Should all states adopt proportional representation for the electoral college

  • 80 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by whipassmt (14162 posts) -

Currently in every state except Maine and Nebraska it is winner-take-all, so If a candidate wins 51% of the vote he gets all the electoral votes. This is somewhat unfair since it widens the gap between a candidate's actual support and his electoral votes, it also makes close elections look like "landslides". Also the current system makes candidates focus on some states ("swing states") while ignoring the rest of the states.

Wouldn't it be better for all the states to go by Congressional districts, like Maine and Nebraska do? Say for example a Candidate wins in 2 Congressional districts in CT and loses the other 3, he should get 3 Electoral Votes and the other guy should get the remaining 4 votes.

#2 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
I'm in favor of a direct national popular vote.
#3 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
That'd probably be even worse. Congressional districts are absurdly gerrymandered - in Pennsylvania for example Obama won the popular vote by a few percentage points yet managed to win only 5 out of 18 congressional districts in the state. Even though Republicans won the house, more people nationally voted for democratic congressional candidates than republicans. If the electoral college worked nationally like it does in Maine and Nebraska Romney would be president-elect right now.
#4 Posted by Omni-Slash (54449 posts) -
I'm in favor of a direct national popular vote.nocoolnamejim
no...this would mean that the vast majority of the country would go ignored....I think electoral votes should be proportional to the popular vote in each state......
#5 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I'm in favor of a direct national popular vote.Omni-Slash
no...this would mean that the vast majority of the country would go ignored....I think electoral votes should be proportional to the popular vote in each state......

Why do you think the vast majority of the country would go ignored under a direct national popular vote? I would think it would be the opposite. States that used to get virtually no attention because they were reliably red or blue would get attention and matter.
#6 Posted by Omni-Slash (54449 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Why do you think the vast majority of the country would go ignored under a direct national popular vote? I would think it would be the opposite. States that used to get virtually no attention because they were reliably red or blue would get attention and matter.

NY, Florida, Texas, California, Illinois..and maybe 2 others would be visited...everyone would be just completely ignored.....proportional Electoral vote would mean that the popular vote was still important...in each state....none of this winner takes all crap...
#7 Posted by DaBrainz (7707 posts) -
I would prefer the candidates partake in a fight to the death
#8 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Why do you think the vast majority of the country would go ignored under a direct national popular vote? I would think it would be the opposite. States that used to get virtually no attention because they were reliably red or blue would get attention and matter.

NY, Florida, Texas, California, Illinois..and maybe 2 others would be visited...everyone would be just completely ignored.....proportional Electoral vote would mean that the popular vote was still important...in each state....none of this winner takes all crap...

I'm not seeing a big difference in the incentives in play between proportional electoral vote and direct national vote. Would Obama really have spent a lot of time campaigning in Idaho under a proportional electoral vote?
#9 Posted by Boddicker (2919 posts) -

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a non-tax paying welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

#10 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I'm in favor of a direct national popular vote.nocoolnamejim
no...this would mean that the vast majority of the country would go ignored....I think electoral votes should be proportional to the popular vote in each state......

Why do you think the vast majority of the country would go ignored under a direct national popular vote? I would think it would be the opposite. States that used to get virtually no attention because they were reliably red or blue would get attention and matter.

How many times did candidate visit New Mexico, Idaho, Montana or Alaska during this election cycle?

#11 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151873 posts) -
No. Basically the popular vote in that state should determine who wins that state.
#12 Posted by Omni-Slash (54449 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'm not seeing a big difference in the incentives in play between proportional electoral vote and direct national vote. Would Obama really have spent a lot of time campaigning in Idaho under a proportional electoral vote?

maybe not..but the vote of the people would matter....now take for instance my state NY..say I vote republican...in truth it's a wasted vote..(and I'm sure dems in Texas feel the same way)...because all of the electoral votes go to the Dem candidate no matter the percentage....this would just be a more accurate representation of the US......and candidates would want to maximize their potential electoral votes as opposed to just assuming that all would go to them no matter what.....
#13 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1724 posts) -

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

Boddicker

You're right, what were we thinking? Here you go poor guy, your vote only counts as half as much as that rich doctor man's vote over there.

#14 Posted by radicalcentrist (320 posts) -

Well I live in Ohio, so it's in my interest for the United States to keep the current electoral college system.

#15 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151873 posts) -

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a non-tax paying welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

Boddicker
Hard to believe anyone would believe this. Wow.
#16 Posted by Boddicker (2919 posts) -

[QUOTE="Boddicker"]

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

StrifeDelivery

You're right, what were we thinking? Here you go poor guy, your vote only counts as half as much as that rich doctor man's vote over there.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I know it goes against your romantic "Schoolhouse Rock" view of America, but we're heading for disaster.

#17 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'm not seeing a big difference in the incentives in play between proportional electoral vote and direct national vote. Would Obama really have spent a lot of time campaigning in Idaho under a proportional electoral vote?

maybe not..but the vote of the people would matter....now take for instance my state NY..say I vote republican...in truth it's a wasted vote..(and I'm sure dems in Texas feel the same way)...because all of the electoral votes go to the Dem candidate no matter the percentage....this would just be a more accurate representation of the US......and candidates would want to maximize their potential electoral votes as opposed to just assuming that all would go to them no matter what.....

I'm a Democrat in Idaho, so yes, I know exactly how you feel. But my point is that the incentives are the same with either direct national popular vote (which is the most little-d democratic method of choosing a winner) and proportional electoral vote. In both cases, the best course of action for campaigns is to run up huge margins of victory in high population states that support you. Sure, Romney may have spent a little more time campaigning in New York if it's electoral votes were allocated proportionally, but Obama sure wouldn't have spent anymore time in Idaho. In other words, your state - and your vote - would be more relevant, but mine wouldn't.
#18 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151873 posts) -

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

[QUOTE="Boddicker"]

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

Boddicker

You're right, what were we thinking? Here you go poor guy, your vote only counts as half as much as that rich doctor man's vote over there.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I know it goes against your romantic "Schoolhouse Rock" view of America, but we're heading for disaster.

If everyone thought as you did we sure would. After all I'm sure the small percentage of the wealthy would totally look out for the poor and the working class by their election decisions. Elitism....alive and well in the hearts of the wannabes....
#19 Posted by whipassmt (14162 posts) -

That'd probably be even worse. Congressional districts are absurdly gerrymandered - in Pennsylvania for example Obama won the popular vote by a few percentage points yet managed to win only 5 out of 18 congressional districts in the state. Even though Republicans won the house, more people nationally voted for democratic congressional candidates than republicans. If the electoral college worked nationally like it does in Maine and Nebraska Romney would be president-elect right now. -Sun_Tzu-
mmm. I hadn't realized that. I figure proportional would've made Obama and Romney closer, but maybe it would've given Romney too much representation. I did do some searches and I found out that Republicans do dominate Pennsylvania's Congressional delegation and legislature, even thouhg Penn tends to favor Democratic Presidents.

Strategically speaking though I do wonder why the Republicans, who control the legislature and the Governor's office in Pennsylvania didn't try to go proportional, just for the sake of making it much harder for Democrats to get elected president. Maybe such a change would require a ballot referendum that wouldn't pass the voters due to opposition from the urban areas, or maybe state-Republicans don't feel like creating controversy in order to benefit the national party without doing anything for them at the state level.

I do hear some states use independent commissions to draw the districts instead of legislatures (who usually draw in favor of their parties).

I don't know if my state is gerrymandered or not, though I know that part of my city is in one Congressional district and another part is in the other.

#20 Posted by whipassmt (14162 posts) -

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I'm in favor of a direct national popular vote.nocoolnamejim
no...this would mean that the vast majority of the country would go ignored....I think electoral votes should be proportional to the popular vote in each state......

Why do you think the vast majority of the country would go ignored under a direct national popular vote? I would think it would be the opposite. States that used to get virtually no attention because they were reliably red or blue would get attention and matter.

I got a better idea. Base electoral votes on contiguity of territory. This way if you win a swath of contiguous states you get more votes than somebody who wins a smathering of isolated states.

#21 Posted by Omni-Slash (54449 posts) -

I'm a Democrat in Idaho, so yes, I know exactly how you feel. But my point is that the incentives are the same with either direct national popular vote (which is the most little-d democratic method of choosing a winner) and proportional electoral vote. In both cases, the best course of action for campaigns is to run up huge margins of victory in high population states that support you. Sure, Romney may have spent a little more time campaigning in New York if it's electoral votes were allocated proportionally, but Obama sure wouldn't have spent anymore time in Idaho. In other words, your state - and your vote - would be more relevant, but mine wouldn't.nocoolnamejim
but it would..you don;t think government officials would try to sweeten deals to each state in order to maximize electoral votes?...a single vote or 100,000 can be ignored..but one electoral vote would ensure at least an extra contract to some potato farmers (I know massive generalization to people in Idaho)...popular vote would mean candidates would indeed jsut fly over the middle of the country....this would at least garner some consideration to the midwest...

#22 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"] no...this would mean that the vast majority of the country would go ignored....I think electoral votes should be proportional to the popular vote in each state......whipassmt

Why do you think the vast majority of the country would go ignored under a direct national popular vote? I would think it would be the opposite. States that used to get virtually no attention because they were reliably red or blue would get attention and matter.

I got a better idea. Base electoral votes on contiguity of territory. This way if you win a swath of contiguous states you get more votes than somebody who wins a smathering of isolated states.

I literally have no idea why you place such an absurdly high value on the geography of the states in question and can see no logical reason why "contiguous" states should get more votes than "isolated" states other than an attempt to gain partisan advantage.
#23 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]That'd probably be even worse. Congressional districts are absurdly gerrymandered - in Pennsylvania for example Obama won the popular vote by a few percentage points yet managed to win only 5 out of 18 congressional districts in the state. Even though Republicans won the house, more people nationally voted for democratic congressional candidates than republicans. If the electoral college worked nationally like it does in Maine and Nebraska Romney would be president-elect right now. whipassmt

mmm. I hadn't realized that. I figure proportional would've made Obama and Romney closer, but maybe it would've given Romney too much representation. I did do some searches and I found out that Republicans do dominate Pennsylvania's Congressional delegation and legislature, even thouhg Penn tends to favor Democratic Presidents.

Strategically speaking though I do wonder why the Republicans, who control the legislature and the Governor's office in Pennsylvania didn't try to go proportional, just for the sake of making it much harder for Democrats to get elected president. Maybe such a change would require a ballot referendum that wouldn't pass the voters due to opposition from the urban areas, or maybe state-Republicans don't feel like creating controversy in order to benefit the national party without doing anything for them at the state level.

I do hear some states use independent commissions to draw the districts instead of legislatures (who usually draw in favor of their parties).

I don't know if my state is gerrymandered or not, though I know that part of my city is in one Congressional district and another part is in the other.

Republicans actually did try to do that in Pennsylvania.
#24 Posted by Omni-Slash (54449 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I literally have no idea why you place such an absurdly high value on the geography of the states in question and can see no logical reason why "contiguous" states should get more votes than "isolated" states other than an attempt to gain partisan advantage.

how abotu if you can spell DEM by connecting state or county victory you get 10,000,000 bonus votes?!...
#25 Posted by whipassmt (14162 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'm a Democrat in Idaho, so yes, I know exactly how you feel. But my point is that the incentives are the same with either direct national popular vote (which is the most little-d democratic method of choosing a winner) and proportional electoral vote. In both cases, the best course of action for campaigns is to run up huge margins of victory in high population states that support you. Sure, Romney may have spent a little more time campaigning in New York if it's electoral votes were allocated proportionally, but Obama sure wouldn't have spent anymore time in Idaho. In other words, your state - and your vote - would be more relevant, but mine wouldn't.Omni-Slash

but it would..you don;t think government officials would try to sweeten deals to each state in order to maximize electoral votes?...a single vote or 100,000 can be ignored..but one electoral vote would ensure at least an extra contract to some potato farmers (I know massive generalization to people in Idaho)...popular vote would mean candidates would indeed jsut fly over the middle of the country....this would at least garner some consideration to the midwest...

I know, under the current system Obama could go to Idaho and yell "potatoes suck" and it wouldn't make a difference at all since he would've already lost that state. But then again if Obama did that, Biden might get mad and punch Obama out.

#26 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'm a Democrat in Idaho, so yes, I know exactly how you feel. But my point is that the incentives are the same with either direct national popular vote (which is the most little-d democratic method of choosing a winner) and proportional electoral vote. In both cases, the best course of action for campaigns is to run up huge margins of victory in high population states that support you. Sure, Romney may have spent a little more time campaigning in New York if it's electoral votes were allocated proportionally, but Obama sure wouldn't have spent anymore time in Idaho. In other words, your state - and your vote - would be more relevant, but mine wouldn't.Omni-Slash

but it would..you don;t think government officials would try to sweeten deals to each state in order to maximize electoral votes?...a single vote or 100,000 can be ignored..but one electoral vote would ensure at least an extra contract to some potato farmers (I know massive generalization to people in Idaho)...popular vote would mean candidates would indeed jsut fly over the middle of the country....this would at least garner some consideration to the midwest...

I don't think that, even under a proportional allocation, any of Idaho's electoral votes would go for Obama. And the Obama campaign probably would have come to the same conclusion. My state just doesn't have enough electoral votes where the math works out that the Dems could have gotten an electoral vote out of the state.
#27 Posted by Omni-Slash (54449 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I don't think that, even under a proportional allocation, any of Idaho's electoral votes would go for Obama. And the Obama campaign probably would have come to the same conclusion. My state just doesn't have enough electoral votes where the math works out that the Dems could have gotten an electoral vote out of the state.

and you could be right in some cases.....but I think it would at least give more power to the popular vote ....and wouldn't be as alienating as doing a direct vote...
#28 Posted by whipassmt (14162 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]That'd probably be even worse. Congressional districts are absurdly gerrymandered - in Pennsylvania for example Obama won the popular vote by a few percentage points yet managed to win only 5 out of 18 congressional districts in the state. Even though Republicans won the house, more people nationally voted for democratic congressional candidates than republicans. If the electoral college worked nationally like it does in Maine and Nebraska Romney would be president-elect right now. -Sun_Tzu-

mmm. I hadn't realized that. I figure proportional would've made Obama and Romney closer, but maybe it would've given Romney too much representation. I did do some searches and I found out that Republicans do dominate Pennsylvania's Congressional delegation and legislature, even thouhg Penn tends to favor Democratic Presidents.

Strategically speaking though I do wonder why the Republicans, who control the legislature and the Governor's office in Pennsylvania didn't try to go proportional, just for the sake of making it much harder for Democrats to get elected president. Maybe such a change would require a ballot referendum that wouldn't pass the voters due to opposition from the urban areas, or maybe state-Republicans don't feel like creating controversy in order to benefit the national party without doing anything for them at the state level.

I do hear some states use independent commissions to draw the districts instead of legislatures (who usually draw in favor of their parties).

I don't know if my state is gerrymandered or not, though I know that part of my city is in one Congressional district and another part is in the other.

Republicans actually did try to do that in Pennsylvania.

Oh. Why weren't they able to do so?

#29 Posted by whipassmt (14162 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Why do you think the vast majority of the country would go ignored under a direct national popular vote? I would think it would be the opposite. States that used to get virtually no attention because they were reliably red or blue would get attention and matter.nocoolnamejim

I got a better idea. Base electoral votes on contiguity of territory. This way if you win a swath of contiguous states you get more votes than somebody who wins a smathering of isolated states.

I literally have no idea why you place such an absurdly high value on the geography of the states in question and can see no logical reason why "contiguous" states should get more votes than "isolated" states other than an attempt to gain partisan advantage.

1. It looks better on a map 2. It's more defensible 3. the isolated states tend to have more urban areas with high population density 4. The contiguous states produce a lot of the major resources, like oil (Texas) and Corn, Wheat, taters, so if they cut those things off the isolated states would be in deep doody.

#30 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151873 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] mmm. I hadn't realized that. I figure proportional would've made Obama and Romney closer, but maybe it would've given Romney too much representation. I did do some searches and I found out that Republicans do dominate Pennsylvania's Congressional delegation and legislature, even thouhg Penn tends to favor Democratic Presidents.

Strategically speaking though I do wonder why the Republicans, who control the legislature and the Governor's office in Pennsylvania didn't try to go proportional, just for the sake of making it much harder for Democrats to get elected president. Maybe such a change would require a ballot referendum that wouldn't pass the voters due to opposition from the urban areas, or maybe state-Republicans don't feel like creating controversy in order to benefit the national party without doing anything for them at the state level.

I do hear some states use independent commissions to draw the districts instead of legislatures (who usually draw in favor of their parties).

I don't know if my state is gerrymandered or not, though I know that part of my city is in one Congressional district and another part is in the other.

whipassmt

Republicans actually did try to do that in Pennsylvania.

Oh. Why weren't they able to do so?

Allegheny County and Philadelphia are Democrat. The rest of the state....not.
#31 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] I got a better idea. Base electoral votes on contiguity of territory. This way if you win a swath of contiguous states you get more votes than somebody who wins a smathering of isolated states.

whipassmt

I literally have no idea why you place such an absurdly high value on the geography of the states in question and can see no logical reason why "contiguous" states should get more votes than "isolated" states other than an attempt to gain partisan advantage.

1. It looks better on a map 2. It's more defensible 3. the isolated states tend to have more urban areas with high population density 4. The contiguous states produce a lot of the major resources, like oil (Texas) and Corn, Wheat, taters, so if they cut those things off the isolated states would be in deep doody.

1. Who cares how something looks on a map? 2. Who cares how defensible something is? There is 0% chance of anyone invading the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 3. What's wrong with higher population density? The whole point of a democracy is majority rule. 4. Resource allocation is irrelevant, but for what it's worth those "high population density" states are much more important economically
#32 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a non-tax paying welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

Boddicker

Well you just confirmed that you're a moron

I'm in favor of popular vote and just removing the electoral college

#33 Posted by _BlueDuck_ (11986 posts) -

Here's how I'd rearrange it..

  • Elect House members as per usual
  • Distribute Senate seats proportional to electoral college wins (as it is now)
  • President elected according to popular vote

That way you get your regional representation in the House, the Senate will balance out states that have low populations, and the President is elected based on the true will of the people.

#34 Posted by jimkabrhel (15422 posts) -

I don't have a better answer to those already offered, but here's an interesting map of the voting percentages by county:

popular-vote-graphic.jpg

#35 Posted by whipassmt (14162 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I literally have no idea why you place such an absurdly high value on the geography of the states in question and can see no logical reason why "contiguous" states should get more votes than "isolated" states other than an attempt to gain partisan advantage.nocoolnamejim

1. It looks better on a map 2. It's more defensible 3. the isolated states tend to have more urban areas with high population density 4. The contiguous states produce a lot of the major resources, like oil (Texas) and Corn, Wheat, taters, so if they cut those things off the isolated states would be in deep doody.

1. Who cares how something looks on a map? 2. Who cares how defensible something is? There is 0% chance of anyone invading the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 3. What's wrong with higher population density? The whole point of a democracy is majority rule. 4. Resource allocation is irrelevant, but for what it's worth those "high population density" states are much more important economically

C'mon you can't tell me that this: 2004-electoral-map.gif

Isn't a nice looking map than this little puny mess of scattered territrees.

RomneyObamaElectoralMap.jpg

Also I forgot to mention, another advantage of contiguous states is that they're easier to travel through.

#36 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

I don't have a better answer to those already offered, but here's an interesting map of the voting percentages by county:

popular-vote-graphic.jpg

jimkabrhel
Seems like cities with minorities tend to vote Obama. Because the first thing I notice on that map is Brownsville Texas, Miami Florida, and Los Angeles.
#37 Posted by whipassmt (14162 posts) -

I don't have a better answer to those already offered, but here's an interesting map of the voting percentages by county:

popular-vote-graphic.jpg

jimkabrhel

Actually you provided a good answer, have the elections based on county. Each county gets one electoral vote. Interesting, Romney actually won some counties in Connecticut.

#38 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151873 posts) -
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I literally have no idea why you place such an absurdly high value on the geography of the states in question and can see no logical reason why "contiguous" states should get more votes than "isolated" states other than an attempt to gain partisan advantage.nocoolnamejim

1. It looks better on a map 2. It's more defensible 3. the isolated states tend to have more urban areas with high population density 4. The contiguous states produce a lot of the major resources, like oil (Texas) and Corn, Wheat, taters, so if they cut those things off the isolated states would be in deep doody.

1. Who cares how something looks on a map? 2. Who cares how defensible something is? There is 0% chance of anyone invading the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 3. What's wrong with higher population density? The whole point of a democracy is majority rule. 4. Resource allocation is irrelevant, but for what it's worth those "high population density" states are much more important economically

Considering winning the popular vote but losing the EC happened maybe 4 times.....might be a bit off...in history...does it really make much of a difference?
#39 Posted by whipassmt (14162 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I don't have a better answer to those already offered, but here's an interesting map of the voting percentages by county:

popular-vote-graphic.jpg

Fightingfan

Seems like cities with minorities tend to vote Obama. Because the first thing I notice on that map is Brownsville Texas, Miami Florida, and Los Angeles.

Obama also seems to do better in coastal areas, no wonder Democrats worry so much about rising sea levels.

#40 Posted by Tylendal (14680 posts) -
I fully agree. I've been wanting this in Canada for ages, mainly because the Bloc de Quebecoi often has FAR more power than they should.
#41 Posted by Diablo-B (4052 posts) -
With a popular vote candidates would end up spending more time in more states but they would focus primarily only on the cities of those states. If your state has no big city then tough luck.
#42 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151873 posts) -
With a popular vote candidates would end up spending more time in more states but they would focus primarily only on the cities of those states. If your state has no big city then tough luck.Diablo-B
The problem is not where they spend time campaigning....but how important those less populated regions are when the votes don't matter in regard to federal spending et al.
#43 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] 1. It looks better on a map 2. It's more defensible 3. the isolated states tend to have more urban areas with high population density 4. The contiguous states produce a lot of the major resources, like oil (Texas) and Corn, Wheat, taters, so if they cut those things off the isolated states would be in deep doody.LJS9502_basic
1. Who cares how something looks on a map? 2. Who cares how defensible something is? There is 0% chance of anyone invading the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 3. What's wrong with higher population density? The whole point of a democracy is majority rule. 4. Resource allocation is irrelevant, but for what it's worth those "high population density" states are much more important economically

Considering winning the popular vote but losing the EC happened maybe 4 times.....might be a bit off...in history...does it really make much of a difference?

Four times is four times too many in my mind. Ask yourself if you think there would have been a difference between the George W. years and Al Gore. I think so.
#44 Posted by whipassmt (14162 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 1. Who cares how something looks on a map? 2. Who cares how defensible something is? There is 0% chance of anyone invading the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 3. What's wrong with higher population density? The whole point of a democracy is majority rule. 4. Resource allocation is irrelevant, but for what it's worth those "high population density" states are much more important economicallynocoolnamejim
Considering winning the popular vote but losing the EC happened maybe 4 times.....might be a bit off...in history...does it really make much of a difference?

Four times is four times too many in my mind. Ask yourself if you think there would have been a difference between the George W. years and Al Gore. I think so.

Maybe who knows? Gore might've sucked.

#45 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Considering winning the popular vote but losing the EC happened maybe 4 times.....might be a bit off...in history...does it really make much of a difference?whipassmt

Four times is four times too many in my mind. Ask yourself if you think there would have been a difference between the George W. years and Al Gore. I think so.

Maybe who knows? Gore might've sucked.

Let me rephrase the question: If Romney had ended up winning the popular vote on Tuesday would you be happy if Obama was still president today? In a democracy, the person who gets the most votes should win. Simple principle.
#46 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151873 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 1. Who cares how something looks on a map? 2. Who cares how defensible something is? There is 0% chance of anyone invading the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 3. What's wrong with higher population density? The whole point of a democracy is majority rule. 4. Resource allocation is irrelevant, but for what it's worth those "high population density" states are much more important economically

Considering winning the popular vote but losing the EC happened maybe 4 times.....might be a bit off...in history...does it really make much of a difference?

Four times is four times too many in my mind. Ask yourself if you think there would have been a difference between the George W. years and Al Gore. I think so.

Of course there would have been a difference...but it seems to me that the current system pretty much nails the popular vote anyway.
#47 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151873 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Considering winning the popular vote but losing the EC happened maybe 4 times.....might be a bit off...in history...does it really make much of a difference?whipassmt

Four times is four times too many in my mind. Ask yourself if you think there would have been a difference between the George W. years and Al Gore. I think so.

Maybe who knows? Gore might've sucked.

No one could suck more that Bush....
#48 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Considering winning the popular vote but losing the EC happened maybe 4 times.....might be a bit off...in history...does it really make much of a difference?LJS9502_basic
Four times is four times too many in my mind. Ask yourself if you think there would have been a difference between the George W. years and Al Gore. I think so.

Of course there would have been a difference...but it seems to me that the current system pretty much nails the popular vote anyway.

Most of the time. My Bush/Gore example is a time when the popular vote did not agree with the electoral college, and there was a BIG difference in outcome.
#49 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151873 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Four times is four times too many in my mind. Ask yourself if you think there would have been a difference between the George W. years and Al Gore. I think so.

Of course there would have been a difference...but it seems to me that the current system pretty much nails the popular vote anyway.

Most of the time. My Bush/Gore example is a time when the popular vote did not agree with the electoral college, and there was a BIG difference in outcome.

I'd expect much more recounts....and some less savory actions. Maybe I'm just cynical. You could move to a blue state and then your vote would count.:P
#50 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
Ironically, while I don't like my state as a whole, Boise as a city is a really nice place to live. You know how people in Utah always talk about how Salt Lake City is completely different from the rest of the state? Same thing.