Should states give their Presidential Delegates Proportionally?

[fskimospy]

I strongly feel that direct popular vote elections would mean the end of any chance of representation in the White House by smaller states. Candidates can simply canvas the large cities, and ignore the concerns of middle america and small states. What is a great policy for LA, NYC, Chicago, Miami, is not generally a great policy for rural america.

When the Electoral College was created this concept was understood by the drafters. It is a system designed to protect the rights of the smaller states. The need to do this hasn't gone away.

What smaller states do you believe are currently protected by the electoral college, and why? Is Delaware protected? Rhode Island? Arkansas? Montana? Georgia? Of course not, they are ignored completely. Our current system doesn't protect small states as it is.

I fail to see how a system is better simply because a politician will choose to campaign in rural areas of half a dozen states in exchange for completely ignoring the vast majority of the US population for a nationwide office.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

You know that low population areas are already granted large additional legislative representation as compared to urban ones, right? Why should this be extended further to presidential elections?

Furthermore, why is having a system where our candidates only need to address the issues in a handful of states superior to one where they would campaign in higher density areas?

It should be extended for the same reason it was created in the first place - to prevent high population areas from totally dictating terms of policy on low population areas, because population density is a huge factor in what reasonable policy is. Considering crime and policing issues alone, what's needed in New York is totally different from what's needed in Montana.


However, I take exception to your assertion that non-swing states don't factor in. The non-swing states are actually providing the baseline for the parties, and the swing states are simply getting slight permutations of what's needed to keep the non-swing states on their current side.

Texans may not seem to have much influence because they always go Republican - but that also limits how much the Republicans can bend to get the 'swing' states. If for instance, the swing issue in Pennsylvania was gun control, the republicans are pretty much stuck being against it. Whichever way the swing state ends up going was actually determined by the stances the two parties take - which is dictated by the non-swing states.

 

[Griffinhart]

What smaller states do you believe are currently protected by the electoral college, and why? Is Delaware protected? Rhode Island? Arkansas? Montana? Georgia? Of course not, they are ignored completely. Our current system doesn't protect small states as it is.

I fail to see how a system is better simply because a politician will choose to campaign in rural areas of half a dozen states in exchange for completely ignoring the vast majority of the US population for a nationwide office.

The Senate is populated the way it is for the same reasons. I'm sorry if you can't see the need for such a system, but it's there. I feel it's a needed system and extremely appropriate for a democratic republic.

 

[fskimospy]

It should be extended for the same reason it was created in the first place - to prevent high population areas from totally dictating terms of policy on low population areas, because population density is a huge factor in what reasonable policy is. Considering crime and policing issues alone, what's needed in New York is totally different from what's needed in Montana.

However, I take exception to your assertion that non-swing states don't factor in. The non-swing states are actually providing the baseline for the parties, and the swing states are simply getting slight permutations of what's needed to keep the non-swing states on their current side.

Texans may not seem to have much influence because they always go Republican - but that also limits how much the Republicans can bend to get the 'swing' states. If for instance, the swing issue in Pennsylvania was gun control, the republicans are pretty much stuck being against it. Whichever way the swing state ends up going was actually determined by the stances the two parties take - which is dictated by the non-swing states.

Low density areas are already hugely disproportionately represented in the legislature. Why should we extend this advantage even further?

EDIT: Just for everyone's information, the population of the 20 smallest states in the US is around 30 million people, or about 10% of the US population. If the small states wanted to band together, 10% of the US population could effectively grind all legislation to a halt under our current system. (ok, they would need 41, but you get my point) This is already a TREMENDOUS deference to small states.

As for the agenda of the parties being dictated by the safe areas, I disagree. The parties' positions are explicitly created to appeal to swing states in reference to the other party's position. The Republicans do not worry in the slightest about keeping Texas on their side, nor do the Democrats worry about New York. They have funding concerns from these areas, but not electoral ones.

As for gun control, the Republicans are actually not just stuck being against it. In fact you will find plenty of Republican platforms for states less friendly to gun rights that are quite malleable on the issue. John McCain himself had a decidedly mixed record on gun rights, supporting assault weapons bans, bans on cheap guns, closing the gun show loophole, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

The Senate is populated the way it is for the same reasons. I'm sorry if you can't see the need for such a system, but it's there. I feel it's a needed system and extremely appropriate for a democratic republic.

You didn't answer my question. How are small states currently protected in this system? Which small states do you consider to be protected?

I actually have specifically referenced the Senate in this discussion already, and am asking why preferential treatment needs to be given to states that are neither large nor small, but simply have low partisan PVI numbers. I am unaware of any part of the Constitution that references this, and so I will once again ask you why this is superior.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I would make the presidential election by popular vote entirely. The electoral college is an artifact of the days when counting all of the votes was not feasible, and it was much easier to go by delegates. That's no longer the case.

Elections should also be runoffs in the event there is no majority. It would make it far more likely that a third party could succeed, since people wouldn't have to worry as much about "throwing away" their votes (although you do sometimes run the risk of what happened in France in 2002).

 

[Griffinhart]

You didn't answer my question. How are small states currently protected in this system? Which small states do you consider to be protected?

I actually have specifically referenced the Senate in this discussion already, and am asking why preferential treatment needs to be given to states that are neither large nor small, but simply have low partisan PVI numbers. I am unaware of any part of the Constitution that references this, and so I will once again ask you why this is superior.

I believe it's superior for the same reasons the founding fathers did.


The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

These concepts are a part of the federalist papers.

 

[Griffinhart]

I would make the presidential election by popular vote entirely. The electoral college is an artifact of the days when counting all of the votes was not feasible, and it was much easier to go by delegates. That's no longer the case.

This was never the reason for the electoral college.

 

[monovillage]

Low density areas are already hugely disproportionately represented in the legislature. Why should we extend this advantage even further?

EDIT: Just for everyone's information, the population of the 20 smallest states in the US is around 30 million people, or about 10% of the US population. If the small states wanted to band together, 10% of the US population could effectively grind all legislation to a halt under our current system. (ok, they would need 41, but you get my point) This is already a TREMENDOUS deference to small states.

As for the agenda of the parties being dictated by the safe areas, I disagree. The parties' positions are explicitly created to appeal to swing states in reference to the other party's position. The Republicans do not worry in the slightest about keeping Texas on their side, nor do the Democrats worry about New York. They have funding concerns from these areas, but not electoral ones.

As for gun control, the Republicans are actually not just stuck being against it. In fact you will find plenty of Republican platforms for states less friendly to gun rights that are quite malleable on the issue. John McCain himself had a decidedly mixed record on gun rights, supporting assault weapons bans, bans on cheap guns, closing the gun show loophole, etc.

Just in case anyone was wondering why that jackhole McCain got his ass beat so bad in the run against Obama.

 

[Throckmorton]

Forget all this delegate bullshit. We should elect presidents with a popular vote. One person, one vote.

 

[QuantumPion]

There have been attempts in recent years by republicans to do that, but only in blue states, which is just a power grab.

Yup, same with democrats trying to get proportional vote in southwestern red states for the illegal vote.

That sentence doesn't make much sense, like I seriously don't know what you're trying to say about illegal immigrants.

I am saying that Democrats want the illegal alien vote. That's why they want proportional voting in southwestern red states.

It was sort of a troll, you see.

 

[soulcougher73]

Ive talked about this before. Proportional would be better...BUT..if you are going that route you may as well go straight popular vote since it is basically the same thing.

 

[soulcougher73]

It should be proportional, but only if it applies to all states that way. There have been attempts in recent years by republicans to do that, but only in blue states, which is just a power grab.

Better yet, I hope to see more states pass the national popular vote legislation, effectively eliminating the electoral college.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

The whole EC/Popular vote issue has always been a hot topic for me. It is archaic at this point and time and nullifies so many voices (both R & D) all based on what state you live in. Bad design.

 

[fskimospy]

I believe it's superior for the same reasons the founding fathers did.

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

These concepts are a part of the federalist papers.

So once again, what smaller states do you believe are protected by the current arrangement? What is the evidence of this?

The electoral college serves to concentrate enormous electoral power in a handful of states that happen to have low cook PVI indicators. That's all it does now. The founding fathers took a number of steps to render our democracy less representative, and a number of them proved to be foolish. The electoral college was one of them. I see no reason why the needs of Ohio (11.5 million) should be given such greater importance than the needs of California (population 37.7 million) And yet... they are.

The electoral college is a poorly conceived relic meant to consolidate power in the elites. It should have been scrapped a long time ago. Luckily, I do believe that the states will eventually get enough to sign on to the national popular vote compact to in effect abolish it.

 

[RedChief]

You didn't answer my question. How are small states currently protected in this system? Which small states do you consider to be protected?

I actually have specifically referenced the Senate in this discussion already, and am asking why preferential treatment needs to be given to states that are neither large nor small, but simply have low partisan PVI numbers. I am unaware of any part of the Constitution that references this, and so I will once again ask you why this is superior.

Lets take the state of Alaska. Its rather small, having only 720,000 people living their. Figuring the US pop is 330m, that means that Alaska has only .2% of the population. Yet having 3 votes of 535 in the electoral college gives them .6% of the influence there. The people republic of California though has 11.5% of the total pop of the country (~38m) yet only has 10.3% of the votes in the electoral college.

The simple fact that w/o the electoral college, you'd never see a never see a presidential candidate outside of huge metro areas.

 

[fskimospy]

Lets take the state of Alaska. Its rather small, having only 720,000 people living their. Figuring the US pop is 330m, that means that Alaska has only .2% of the population. Yet having 3 votes of 535 in the electoral college gives them .6% of the influence there. The people republic of California though has 11.5% of the total pop of the country (~38m) yet only has 10.3% of the votes in the electoral college.

The simple fact that w/o the electoral college, you'd never see a never see a presidential candidate outside of huge metro areas.

I have already addressed this. Under our current system we have the candidates spend nearly all of their campaign time in about half a dozen states or so. While under a national popular vote system some areas would certainly be ignored, far more areas are already being ignored.

Your complaint is that candidates wouldn't campaign in Alaska. Well, they already don't, nor will they ever. In addition they don't campaign in most of the most populous parts of the country. I fail to see how this is a good system or why a national popular vote would not be superior.

 

[kohler]

With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

Now presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections-- NH, NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 (8%) of the 22 medium-lowest population states' total 166 electoral votes.

 

[kohler]

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
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 (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of even state elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

When every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense to try and elevate your share where you aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Texas, or for a Republican to try it in California.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would 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.

 

[kohler]

Lets take the state of Alaska. Its rather small, having only 720,000 people living their. Figuring the US pop is 330m, that means that Alaska has only .2% of the population. Yet having 3 votes of 535 in the electoral college gives them .6% of the influence there. The people republic of California though has 11.5% of the total pop of the country (~38m) yet only has 10.3% of the votes in the electoral college.

The simple fact that w/o the electoral college, you'd never see a never see a presidential candidate outside of huge metro areas.

A survey of Alaska voters conducted on January 27-28, 2010 showed 70% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Voters were asked "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?"

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 66% among Republicans, 78% among Democrats, 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
By gender, support was 78% among women and 60% among men.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65.

NationalPopularVote

 

[kohler]

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where more than 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Presidential campaigns spend 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they aren’t hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and can win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

With national popular vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

 

[kohler]

The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. That's not what the Founding Fathers wanted.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

 

[kohler]

Do you all think states should be winner takes all or proportional, wrt the Electoral College Delegates?

I am interested in not only the choice, but WHY you choose the choice you choose.

For me, I think the delegates should be given proportionally, based on percentage of vote. I think this more accurately represents the will of the people.

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[kohler]

iirc Nebraska is the only State that gives electoral votes proportionally, with some minor district twists. As a Republican in California of course i 'd like to see electoral votes done by proportion or district. I doubt if the Democrats will ever allow it to happen since it would dilute their power in "safe" states.

No state awards electors proportionally. Maine and Nebraska use a congressional district winner method.

Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race has been competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 2/3rds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[kohler]

Dems generally have the popular votes from the more populous states. Their "safe states" are fewer in number, half of the votes in CA to the GOP would hurt more than gaining half the votes in Texas. I think the GOP would gain an advantage over-all, though not a major one.

One thing that both parties would probably dislike as well is, they would need to spend far more campaign dollars in states that they traditionally haven't had to.

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.

Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, 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
* 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. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal. Candidates would reallocate the money they raise to no longer ignore more than 2/3rds of the states and voters.

 

[monovillage]

Lets take the state of Alaska. Its rather small, having only 720,000 people living their. Figuring the US pop is 330m, that means that Alaska has only .2% of the population. Yet having 3 votes of 535 in the electoral college gives them .6% of the influence there. The people republic of California though has 11.5% of the total pop of the country (~38m) yet only has 10.3% of the votes in the electoral college.

The simple fact that w/o the electoral college, you'd never see a never see a presidential candidate outside of huge metro areas.

You might not understand but the lefties want it that way, their side of the debate (left/liberal/Democrat) would hugely benefit from changes to the constitutional method of electing a president. They may hem, haw, wiggle and waggle, but it all comes down to accruing power to their side of the debate. Everything else is just pure bullshit. It's all about money and power, that's all it's ever been about and all it will ever be about.