Thoughts on the popular vote vs. Electoral College

I used to be for getting rid of the Electoral College, but I've changed my stance on the issue. Right now, candidates have to campaign in all 50 states. If it were based on the popular vote, our President would be elected by the coasts and the major cities. You think they'd really campaign hard in Iowa and New Hampshire? They'd spend the vast majority of their time in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, DC, Boston, the Bay Area, etc.

The above being said, I would, however, be in favor of changing the way the Electoral College is tabulated. I wouldn't mind seeing each Congressional District selecting a candidate and rather than the entire state going to the overall winner of the state, each Congressional District gets to vote for who won their district. The Senators will then vote for who won the majority of their Congressional districts. If it's a tie, then the Senators vote for the overall winner of the state by popular vote.

It would mean that California wouldn't be blown off by the Republican and Texas wouldn't be blown off by the Democrat because there would be electoral votes at play. It's the swing states that drive the election--Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc.--because a few votes can dramatically tip the scales in terms of the Electoral College.

 

And that's precisely why the electoral college was enacted in the first place. The smaller states were afraid that their votes would mean less. They were worried they would be controlled by the bigger states.

 

I think we should be able to vote for a favorite candidate and a second place candidate. So you could vote for Nader or Ron Paul with your primary vote, then Gore or McCain with your secondary vote. Or vice versa.

It'd allow you to vote without worrying about throwing away your vote. In the event nobody has a majority, you have a second vote with just the two top vote-getters.

Just do away with the primary system.

 

But they COULD be!

 

Why is it bad that they'd spend the majority of time campaigning where more people are? Shouldn't they be making their case to the most people, rather than the largest tracts of land?

A representative democracy means politicians are representing people, not land. It makes perfect sense that more people are more relevant than less people. I don't see why there should be an artificial reason to go campaign to less people. Yes, those people count too...in proportion to their population. The whole "1 person, 1 vote" thing.

 

Please explain where you are coming up with this... because the only pres in recent history to be elected despite popular vote was Bush in 2000.

 

He means that Clinton didn't get over 50%...he got a plurality, which is more votes than the other guy but under 50% of the total.

 

I'm not very politically savvy, but to me, it seems the only logical way is the popular vote. Why should a country with 5,000 people in it count the same as a county with 500,000 people in it? That just seems ridiculous.

 

So what difference at all does that make? The 50% marker doesn't mean anything unless there is only two candidates.

 

I've never understood why Denny finds that a telling point.

 

Before this electoral wipeout of moderate Democrats, there were a significant number of Democratic districts from Texas.

 

All my idea would do is split up the country into 435 districts rather than 50 states. What happens now is that the states that are evenly split (the "swing" states) get a preponderance is the attention from the candidates because the solidly red and blue states are assumed to be locked up already. So it isn't large states that have power, but swing states.

 

Because you would work your campaign dollars and time where it would grab the most voters. There would be vast tracts of this country where the interests of the population would be ignored. The large states and the large metropolitan areas still get the majority of the attention; the EC just means that places without major metropolitan areas on the interior of this country get a little attention, too. There really is a difference between people on the coasts and the interior, both in their concerns and their outlook on life and the role of government. I think a President should have an incentive to campaign in every single state to learn about these concerns and outlooks.

 

Yes, because "the most voters" is the same thing as "the most people you represent."

I think a prospective President should have incentive to try and reach the greatest number of people he/she is going to represent. Ideally, that would be everyone. Since time is a limited resource, it should be the places where he can hear from and talk to the most citizens.

 

If you can communicate with more people in the Bay Area than you can in Wyoming, the Dakotas and Nebraska, you're going to spend virtually all your money targeting those voters. And the urban and suburban voter is different than the rural one or one that lives in a small town. The voters would then be treated unequally. Right now, it's pretty close to equal. It's not perfect, but it's pretty close, and a damn sight closer than under a popular vote rule.

And I think a prospective President should be forced to travel to the interior of this country and make the case in all 50 states why they should be elected. I'm not interested in the President from the Northeast, California and Chicago. We have that right now, and it's pretty clear he doesn't understand this country in the slightest. I prefer a President of the United States. Since you're from the Bay Area, I understand while you think differently. Of course, you already have Nancy Pelosi running an agenda with which most Americans disagree, so I think you're being a bit greedy asking for that President, too.

 

Which is as it should be, since a leader should be communicating with more people rather than less people. If more people lived in Wyoming than the Bay Area, then the prospective President should spend more time there. In a representative democracy, someone running for office should be campaigning to the largest amount of his/her future constituency as possible.