In one of the most interesting articles on electoral college reform/ideas I've ever read, Idaho Values Alliance executive director Bryan Fischer proposes an even more traditional approach to the electoral college than we currently use. How so? Instead of people running for President all year, we have 538 separate races for Presidential Elector (2 per state overall and one per Congressional District). Each elector would either run on a platform to endorse a specific candidate or could say, "I don't know who I would vote for yet." It's an interesting proposal and, while I still like the Nebraska-Maine idea of split electors based on Congressional District, it's an interesting idea. Here's a quote --
These candidates for Elector would spend the campaign season – preferably each in their own congressional district, with two at-large Electors (representing each state’s senators) campaigning statewide - telling us why they should be trusted with the enormous responsibility of selecting the next leader of the free world, and then we would choose those Electors who in our view were determined to select someone with the public policy convictions we want in a president.In practice, it would be a crazy race and, could actually help third party candidates as they could run their own electors as they do Congressional candidates or try to woo the electors after the fact. It would also cut back the Presidential race to six weeks...and be limited to only those 538 people. It's the traditional government model that I appreciate. It's the effect that overturning the 17th Amendment may have -- if the state legislature was appointing your Senators, you'd pay VERY close attention to your state legislative races and much more than the average person pays today. Read the article and think about the idea. It's interesting to say the least.
One candidate for Elector might say, “I can’t tell you at this point who I will vote for, but my pledge to you is that I will vote for the man (generic use) who in my judgment will most effectively work for smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, a strong national defense, and traditional moral values.”
His opponent might say, “I will vote for the candidate who has the most confidence in government programs to solve social ills, and who will enlarge the role of government intervention in society.” Then the people pick which of the two (or more) electoral candidates they most trust to vote for a president on their behalf.