will move to the other (secondary) candidate.
i.e. If you vote for the Libertarian for your primary candidate, and the Republican for the secondary candidate, and the libertarian doesn't get enough votes to compete, then your vote for the republican will be counted.
In this way, your vote is protected, and you don't "help" elect someone you don't want into office by voting out of the two party system.

This would also help people be able to vote, with a free conscience. They could vote Libertarian, knowing that even if s/he fails, the Republican could still get elected. Our system would move from a 2 party system to a 5 party system (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, and Green).
All this is still a little moot, since, unlike in other countries like Greece, our political system doesn't change with the party elected. (when we vote a Democrat in, we don't move from a Republic to a Democracy, and when we vote a Republican in, we don't move from the Democracy to a Republic, etc).

Here is the fun part.
Using a new voting system that incorporates these two ideas, and applying that system to the 2000 election, the popular vote would still have "elected" the Democrat, but the electors, as representatives to the people, would have CLEARLY voted for the Republican, and there would have been no need for the courts to get involved.

Keep in mind, we are not a Democracy in the USA...we are a Republic...
The difference is :
Democracy - one person, one vote ON EVERY ISSUE
Republic - Representation and proxy voting by the representative

We should find the better way to operate within this structure, and I believe that this system is that better, less confusing, less ambiguous way.