Quote:
|
Originally Posted by larrymcg421
My point is that Bush was able to win the popular vote without catering to the populated urban areas, so in a direct election system, that would still be possible.
|
It isn't possible now? It happened in the current system. I thought the point of changing was to provide more equal representation.
Quote:
|
As for California, Bush wouldn't get 61% there if he promised everyone a $1 million tax rebate check.
|
No, but a democrat could and maybe more. Direct elections would certainly provide them an incentive to continue to strive to reach this point.
Quote:
|
There comes a point where you've made allt he headway you can in an area and you have to move on because further campaigning will only make people suck of you. This happens in EITHER system. Under the electoral college system, there is much less incentive for Bush to go to Alabama or Idaho. Going there wouldn't have done him a thing in 2000 or 2004. But spending all that time in Florida and Ohio did make sense and it's what got him elected.
|
So, you really just want more personal attention from the candidate you support? I can understand the sentiment. We all want to feel the politicians care about us. In 2k Bush lost the popular vote but won the election. Under a direct election system this would not have happened. Maybe you're right then. He should have spent more time in Alabama and Idaho and ignored the places where more voters are actually living. It would have sucked for him though.
There's no system thats really going to make an individual voter important. It's always going to be a numbers game no matter how we slice the numbers. IMHO, Bush would still be better served getting 49% of Florida than 71% of Alabama. I'm just pulling numbers out of a hat as I don't want to look numbers up anymore because the point is valid. No matter how the votes are sliced a candidate is going to spend more time where the voters are unless the votes do not have equal value.