Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA
Abandoning the electoral college would simply further devalue votes that already seem to have little meaning.
|
Ok. So I'll concede that mathematically, you may be right. But from a perception standpoint, right now if candidate R holds a 50.5-49.5 lead over candidate D nationally, that's *still* not meaningful anywhere but in a handful of states. Your post mentioned 16 states, even in a hypothetical "very close" election, only 2 of the states you mentioned are even in play at all. So, ok, fine. In that scenario, Joe Wyoming and Jane Vermont's votes are mathematically worth less than half of what they use to be worth, but practically, it's easy to envision a scenario where people in far more states than the system we have now can at least
feel like their one vote might actually matter.
Again, I go back to 2008, where overall, Bush won 50.7% and Kerry 48.3%. In a year where 2.4 points separated the top two overall, only five states (Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, New Hampshire,) were that close. Only 11 were less than 5 points. Anyone in the 40 other voting entities in that election was just going through the motions.