The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Has the Electoral College Outlived Its Usefulness?

Has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness? Are we in danger of having presidential campaigns ignore 80 percent of the states because they are not in play in the Electoral College? This year we have certainly gone to extremes to write off nearly all the states and most of the American people.

Let's look back at the past three elections. In 2000, as we all know, Al Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes yet, because of the Florida fiasco, lost the electoral vote by four votes. In 2004, a change of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have given John Kerry that state's electoral votes and the presidency, even though George Bush won the popular vote by over 3,000,000 votes.

After these two elections you can say one thing—campaigns know how to target!

This year, polls are extremely close at the national level yet still show President Barack Obama leading in key states with the key electoral vote swings. It is not inconceivable that Romney could win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. Not likely, maybe, but not by any stretch an impossibility.

What we do promise in this country is a very close election every four years, at least potentially very close. More and more the "hard red" and "hard blue" states have emerged very clearly. This year, it appears that only nine states are in play: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and New Hampshire.

The vast bulk of the advertising dollars, organizational heft, candidate time, and overall attention have focused on those states. The states of California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, etc. have been used as ATM machines—stop-overs to raise the needed campaign cash to air ads in the nine targeted states.

With both campaigns and independent groups spending in excess of $2 billion, probably $3 billion, this is a Mercedes-protection program for TV station managers in those nine states. Not to mention a boon to the local economy in general.

Does anyone remember Richard Nixon's convention pledge to visit all 50 states before the end of the campaign? Not a politically wise move back then, either, but we have come to the point where we have nearly 40 of the 50 states that don't matter in the campaign, because the outcome is predetermined.

We will never return to a candidate who visits every state but are we going down the path of future campaigns that won't spend any effort whatsoever on 75-80 percent of America? Is this truly a healthy development? My guess is that we need another crisis like 2000 before people begin to truly move the country away from the Electoral College. But we should be asking ourselves the question: Has this process of electing a president outlived its usefulness?  Shouldn't we truly examine going to a strict popular vote?

Now may be the time we should consider whether we are locked into a campaign system that makes a mockery of "representing all Americans" and whether it is getting worse.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2012/10/11/electoral-college-lets-obama-romney-ignore-80-percent-of-america

I fully support a popular vote for the presidential election it is more democratic. 

I have heard conflicting analysis as to which party would be helped or hurt by such a switch.  For me that part is  not relevant.  I support the change because it is better for democracy. 

Right now, voters in Texas, New York, and California have more weight than those in Wyoming or Idaho.

I agree.  It would give each voter equal footing in the Presidential Election.  Right now, voters in Texas, New York, and California have more weight than those in Wyoming or Idaho.

Um, no they don't.  If you're a Republican in NY or CA, your vote is just as meaningless as a Democrat in TX, WY, or ID.

The big states have more votes, but that doesn't mean that their voters carry more weight.

Um, no they don't.  If you're a Republican in NY or CA, your vote is just as meaningless as a Democrat in TX, WY, or ID.

The big states have more votes, but that doesn't mean that their voters carry more weight.

It's the states that have more electoral votes where the voters have more weight, not necessarily the bigger states. 

It's the states that have more electoral votes where the voters have more weight, not necessarily the bigger states. 

Once again backwards.

Wrong.  A Presidential candidate who wins California is going to get more electoral votes than one who wins Wyoming.  Therefore swaying the undecided voters in California is more crucial than swaying the ones in Wyoming.

Wrong.  A Presidential candidate who wins California is going to get more electoral votes than one who wins Wyoming.  Therefore swaying the undecided voters in California is more crucial than swaying the ones in Wyoming.

In California, you need to swing millions of undecided voters to have any impact.
In Wyoming, if you can convince a single town of 10,000 people to vote for you, you've swung the election.

I am also kinda torn on the electoral college.

What about some kind of split electoral vote -- some states do that already.

I don't know if it's me getting older or if the problem seems to be getting worse but I think it's time to revamp the system. If you live in Florida and Ohio you see a different political environment than most places. I think it's funny that Ann Romney says to the crowd in New York that they must be getting tired of the ads and gets almost no response because they don't have many. It is such a strongly democratic state that the nominees don't waste resources there.  Is this fair when I get at least 3 or 4 calls a day from one of the parties or polling services and every commercial is an ad telling me how horrible life is or will be under someone.

As things are now, a person can lose the popular vote by millions and still be president.  As things are now, if you are the minority party in a state not only does your vote doesn't count, the nominees won't even come to your state. Is this really what we had intended by the electoral college.

I found this article that illustrates the issue.

Actually I think this last election kind of proved my question wrong.

As things are now, a person can lose the popular vote by millions and still be president.

Actually I think this last election kind of proved my question wrong. If it weren't for Trump including more states on his run he would have never won and the electoral college worked as it should have. The trend has been .... as Clinton did, was to spend big in the big states and regardless of Democrat or GOP I think you need to speak to the whole country.

The only change I would make is that states award based on percentage and not winner take all.  For instance ... if Trump had a chance to get anything out of California he'd be forced to spend time there. The same goes for Clinton and Texas. I hate that the current system which only forces you to win your base and then some.   

Neither solution really fixes everything....that's kinda the issue. 

A popular vote system means that "population center" issues are the forefront.
Electoral college means that swingable states are at the forefront.

What about a system where it's both?  Like, half of a state's votes automatically go to the winner and the remaining are split via percentage of popular vote?  It would allow a 50 state strategy that would change a state by a couple of delegates here and there, but not allow you to ignore any state completely.

I don't even think this is the biggest issue. The campaigns last too long and there is too much money involved on both sides. Make the whole process 3 months long. No campaign rallies. No donations. Just do some debates on TV and give each candidate 2-3 rallies or speeches on TV and be done with it. Campaigns are too long, which translates into "too expensive". Not to mention, when they last that long they always devolve into a mud slinging shit show. Let them sell us on what they are going to do for the country. Not pander to every state they can and then do nothing. You can't give every state what they want.

Yes you could ignore states with your system.

 A state with 3 delegates would still be winner take all.  A state with 4 delegates would almost certainly go 3-1.  So if they are battle ground states now they would still be, if not they remain out. 

With a pure popular vote every state and every person matters. 

Everyone would matter.  The half million people who live in Wyoming will mattter and the 8.5 million people in NYC will mattter.  NYC will likely get more attention than Wyoming, but it makes more sense that 8.5 million people have more power than a half million, under our current system the half million have more power than 8.5. 

I don't even think this is the biggest issue. The campaigns last too long and there is too much money involved on both sides. Make the whole process 3 months long.

A popular vote system means that "population center" issues are the forefront.

NY electoral votes - 31
WY electoral votes - 3

Unless I'm missing something, how do you figure that the half million in WY have more power than the 8.5 mil in NY?

Or, put another way: a popular vote system means that issues that affect more people are at the forefront.

This topic is being raised as a result of the election. It is mostly raised by people who supported the candidate that lost via the electoral college. But it is a moot point. If the system were different, the strategies would be different by the campaigns. In fact, we might have completely different "general election" candidates. So it's short-sighted to say "if we elected presidents by popular vote, Hillary would have won". She wouldn't have because she didn't receive 50% +1.

Dave Gray makes a good point about why going with a straight popular work doesn't work. Having people in three or four major cities decide everything for the rest of the country doesn't make sense. That's why we have a representative system, to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

If we had a popular vote system, it would probably lead to 15 different candidates running and run off elections.

Popular vote systems work well in homogenous countries. Not so much in large countries with a great variety of regions and demographics.

This topic is being raised as a result of the election. It is mostly raised by people who supported the candidate that lost via the electoral college. But it is a moot point. If the system were different, the strategies would be different by the campaigns. In fact, we might have completely different "general election" candidates. So it's short-sighted to say "if we elected presidents by popular vote, Hillary would have won". She wouldn't have because she didn't receive 50% +1.

If we had a popular vote system, it would probably lead to 15 different candidates running and run off elections.

Actually this thread has nothing to do with Clinton.

This thread was started in 2012 after for very brief period of time it looked like  McCain might win the popular vote but lose the electoral, turns out he lost both. 

That's not what "popular vote" means

A popular vote works just like it sounds. A group of people vote on an issue or candidate. The votes are then tallied, and the issues or candidates are rank-ordered. The person or issue with the most votes wins. Therefore, a popular vote is really just a method of selecting a candidate or adopting an issue based on a majority of the total voters in an election. It really is quite simple.

And while strategies would change, odds are Clinton's margin would have been larger not smaller if large scale GOTV efforts had value in cities such as NYC, LA, DC, Boston, etc.

Actually, national popular vote systems tend to suppress grass roots activity. They become national campaigns and studies show that voter participation tends to decline.

It doesn't really matter whether popular vote means majority.  It's a working-technicality.

There is nothing from preventing a "whoever gets the most votes win, nationally" contest.  That's really what this thread is about.

^^^ no two canidates emerge because there is no runoff.  In races in which there is no run off you almost always have 2 main candidates...see almost every senate, governor or house race in the USA.  The only time you see a splinter field is when there will be a run off.  See GA special election.