Electoral College

[piasabird]

How do you think the electoral college works?

Each states has a set number of votes based on population (Reason for Census). Also each state has the right to control how their electoral votes are cast. Most states elect to vote all their votes for the candidate/party with the majority. They cast all their votes for one person. Each college member does not just vote how they want. This is how the state wants the votes cast. The votes are based on how the state chooses to run their share of the college members. Thus each state is trying to protect its own State's Rights. It was set up this way on purpose so that each state had the right to control its members of the electoral college.

This is how state government works. States protect their State's Rights. States dont care about individual counties or precincts, they only care about keeping the people in power, who are presently in power. They care nothing about people, only money and power.

 

[ProfJohn]

We've had this debate before.

Popular vote is a bad idea because the largest 25 metro areas in the country contain over 100 million people or about one third of our population.

There would be very little incentive for candidates to visit any place other than these top areas (other than fund raising)

The Presidential election would be reduced to the northeast + Atlantic states, California, Texas, Florida and a few large cities like Chicago, St Louis, Atlanta etc.

The other 40 or so states would be ignored. Bad idea.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If you want one person - one vote; then have the votes allocated proportionally within the state and/or district

 

[theevilsharpie]

We've had this debate before.

Popular vote is a bad idea because the largest 25 metro areas in the country contain over 100 million people or about one third of our population.

There would be very little incentive for candidates to visit any place other than these top areas (other than fund raising)

And this is a bad thing... why?

 

[nonlnear]

And this is a bad thing... why?

That is one good point. The other important question to ask is whether ProfJohn's wild speculation about how the game would cahnge is even remotely true to begin with.

Going to popular vote would not create a unilateral incentive to campaign heavily in population centers. It would create an incentive to campaign where people are likely to change their minds. Whether that is in the major urban centers or not would likely depend on the specific election.

 

[CycloWizard]

That is one good point. The other important question to ask is whether ProfJohn's wild speculation about how the game would cahnge is even remotely true to begin with.

Going to popular vote would not create a unilateral incentive to campaign heavily in population centers. It would create an incentive to campaign where people are likely to change their minds. Whether that is in the major urban centers or not would likely depend on the specific election.

That's about what we have now, except in the case of a popular vote, you might have a swing village instead of a swing state.

A better idea might be to have a candidate worth voting for so we don't have to worry about whether the popular and electoral votes align...D:

 

[nonlnear]

That's about what we have now, except in the case of a popular vote, you might have a swing village instead of a swing state.

No, it's not at all what we have now. Right now the only swing voters who matter are the ones in swing states. With direct election, all swing voters in the country would finally be equally important.

 

[her209]

We've had this debate before.

Popular vote is a bad idea because the largest 25 metro areas in the country contain over 100 million people or about one third of our population.

There would be very little incentive for candidates to visit any place other than these top areas (other than fund raising)

The Presidential election would be reduced to the northeast + Atlantic states, California, Texas, Florida and a few large cities like Chicago, St Louis, Atlanta etc.

The other 40 or so states would be ignored. Bad idea.

Well assuming 100% voter turn out and assuming one candidate was able to get 100% of the votes from those 25 metro areas, they'd still have to get 17+% from somewhere else.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Well assuming 100% voter turn out and assuming one candidate was able to get 100% of the votes from those 25 metro areas, they'd still have to get 17+% from somewhere else.

Those 17% will just come from the next 25 densest areas - leaving the rural areas/states ignored.

Cost effectiveness. Pols spend their $$ where they will get the biggest bang for it.

In '04; many of the small states were no longer ignored because they became swing/critical based on the electoral college. NV and NM could have swung the election the other way. The overall count was that close and those two states were that tight.
Previously those two states were all but ignored.

If it was one vote across the board - why would any Politician spend (or is their minds waste) their precious time/$$ in the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Nevada, Nevada, New Mexico and Alaska.

Together, the above are a blimp in the voting population yet they can burn up a half day to visit each one or two of their "population centers" for a few hundered thousand (max) voters.

 

[nonlnear]

The notion that opinion is primarily determined by geography is absolutely bizarre. It is a relic from the bread riots and the industrial revolution. The cities are incredibly diverse ideologically, and (even more shockingly), the rural areas are starting to be more so as well. To think that direct election would make the Presidential campaigns less inclusive is utterly laughable.

The real reason you hear this tired lie about direct election from party elites on both sides is that the state based process gives them 50 different ways to freeze out third parties. One or two nuisance lawsuits in backwater states can submarine a Presidential campaign - and both parties file a shitload of them to keep everyone but the corporate shills out of the real power politics. If the process were centralized, streamlined, and based on direct vote counts, it would make it harder to preserve the Republicrat hegemony.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Since everyone seems to be ignoring the 50,000lb elephant in the room, let me splain it to you.

Our current two party system pretty much depends on the electoral college and associated districting, it levels the playing field for the minority party. If we went to pure popular vote the GOP couldn't win a national election of any kind and would quickly fade into obscurity

 

[nonlnear]

Since everyone seems to be ignoring the 50,000lb elephant in the room, let me splain it to you.

Our current two party system pretty much depends on the electoral college and associated districting, it levels the playing field for the minority party. If we went to pure popular vote the GOP couldn't win a national election of any kind and would quickly fade into obscurity

If it were really as simple as that, the Dems would push for abolition of the EC. The real truth is that both of the legacy parties benefit form the very high barriers to entry that exist in federal politics, and they are happy to preserve the rules to freeze everybody else (including the electorate) out.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well assuming 100% voter turn out and assuming one candidate was able to get 100% of the votes from those 25 metro areas, they'd still have to get 17+% from somewhere else.

This is also assuming these large cities would 100% vote for only 1 party. Which would not happen. Im not a fan of the electoral college either and support the 1 person = 1 vote process. Eveyrone is now on equal footing and they would have to campaign more of the country then just a few key states.

 

[CycloWizard]

No, it's not at all what we have now. Right now the only swing voters who matter are the ones in swing states. With direct election, all swing voters in the country would finally be equally important.

Apparently the joke was even worse than I thought...

 

[nonlnear]

Apparently the joke was even worse than I thought...

[facepalm]
I got a so turned around by the people peddling the "only the cities would matter" myth that I totally misread swing village.

 

[Genx87]

Since everyone seems to be ignoring the 50,000lb elephant in the room, let me splain it to you.

Our current two party system pretty much depends on the electoral college and associated districting, it levels the playing field for the minority party. If we went to pure popular vote the GOP couldn't win a national election of any kind and would quickly fade into obscurity

You base this on what? Magically unicorns that come to you while sleeping?

 

[Red Dawn]

Bush getting elected in 2000 demonstrates it's flaws.

 

[Modelworks]

I don't think the presidential election is the problem. The house and senate are the problem. I would love for the rules to change so that while they could write the bills and propose changes only the people through popular vote could approve them. It wasn't practical centuries ago. Now there is no reason we cannot go to the polls over something like health care.

 

[theevilsharpie]

I don't think the presidential election is the problem. The house and senate are the problem. I would love for the rules to change so that while they could write the bills and propose changes only the people through popular vote could approve them. It wasn't practical centuries ago. Now there is no reason we cannot go to the polls over something like health care.

This is how a lot of laws are passed in California.

Need I say more?

 

[Modelworks]

This is how a lot of laws are passed in California.

Need I say more?

California should never be used as a basis for the rest of the states. Everyone knows they are in their own reality where the rest of the worlds rules do not apply.

 

[nonlnear]

This is how a lot of laws are passed in California.

Need I say more?

Giving people more power to create laws directly is a terrible idea - as Kalifornistan clearly shows. However giving people more power to repeal laws is a very different matter. It's too bad that the idea of "ballot initiatives" for the creation and for the repeal of laws are usually presented to the hoi polloi as being essentially one and the same. The power to create law is the power to enslave; the power to repeal laws is the power to liberate.

 

[kohler]

A handful of big states, let alone big cities, could not decide an election.

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

 

[kohler]

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.


There are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation's top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.

Evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.

 

[kohler]

Keep in mind that the main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

 

[kohler]

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.