Has the Electoral College Outlived Its Usefulness?

[CF DolFan]

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.

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

[Spider-Dan]

Hmmm.  I'm undecided.

On the one hand, the demographic trends in this nation tend to indicate that unless the GOP makes a significant change in strategy, the number of states on the table for them will continue to shrink.  And I certainly wouldn't cry over a permanent Democratic presidency.

On the other hand, it is unlikely that the GOP would allow itself to be Whig'ed into total irrelevance.  At some point, the grownups will resume power, and even if the social conservatives are pushed to the side, the corporatists (which also have a sizable contingent among the Dems) will take over.  And the electoral college system is definitely one that favors the corporatists.

So it's tough for me to pick a side on this one.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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. 

[Landshark]

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. 

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

Actually, you have it backwards.  Voters in smaller states have more weigh per voter.  

[CF DolFan]

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.

Well kind of. The bigger the state the more delegates it carries.

Too many voters in this country really do not have a vote when it comes to the President.  A democrat in CA should have the same weight as a vote from a democrat in GA and so on for republicans. For that matter it cold actually give a larger voice to independents.   

[Landshark]

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. 

On a side note, a colleague of mine who teaches Political Science courses has this issue as one of three possible term paper assignments for her Political Parties course.

[Phishfan]

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

I think he was speaking of population size which determines the number of votes rather than speaking of geographic size.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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

Once again backwards.

[BigDaddyFin]

Leave the goddamn electorial college alone.  We have this argument every 4 years.  There's nothing wrong with it.  It's not broken.  Don't "fix" it.  The reason we have this argument is because one side is afraid they'll lose the election even though they won the popular vote.

[Dave Gray]

I am also kinda torn on the electoral college.

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

[Landshark]

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

That does not give them more individual power though. Think about it 1/16th is a hell of a lot less than 1/2. The more people, the less power they have individually.

[Spider-Dan]

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.