POL - A movement for direct election of the president

[clintl]

Here's something interesting I hadn't heard about until today - a movement to undermine the Electoral College as it now exists and guarantee that the winner of the popular vote gets elected president. I hope the movement is successful.

(And, for you media bashers out there, this is not a straight news story, so please come into the story realizing that its purpose is persuasion, not objectivity. It's an editorial from the Opinion page of the Sacramento Bee).

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinio...15076536c.html

Editorial: Rx for U.S. elections
States can assure the popular vote rules

Published 12:01 am PDT Saturday, June 3, 2006
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B8

Print | E-Mail | Comments (4)
The election of the U.S. president should reflect the directly expressed will of the American people.

But it doesn't.

The current Electoral College system can produce perverse results: A candidate can lose the popular vote and win the Electoral College vote and, thus, the presidency. That has happened several times in American history, most recently in 2000. With the nation so closely divided politically, this is likely to be an ongoing problem, undermining the legitimacy of our presidential elections.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Polls for the last 30 years have shown that Americans overwhelmingly support direct election of the president, but Congress hasn't budged on a constitutional amendment.

A new campaign, "National Popular Vote," spearheaded by several former members of Congress, including California's Tom Campbell (most recently Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's finance director), has a creative way to get the same result.

The campaign uses an old mechanism -- an interstate compact -- to achieve the direct election of the president. The idea is modeled on existing interstate compacts, such the Colorado River Compact, which divides water among seven Western states. The compact depends on states changing their own rules for dividing up their electoral votes.

We'd prefer a constitutional amendment simply abolishing the Electoral College, but this state-by-state reform is an achievable second-best solution to a defective product that even the Founding Fathers regarded wearily and warily.

The strongest arguments at the 1787 Constitutional Convention favored direct election of the president by the people. Proponents wanted the president to be the "guardian of the people" and as independent as possible of Congress and the states. But the delegates were hopelessly divided between direct election by the people and election by Congress.

The Electoral College was a last-minute compromise, reached under what James Madison called the "hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience." The Electoral College has been patched many times since.

The interstate compact proposal wouldn't abolish the Electoral College, but at least it would ensure that it reflects the national popular vote.

Election officials in the compact states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes nationally.

Clearly, one state could not do this on its own. So each of the states has the same 888-word bill entering into a binding interstate compact (you can find the text at www.nationalpopularvote.com). States would join the agreement one by one. The compact would take effect only after enough states joined to represent a majority of Americans and electoral votes -- 270 of the 538 electoral votes.

So far, the bill has been introduced in five legislatures -- California, Illinois, Colorado, Missouri and Louisiana. The campaign's goal is 10 states by the end of 2006 and enough states by the end of 2007 to make direct election the governing rule for the 2008 presidential election.

In California, the Assembly approved the bill Tuesday. Because California has such strong influence nationally, the governor and senators can get this process rolling in other states by acting this session. Otherwise, in presidential elections, unhappy Americans are bound to continue paying for the Founding Fathers' fatigue.

[Galaxy]

I'm kinda on the fence about this, because I would worry about a "power-drive" by large populations (NY City, LA, ect). that would eliminate the voice of most of the country (most of the midwest, ect.).

[Franklinnoble]

Hmm... if it ain't broke...

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Hmm... if it ain't broke...

:cough Al Gore :cough

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by mtolson

:cough Al Gore :cough

Exactly.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'm kinda on the fence about this, because I would worry about a "power-drive" by large populations (NY City, LA, ect). that would eliminate the voice of most of the country (most of the midwest, ect.).

+1.

What it would boil down to is that the President would be what the people in Los Angelesan Diego and New York City want unless there's a candidate so overwhelmingly attractive/unattractive to the rest of the country that it forces a coalition of voters against or for that candidate.

Frankly, I've dealt with enough retarded Angelenos in my life that I really don't want them to have as big a say as they do in the election of the state government, let alone to give them a major say in the election of the President.

[st.cronin]

Actually, wouldn't it do the opposite? Since a vote in North Dakota would count the same as a vote in New York, instead of 1/27 as much (or whatever it is), it would actually reward candidates who campaigned across the country. That's always been the benefit as I saw it, anyway.

[aran]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'm kinda on the fence about this, because I would worry about a "power-drive" by large populations (NY City, LA, ect). that would eliminate the voice of most of the country (most of the midwest, ect.).

That's what many people immediately respond to this proposal with. The problem with the electoral college system is that one person is NOT equal to one vote. It depends on what state you are in. This is quite a counterintuitive system. Shouldn't campaigning be done to please the most people, not the just the people in the right places? It seems much more logical to me to have direct elections. I haven't given it a whole lot of thought, though, so I'm not going to argue very far.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Actually, wouldn't it do the opposite? Since a vote in North Dakota would count the same as a vote in New York, instead of 1/27 as much (or whatever it is), it would actually reward candidates who campaigned across the country. That's always been the benefit as I saw it, anyway.

Well, actually, North Dakotans get 0.5% of the electoral votes now, but only make up about 0.2% of the population, so they would be getting the shaft.

On the other hand, I think it would reward candidates who campaigned across the country in the sense that it would no longer make sense to not campaign in states where one of the candidates has a big lead because to the trailing candidate, a vote there would be just as valuable as a vote in a swing state.

Also, I think people are overestimating the amount of influence NY and LA would have - together, the two metropolitan areas still account a little over 10% of the US population.

[amdaily]

the electoral cooegelge exists for a reasn. most of you are not as smart, enabled, or enlighted as the people who craeated it to realize it.

[ice4277]

I think the smaller, less populated areas deserve a say, though. The breadbasket of the country is just as important as New York or L.A., but would its voice would be drowned out in a direct election. In a vaccum, direct election would be the only way to go, but in a country so vast and diverse as ours, the electoral college seems to balance our needs quite nicely IMO.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by amdaily

the electoral cooegelge exists for a reasn. most of you are not as smart, enabled, or enlighted as the people who craeated it to realize it.

Umm...right.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by amdaily

the electoral cooegelge exists for a reasn. most of you are not as smart, enabled, or enlighted as the people who craeated it to realize it.

Well, as Plato, Robespierre, and Marx teach us, smart and enlightened people don't always invent the best political systems.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Umm...right.

exacty my poiny, if skydog would just vist post # http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...&postcount=647 , all would be cleaed up!

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by amdaily

the electoral cooegelge exists for a reasn. most of you are not as smart, enabled, or enlighted as the people who craeated it to realize it.

The people who created it lived in a time where there was no television, no radio, no internet and news stories took days, even weeks, to get from one part of the nation to another. The reason the electorial college was created was because all of the electorates would be in one place, know all of the news and issues, and be generally well informed on the politics of the day while their constituants back on the farm with no electricity in the middle of nowhere wouldn't.

Those reasons are quite outdated. Especially now that the vast majority of states have laws that state all electorates must vote the way their state's popular vote goes. The way the electorial college is set up is not the same as it was back then. The electorial college has only got one more step in a line of several steps to go before it's abolished for good.

[aran]

Originally Posted by ice4277

I think the smaller, less populated areas deserve a say, though. The breadbasket of the country is just as important as New York or L.A., but would its voice would be drowned out in a direct election. In a vaccum, direct election would be the only way to go, but in a country so vast and diverse as ours, the electoral college seems to balance our needs quite nicely IMO.

Congress is the main lawmaking body in the US. The underpopulated "bread basket" of America is still appropriately represented there, regardless of the means of presidential election.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by aran

Congress is the main lawmaking body in the US. The underpopulated "bread basket" of America is still appropriately represented there, regardless of the means of presidential election.

So you're saying they shouldn't have a say in determining the President, since they're "appropriately" represented in Congress?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by aran

Congress is the main lawmaking body in the US. The underpopulated "bread basket" of America is still appropriately represented there, regardless of the means of presidential election.

If you want to see how much influence LA and NY would have in a presidential election, look at how much influence they have in the House of Representatives, since the House seats are assigned approximately proportionately by population. That would be a pretty good approximation. And I see very little evidence that the House is dominated by the interests of LA and NY.

[aran]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

So you're saying they shouldn't have a say in determining the President, since they're "appropriately" represented in Congress?

Not at all. I don't see where I advocate disenfranchising these people.

They would have a say. A proportional say to the number of people who live in their state.

In order for a bill to be passed into law, the senate, which has equal representation from all states, must give the bill their OK. It's even the upper house of congress. I don't see how allowing a 1-man-1-vote policy is disenfranchising or alienating the people of the lower population states.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by clintl

Well, actually, North Dakotans get 0.5% of the electoral votes now, but only make up about 0.2% of the population, so they would be getting the shaft.

On the other hand, I think it would reward candidates who campaigned across the country in the sense that it would no longer make sense to not campaign in states where one of the candidates has a big lead because to the trailing candidate, a vote there would be just as valuable as a vote in a swing state.

Also, I think people are overestimating the amount of influence NY and LA would have - together, the two metropolitan areas still account a little over 10% of the US population.

30 million out of 300 million. Now consider that we get less than 50% turnout during national elections, when people have a say in things like their congressmen and senators. Would a direct presidential election really solve that? Because boosting national turnout is the only way, IMO, that urban votes don't drown out their rural cousins.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

30 million out of 300 million. Now consider that we get less than 50% turnout during national elections, when people have a say in things like their congressmen and senators. Would a direct presidential election really solve that? Because boosting national turnout is the only way, IMO, that urban votes don't drown out their rural cousins.

Actually, it might. Not that that's neccesarily a good thing.

[clintl]

I'm not sure I see how your logic is working there. You're making an assumption that in a low-turnout election, the proportion of urban voters is going to be higher than it would be in a high-turnout election, and I don't think there's any evidence that's true. Usually, a few specific issues are driving force behind the demographics of voter turnout, and those change from election to election.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by aran

Not at all. I don't see where I advocate disenfranchising these people.

They would have a say. A proportional say to the number of people who live in their state.

In order for a bill to be passed into law, the senate, which has equal representation from all states, must give the bill their OK. It's even the upper house of congress. I don't see how allowing a 1-man-1-vote policy is disenfranchising or alienating the people of the lower population states.

Because the President would be elected by the residents of the largest cities, making it unfair for the smaller states. One of the reasons the electorial college is there is to give all states a stake in determining the presidency. While on the surface it seems fair to have a 1-man-1-vote policy, it's ultimately not fair to the low population states to have it done that way.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It's one person, one vote. I just don't see how this unfair even to low population states. Each person gets a vote. You just have to look at it differently. If you believe the president should be elected by the people, then the change is good. If you believe the president should be elected by the states, then you want the current system. Technically, the way it stands now is if only one person showed up to vote in Idaho or California for example, that candidate would get all of the electoral votes, thus elevating that one person's vote way above other individuals in other states - and that's nonsensical.

The real question is why should a low population state get a greater say than its percentage of the national population? If the electoral college was set up to match each state's portion of the population exactly, then it would have some validity, but it doesn't and so I am trying to wonder why it doesn't, and why people like it that way. Taking the example from above, just why does North Dakota, which has only 0.2% of the population get 0.5% of the say on who is president -- rather than getting the shaft as claimed above, it would seem the new system would restore the balance and give North Dakota the properly weighted say it should get.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

As FN said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's not broke.

But it is broken. It's been broken from the beginning. At three different amendments (12th, 14th, and 23rd) deal at least in part with fixing directly or indirectly something wrong with the Electoral College.

[aran]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Because the President would be elected by the residents of the largest cities, making it unfair for the smaller states. One of the reasons the electorial college is there is to give all states a stake in determining the presidency. While on the surface it seems fair to have a 1-man-1-vote policy, it's ultimately not fair to the low population states to have it done that way.

I'm not really worried about states as much as I am worried about demographics. It's all a matter of who you want to make less valuable as a voter, those who are in more populous areas, or no one. You're looking at either a system where people's votes are regularly devalued because of where they live, vs. a system where no-one's votes are devalued. Those in the minority have their lobbyists and whatnot. Does the president have so much impact on this nation that evening the playing field is a bad idea?

I don't have the statistics here with me, so I can't really make a solid arguement.

Besides, eliminating the College will take a new Amendment to the Constitution. Good luck getting the states to ratify that.

I seriously don't think it's going to happen for a LONG time, if ever.

[Daimyo]

This is a needed change IMO. I've only ever lived in Indiana and Illinois and under the current system my presidential vote has been completely meaningless in every election because there has never been any question which way each state would go.

A lot of people seem to think that this would hurt the fly-over states, but in the current system how much time is spent campaigning in Montana? Most of those states are already ignored because they're just never in play. In the current system you end up with five or six states getting all the focus because there is nothing to gain or lose anywhere else. A popular system would put every state in play.

[Bubba Wheels]

Horrible idea. Only two states would ever count again, New York and California.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Horrible idea. Only two states would ever count again, New York and California.

What a dumb statement. California has 36 million in population. New York has 19 million. (of course how many of those actually vote) That's only 20% of the US population. I think you'd kind of need more than 20% of the vote (assuming same percentage of people are voters in Cal and NY as they do in the rest of the country).

[Young Drachma]

I think it'll be funny in 20 years when all the red states are full of immigrants who are then citizens. 10 or 15 percent of a population is a lot more than people realize, especially if they're organized and they vote in blocs.

Things are gonna change a lot. And I don't mean to the left or the right. I just think that the rules for what parties dominate and how the power structure is setup is going to change...a lot sooner than people think.

Yup.

[larrymcg421]

Um, states like North Dakota, Montana, Utah, etc. that people seem to want to give a voice as opposed to the big bad NY and LA currently have NO voice. Why would either candidate go there? It's already decided. If it was a popular vote, then yes I would expect a candidate to go to Salt Lake City, for example.

New York and LA have more power under the current system, if anything. These two cities right now are almost garanteeing the entire states for Democrats. For example, Gore won New York 60-35. He could have done a LOT worse upstate and still won on the strength of NYC alone.

Also, the electoral college is not a proper representation of each state. It's winner take all (except in two states), so it doesnt matter if you win with 70% of the vote or 50.1% of the vote, or hell even 34% of the vote in a three way race. You still get the same amount of electoral college votes. That's kind of ridiculous. Imagine a serious three way race. It's actually feasible that someone could win the electoral college vote while finishing third in the popular vote.

[Axxon]

Here's the thing. Most voters already know who they want to vote for before the election begins. It's a fact.

What you're then doing is trying to influence the largest number of voters that are undecided.

Without the electoral college you're going to spend your money where the voters are. That's in the larger area's. It makes zero sense to try and convince the 4 undecided votes in Butthole Alabama when there's a million undecided voters in New York City.

You're going to campaign in NYC and you're going to pander to the interests of NYC. If you decide to try and get the four votes in Butthole there's a word for your campaign, it's called loser.

[edited to retract an incendiary statement that has been quoted but I don't feel belongs in a serious and so far non inflammatory thread ]

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Here's the thing. Most voters already know who they want to vote for before the election begins. It's a fact.

What you're then doing is trying to influence the largest number of voters that are undecided.

Without the electoral college you're going to spend your money where the voters are. That's in the larger area's. It makes zero sense to try and convince the 4 undecided votes in Butthole Alabama when there's a million undecided voters in New York City.

You're going to campaign in NYC and you're going to pander to the interests of NYC. If you decide to try and get the four votes in Butthole there's a word for your campaign, it's called loser.

Hey, but if that's what the people want, more power to them. I'm pretty much against protecting the morons from their own desires. It's how I feel about seat belt laws etc.

Well first of all, your Alabama example is very, very bad. Why? Because under the current system it makes even LESS sense to go there. The Republican has it sewn up and the Democrat has no chance, so it's stupid for them to even go there. Even here in Georgia we didn't get attention in the last two elections because the state was conceded early on. Under a direct election, it would make sense to go to Atlanta, or Birmingham. It wouyld make sense for Republicans to target Republican voters in left leaning states. And it would make sense to target Democratic voters in right leaning states. Under the current system, the tossup states get all the attention.

[QuikSand]

Aside from the tragic math going on in this thread, there's an awful lot of attention being paid to "visits" here... is that what really matters in presidential elctions? Do you vote for the candidate who most frequently or most nearly visits your home town? Does anyone?


Anyway... I think the supposed debate about big state/small state is mostly specious. The modern electoral college campaign, fueled by highly sensitive polling data, does not segregate based on the size of the state -- it segregates based on the "availability" of the votes in the state, much as several people here have intimated.

Under a direct election sysytem (however implemented), the biggest change would not be a refocusing onto specific large urban areas...it would be the diffusion of the campaign to reach the many areas that are not currently really a part of the campaign. Like Daimyo, I have basically been irrelevant to the recent presiedneital elections, living in a state that was never in play, and even my local media has largely been ignored -- as Maryland, DC, and even Virginia are all easy calls in advance. My mother in Ohio, however, was barraged by presidential ads all year long last go-round... for good reason, it seems.


While the conceptual injustice of the elctoral college is an affront to my philosophical sensibilities, it's the practical effect that is the much bigger issue. It's not really about big or small states... it's about hot or cold states...
and direct election would eliminate the artificial value of arbitrary state lines and count every vote the same, resolving the problems on both fronts.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well first of all, your Alabama example is very, very bad. Why? Because under the current system it makes even LESS sense to go there. The Republican has it sewn up and the Democrat has no chance, so it's stupid for them to even go there. Even here in Georgia we didn't get attention in the last two elections because the state was conceded early on. Under a direct election, it would make sense to go to Atlanta, or Birmingham. It wouyld make sense for Republicans to target Republican voters in left leaning states. And it would make sense to target Democratic voters in right leaning states. Under the current system, the tossup states get all the attention.

Ok, it's all about limited resources. No matter how theoretical we get campaigning for an election requires at least two major resources, time and money.

Both of these resources are better spent where the votes are. Why would you spend the resourceses it takes to reach 10 states including the time factor, the infrastructure, the advertising etc when you can spend less of each of these to reach the same number of voters in a more congested area?

Also, there is one unlimited resource, promises. Where would your promises, with the associated research and advertising be best applied, where there are enough like minded voters congested or spread over several states if every vote was equal?

The current situation isn't perfect but at least the winning party in your state has invested in your state precisely because it has meaning to them and their election stragegy. It's representation is greater than it's population so it matters. It has a positive value relative to the voters in a congested area. As the 2k election proves, this value is important.

I guess I should shut up since I didn't like the results of that election but hey, I still believe in the system.

Georgia has a population of 8,829,383. New York City alone has roughly the same population. Los Angeles has 9,937,739.

If each vote is equal why would you spend the time and money in an entire state when concentrating on one city is cheaper, more effective? Now, if those eight million voters in Ga are worth more than the equivalent votes in NYC or LA...

that's why this system was born.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Aside from the tragic math going on in this thread, there's an awful lot of attention being paid to "visits" here... is that what really matters in presidential elctions? Do you vote for the candidate who most frequently or most nearly visits your home town? Does anyone?

Not to comment on the rest of your post, but the answer to this question is "yes." I don't know who these people are (I'm not one of them) but there is always a swing of support that follows a visit. That (and campaign money) is the reason the candidates make so many stops during an election cycle. There are no commercials, posters, radio ads etc. that equals the bump a candidate gets from a visit.

[Axxon]

To add to my last point.

California has 35,893,799 voters.

In the current system if party A has 60% of the vote then the losing party has no need to try and win the state. They can't so they concentrate on smaller states that they can win.

But, 60% of Ca is rought 21 million voters they can try and influence. Georgia is only 8 million voters in total. Why on earth would the losing waste time in Georgia trying to influence the 8 million voters ( lets say all of them are undecided or for the other party ) when they have a pool of 21 million voters to try and convert in CA?

Makes no sense.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Not to comment on the rest of your post, but the answer to this question is "yes." I don't know who these people are (I'm not one of them) but there is always a swing of support that follows a visit. That (and campaign money) is the reason the candidates make so many stops during an election cycle. There are no commercials, posters, radio ads etc. that equals the bump a candidate gets from a visit.

Thus reinforcing my time as a limiting factor argument. It's easier to visit fewer places and reach more voters.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

While the conceptual injustice of the elctoral college is an affront to my philosophical sensibilities, it's the practical effect that is the much bigger issue. It's not really about big or small states... it's about hot or cold states...
and direct election would eliminate the artificial value of arbitrary state lines and count every vote the same, resolving the problems on both fronts.

Do you honestly feel that a party would feel that spending their limited campaign funds would be better served by focusing on a hot state with a relatively negligible eligible voter count?

Why on earth wouldn't they still focus on the hot states but focus even more on the ones with the larger voter pool?

This is what I'm missing. In either case they are chasing the voters, right? Isn't it far more cost effective to chase them in a smaller geographic area assuming every vote counts exactly the same?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

To add to my last point.

California has 35,893,799 voters.

In the current system if party A has 60% of the vote then the losing party has no need to try and win the state. They can't so they concentrate on smaller states that they can win.

But, 60% of Ca is rought 21 million voters they can try and influence. Georgia is only 8 million voters in total. Why on earth would the losing waste time in Georgia trying to influence the 8 million voters ( lets say all of them are undecided or for the other party ) when they have a pool of 21 million voters to try and convert in CA?

Makes no sense.

Because you can't spend the entire election in California and New York. There's only so much effect a visit (or ads, etc.) can do for you. Eventually people make up their mind and you have to look elsewhere. If you did that and ignored the rest of the country, you lose the undecided voters in all of those other areas. And you would lose the election. Even if you were able to get 100% of the vote (which would never happen no matter how much time you spent), that STILL wouldn't be enough. You would have to go to Georgia to try to influence those 8 million.

Again, you guys are using bad examples. No one cares about Georgia in the current system. So it's not like the electoral college is making things better. Even if we accepted your arguments, Georgia gets screwd either way.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Because you can't spend the entire election in California and New York. There's only so much effect a visit (or ads, etc.) can do for you. Eventually people make up their mind and you have to look elsewhere. If you did that and ignored the rest of the country, you lose the undecided voters in all of those other areas. And you would lose the election. Even if you were able to get 100% of the vote (which would never happen no matter how much time you spent), that STILL wouldn't be enough. You would have to go to Georgia to try to influence those 8 million.

Again, you guys are using bad examples. No one cares about Georgia in the current system. So it's not like the electoral college is making things better. Even if we accepted your arguments, Georgia gets screwd either way.

Georgia does my friend. It simply does.

If we sew up NY in your system we then go to Cali, then Texas, the Fla, then Penn. etc. When do we get to the small states? We don't, especially since most people vote party no matter what. Somebody has to get hosed in the all votes equal setting and there is zero incentive for that not to be the smallest states.

In the current scenario you can win by visiting all the smaller states so if you appeal there you will visit there. Otherwise, why would you, ever visit a state that has a small population if there are bigger states that still have votes to be won?

Think of it as a strategy game. You have limited resources that you have to allocate. Where do you allocate them? What's the incentive of not trying to maximize your resources?

Where is a small state going to gain value if it's vote is exactly equal given a candidate has limited resources?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Even if you were able to get 100% of the vote (which would never happen no matter how much time you spent), that STILL wouldn't be enough. You would have to go to Georgia to try to influence those 8 million.

Had to comment on this. This actually works against your point. In the every vote is equal scenario you would still be more effective lobbying the additional votes in the big states assuming they were winnable than moving to GA.

Under the current scenario if you lock up a much smaller percentage there is no longer any incentive to stay in a state and you have an incentive to move on. You'll tend to not concentrate where your strengths are, even the big population centers if you've sewn the state up. You'll visit other places and they'll reap the benefits.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Had to comment on this. This actually works against your point. In the every vote is equal scenario you would still be more effective lobbying the additional votes in the big cities assuming they were winnable than moving to GA.

Under the current scenario if you lock up a much smaller percentage there is no longer any incentive to stay in a state and you have an incentive to move on. You'll tend to not concentrate where your strengths are, even the big population centers if you've sewn the state up. You'll visit other places and they'll reap the benefits.

How so? Under either system people eventually make up their mind and/or get sick of you. You have to move on either way. In a popular vote system if your opponent is maximizing his vote in other states while your focusing on the biggest areas, you will lose. But under the electoral college, it's going to be a long long time before anyone seriously campaigns in Alabama, Utah, North Dakota, Vermont, Mississippi, etc.

Furthermore, as to your limited resources argument, it is MUCH MUCH more expensive to campaign in California or Florida or New York than in the smaller states. Bush himself showed in 2004 that you can win the popular vote even if you don't appeal to the large population centers. Look at a map of the voting distribution. Kerry won the most populated areas and Bush won the smaller areas, but won enough of them to make up for Kerry's advantage.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How so? Under either system people eventually make up their mind and/or get sick of you. You have to move on either way. In a popular vote system if your opponent is maximizing his vote in other states while your focusing on the biggest areas, you will lose. But under the electoral college, it's going to be a long long time before anyone seriously campaigns in Alabama, Utah, North Dakota, Vermont, Mississippi, etc.

Furthermore, as to your limited resources argument, it is MUCH MUCH more expensive to campaign in California or Florida or New York than in the smaller states. Bush himself showed in 2004 that you can win the popular vote even if you don't appeal to the large population centers. Look at a map of the voting distribution. Kerry won the most populated areas and Bush won the smaller areas, but won enough of them to make up for Kerry's advantage.

He won in 2k without winning the popular vote so I don't see your point. It was the same basic strategy.

The difference is if you can win 51% of california and then move on once you hit that you move on. In an equal value per vote system winning 61% of California wins you an extra 3.5 million votes. Hard to get that going to Georgia. Your scenario encourages staying with the large population centers longer if you're gaining votes per appearance.

I also notice you left out the even more limiting of the factors. Time. You can raise more money, you can't raise more time. Stay in one large state and you see more people with every appearance and you don't have as much downtime due to travel.

[Axxon]

Don't forget promises. You go pro union you'll add to your votes in the urban areas but it won't fly in right to work states. So, which view do you automatically pander to?

[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.

As for California, Bush wouldn't get 61% there if he promised everyone a $1 million tax rebate check. 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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Don't forget promises. You go pro union you'll add to your votes in the urban areas but it won't fly in right to work states. So, which view do you automatically pander to?

Why is it better to have a system that rewards pandering to "swing states" any better than a system that rewards you for pandering to populated states? And still, even if Bush did pander to union voters, that's still not going to get him 51% nationwide. Most people won't buy it anyways, just like they don't buy it when Kerry tries to pander to religious voters.

[Solecismic]

Originally, the concept was created to limit the ability of someone to gain election by focusing on one geographic area.

By adding the two electoral votes per state, it essentially eliminated the chance that a candidate could represent the mid-Atlantic alone (as California wasn't a factor) and never leave that area.

For its time, it was a good concept. Today, we have the same problem on a more local level. Most states have urban centers that dictate politics to the rest of the state. Take Washington and Michigan, for example. Without Seattle and Detroit, these states would be Republican strongholds. With them, the Democrats control each state.

Communications improvements have largely eliminated regional biases as well. Are you a red state or a blue state? It depends on how spread out your population has become.

So the question isn't whether the Electoral College is doing what it was designed to do. It isn't. Only a small number of states are in serious play. They get all the attention. And I'm not even sure attention is worth while. New Hampshire still gets very little back for each tax dollar it sends to the feds. I doubt anyone here even imagined that either Bush or Kerry cared one whit about New Hampshire issues.

One man, one vote sounds great in theory. But what do you do when your area is completely ignored? What do you do if you're in Washington, and you see ultra-liberal Seattle controlling the entire state - siphoning your tax dollars for projects you don't want or benefit from? Ignoring your issues completely?

Do we further break things down? Do we allow the rest of Washington to secede from Seattle? Do we allow New York to split? Because that would be the fairest thing to do, too.

There's a lot of disenfranchisement going on. But, by and large, the urban centers are sucking a lot of money and support from the rest of us, so they should be more than satisfied with the status quo. If they want even more, they should be prepared for the backlash.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Do you honestly feel that a party would feel that spending their limited campaign funds would be better served by focusing on a hot state with a relatively negligible eligible voter count?

Why on earth wouldn't they still focus on the hot states but focus even more on the ones with the larger voter pool?

This is what I'm missing. In either case they are chasing the voters, right? Isn't it far more cost effective to chase them in a smaller geographic area assuming every vote counts exactly the same?

You seem to be operating under the premise that it costs the same amount of money to run an advertisement in a huge market like New York City as it does to run one in a small market like, say, Montgomery Alabama. You raise the matter of "cost effective" without even considering the matter of cost in even a simple way. Without resorting to your tone. I'd simply disagree.

You idea of "still focus [on one thing]" but then "focus even more [on another]" also suggests to me that your use of the term "focus" isn't the same as mine. So it goes, I guess.

[Axxon]

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.

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.

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.