Candidates would be more likely to pay attention to every state if they knew they could at least get a few electoral votes, instead of just accepting that a state which is either very red or very blue isn't worth their time or money.
If all the states split their electors based on percentage of votes received, Clinton would have 261 and Trump 258, with 19 unassigned due to rounding or 3rd-party voters. If those 19 unassigned electors were granted to the candidate with a majority/plurality in that state, we would be tied at 269.
Candidates hardly bother to campaign in the nations largest cities or their state, since most are already in the bag for the most liberal if not socialist candidate. Rank City Population 1. New York, N.Y. 8,143,197 2. Los Angeles, Calif. 3,844,829 3. Chicago, Ill. 2,842,518 4. Houston, Tex. 2,016,582 5. Philadelphia, Pa. 1,463,281 6. Phoenix, Ariz. 1,461,575 7. San Antonio, Tex. 1,256,509 8. San Diego, Calif. 1,255,540 9. Dallas, Tex. 1,213,825 10. San Jose, Calif. 912,332 The exception to the rule broke this time with Pa and Ariz with the battle for PA swinging the deal. But the battle was waged in Phoenix and Detroit too, which was in days gone by on this list. Education reform is sorely needed to change this demographic. Contrary to what the media sells about the more educated vote progressive, the reality is the uneducated vote democratic in addition with the feelers. Where as, the educated vote Republican, until they become so wealthy, they can afford to benevolently and apparently become Democrats. Without the EC system, it would hardly make sense to worry about anything else other than the population centers, except perhaps the next 5 on the list. So this would then in turn empower the nations street people to select our President. Probably no one right of a communist, or even Bernie Sanders could possibly have a chance to be elected. I seriously doubt we would have lasted into this century without the EC system. Those old dudes got it right 200 plus years ago. But the real question is, even with our advanced central government controlled education system, why do so many today not see the wisdom?
Denny says Trump would have won. Platypus says Hillary would have won. I wonder which one I believe...Which one is winging it, and which has precise numbers...
Can you imagine the mess that could arise in a really close popular vote election? Each state has it's own election laws governing when a recount is required. You could have elections being challenged in multiple states and end up taking weeks to unravel who won the election. Imagine five or six states ending up being challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. As it is, the Bush/Gore election ended up hanging up (by a chad) the 2004 election and throwing the country into a fit, but at least the outcome was limited to one state. The framers of the Constitution, in my opinion, were deliberate and wise when they chose to make our country a republic rather than a pure democracy. Any thought of changing the process deserves an equally deliberate and wise debate. The aftermath of a highly contentious election isn't the time for that discussion.
http://www.fairvote.org/maine_nebraska This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though since both states have adopted this modification, the statewide winners have swept all of the state's districts in every election except 2008 and 2016. In 2008, Nebraska gave four of its electoral votes to John McCain, but Barack Obama won a single electoral vote from Nebraska's 2nd congressional district. In 2016, Maine gave three of its electoral votes to Hillary Clinton, but Donald Trump won a single electoral vote in Maine's 2nd congressional district. Some have argued for expanding this system to address the problems inherent in the use of the winner-take-all electoral college method. However, if expanded to all 50 states, the Congressional District Method would make the presidential election even less competitive, and it would increase the likelihood of a candidate winning the election without winning a majority of the national popular vote. We analyze the system, along with the "whole number proportional" system in our 2015 report, Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral Votes.
Any close election, like Nixon/Kennedy would mean massive delays to handle recounting 100M+ votes. Heck, this election would be subject to recount. .3% difference. I think that's automatic recount in most states.
So what? Pay people to recount. IRV voting makes it so Rick Perry doesn't win TX with 39% of the vote.
