NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wanted to know what everyones opinion was about this subject, but personally I do feel it's outdated. So it's time to throw it out and let the popular vote decide the next president of the USA.

I dunno, Popluar Vote and E.C. has their up and downs. I guess what it comes down to is which one would you rather perfer?

I must agree with you, Asuras. The electoral college gives disproportionate power to states with ridiculously low populations; Wyoming, Alaska, etc. However this is exactly the reason it's gonna stay for a while--said states won't let it be taken away.

No. The Electoral College serves an important purpose. But it could serve that purpose better. I like the Colorado plan. I think every state should enact it.

With it, each state would award 2 EVs to whichever candidate gets the most vote in that state. Each other vote would be divided by congressional districts within that state.

The all-or-nothing system merely deflects matters. Instead of the ten BIGGEST states being the most important(with a popular vote), the current Electoral College instead makes the ten CLOSEST RACE states the most important.

Best of all, a district-by-district Electoral College would give third party candidates a chance to pick up a few Electoral votes and make the national stage in future elections.

I didn't realize there were other threads about this, but this is just an opinion thread, so dont go overboard with "This is should be so because of", just give a yes or a no with a short reason (short meaning 1, maybe 2 lines :D)

I actually wrote this about a week ago, but meh, it works..

I hate the electoral college. I favor the popular vote, or an electoral vote based on popular votes. If you want to get a true representation of what the people want, you ask all the people, not a majority of the people in a state. I find something dramatically wrong with a system in which a candidate can get all the electoral votes in a state by a tiny, miniscule amount of votes. Five votes, one even, can give or take all the votes to or from a candidate. That's just crazy..
Take state X, for instance. State X has 100 citizens and 10 electoral votes. They are voting for candidates Y and Z. Only forty citizens vote for candidate Y, so candidate Z gets all the electoral votes. How is that fair? Those forty may as well have stayed home instead of voting.
We have a majority rule system in the United States, but shouldn't the minority votes count for something? In the popular voting system, those forty votes actually matter.
I realize that there are too many millions of voters in the US for an entirely popular vote, but I support a division of electoral votes between the candidates. In this system, candidate Y would get a certain number of electoral votes based on the percentage of people in state X that voted for him. Take the vote of 40/60 in favor of candidate Z. The 10 electoral votes would be divided in this way, with 4 votes going to candidate Y, and 6 to candidate Z.
Meh.. just ranting.
P.S. I am also in favor of mandatory voting, but that's another story entirely..
:D

I agree completely, only others don't... specifically Colorado citizens :(

I dont matter either way we elect a president. The only reason we have electoral colleges is to prevent corruption and fraud. :sniper:

I agree with both Lutanic Goofballs and Lestavra, and they are pretty much saying the same thing. The electoral votes should be split up in accordance with the popular vote. That way the people of state X will be properly represented.

Wait a second, how do those 40 votes count for anything if they lose in the popular vote too. The Electoral college works. It makes it so the candidates arent focusing on the only highly populated areas. If they did that rural America would be forgotten. States like Montana and Wyoming really wouldn't really be to any importance to the president.

Wait a second, how do those 40 votes count for anything if they lose in the popular vote too. The Electoral college works. It makes it so the candidates arent focusing on the only highly populated areas. If they did that rural America would be forgotten. States like Montana and Wyoming really wouldn't really be to any importance to the president.

But candidates don't make much more than a cursory visit to Montana or Wyoming now anyway, and spend all their time in states like California and New York. It wouldn't really change anything in regards to that.

That's funny, because Bush won and he had more of the popular vote.
Hmm....
I think that those who consider it outdated simply don't understand its purpose, or the history/logic behind it. In my opinion, if men such as Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin approved of it, then I really don't think a few kids on the Internet have very much bearing.

The popular vote wont work due to campaign issues and state's importance. If it was purely popular, why would anyone ever bother with Montana or, say, Idaho? Candidates would spend all of their time in highly populated areas. Why talk to a state of 500,000 when you can talk to one with 10 million? Unpopulated states wouldn't be able to get their issues any attention on the national level.*

* I know there is the same problem now, but it isnt as bad as it would be. 3 EV's can be huge in a close race,

However, the current system isn't representative enough. So, without repeating what the others have said, the Colorado option needs to be mandatory. As does a national standard for voting poll practices, i.e. using the same system nation wide.

I must agree with you, Asuras. The electoral college gives disproportionate power to states with ridiculously low populations; Wyoming, Alaska, etc. However this is exactly the reason it's gonna stay for a while--said states won't let it be taken away.

The point of having the Electorial College system is to give the small population states disproportionate power. Thus the system is working just as intended.

if men such as Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin approved of it, then I really don't think a few kids on the Internet have very much bearing.

I can't agree with this statement at all. Sure these men were important, powerful figures, and intelligent and well meaning, but just because it worked then doesn't mean it works now. They were political geniuses in their time, not ours. More people today are involved in politics than then (proportionally), or at least they have political opinions, and so the methods need to keep up with the times. And what is this few kids on the internet business? So we're kids, we're a few, but guess what - tomorrow we're going to be the ones in charge, and we're going to have bearing. You can't go around making all these excuses for being ignorant - i'm young, i can't vote, it doesn't matter now,- and then suddenly be 18, be an adult, and have no clue! You've got to be aware of the world, and be aware that you do matter! Yeah you're one person, or a few kids, but it's your world, and it's ridiculous to simply not care! You have to care, or else theres nothing to it.

But candidates don't make much more than a cursory visit to Montana or Wyoming now anyway, and spend all their time in states like California and New York. It wouldn't really change anything in regards to that.

If you watched where the candidates were, they spent all their time in states like Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and other smaller states where the EVs were questionable. I live in NY near a city that is more populated then the state of Montana, Alaska, or their ilk, and no one came here to persuade (invigorate) the lock-step voters. The system is to culminate the opinion of the interests of all the states, not the populates cities.

There is no reason to change anything, it works just fine. Remember the states determine their own fate, not the federal government. The federal government is only there to assure the nations protection and enforce a set of standards.

If you are really interested in determining how good our EV system is compared to anything else, take a look at how the EU is trying to unite the European countries into a similar system as America. It's stunningly similar in every respect.

But candidates don't make much more than a cursory visit to Montana or Wyoming now anyway, and spend all their time in states like California and New York. It wouldn't really change anything in regards to that.
The candidates spent no time in California this election. Bush wrote it off as a loss, and Kerry took it for granted. Both parties paid attention to the "swing states" which were, in essence, undecided electoral voters. When you do away with the electoral college, every vote counts, and each candidate would have to pay attention to all states and all people in this nation in order to win their votes (with the exception of D.C. 90% to 9% is a pattern there, not a fluke.)

Just wanted to know what everyones opinion was about this subject, but personally I do feel it's outdated. So it's time to throw it out and let the popular vote decide the next president of the USA.

If the EC is outdated, then is the senate also outdated?

...then is the senate also outdated?

The Senate? Now there is a more out of date (Or useless) part of the federal government. As it was meant originally to be a wiser group of individuals that were slated to be immune to voter whims by state governor appointment, similar to the supreme court, but has been corrupted by good intentions and now is nothing more then a waste of money... Though if the original intent was kept, it would absolutely be more corrupt then Tamney Hall.

The founders were not infallible. The presidential election process is not meant to duplicate the results of the Congress.

The populous vote holds sway over the Congress. The Congress is where the real power over law and expenditures is. There is no need to duplicate that with the Presidents position. The President can't do anything without the Congress blessing. You only need to look at the difference between the slated legislation of '93 and then again in '95. Once the Democrats lost the congress all sorts of government changes happened in favor of the Republican agenda. If the same was to happen to Bush in 2 years, Bush would see the same change as Clinton did.

Until

The only thing about changing the elctoral college is that it would also change the dynamics of the country completly. From a Republic to a democracy. It requires more than a Constitutional change. Electoral college is the heart of the Republic. The idea of states is the idea of a Republic. The idea of seperate freedom secured by the state is a Republic. The idea of having checks and balances is part of our Republic. The idea of factions used to balance an overbearing authority anywhere among this unity of States is a Republic. This Country is a Republic. It is a bit more complex than just changing the Electoral College, at least it seems to me.

Just wanted to know what everyones opinion was about this subject, but personally I do feel it's outdated. So it's time to throw it out and let the popular vote decide the next president of the USA.
Electoral College makes sure that every part of the nation gets at least a little say in who their president is. That will never be outdated unless they find another way to do the same thing better.
FYI in almost every case, including this one, the majority vote was the same as the electoral college, with the only real exceptions being 2000,1960(no Kennedy?)1924,1888,1884,1876,and 1860(no Abe Lincoln?)

The Senate? Now there is a more out of date (Or useless) part of the federal government. As it was meant originally to be a wiser group of individuals that were slated to be immune to voter whims by state governor appointment, similar to the supreme court, but has been corrupted by good intentions and now is nothing more then a waste of money... Though if the original intent was kept, it would absolutely be more corrupt then Tamney Hall.

The founders were not infallible. The presidential election process is not meant to duplicate the results of the Congress.

The populous vote holds sway over the Congress. The Congress is where the real power over law and expenditures is. There is no need to duplicate that with the Presidents position. The President can't do anything without the Congress blessing. You only need to look at the difference between the slated legislation of '93 and then again in '95. Once the Democrats lost the congress all sorts of government changes happened in favor of the Republican agenda. If the same was to happen to Bush in 2 years, Bush would see the same change as Clinton did.

Until
The Senate was neither meant to be "wiser" nor "uninfluenced"...they were to represent the interests of states, and the congress was to represent the interest of the people.

The candidates spent no time in California this election. Bush wrote it off as a loss, and Kerry took it for granted. Both parties paid attention to the "swing states" which were, in essence, undecided electoral voters. When you do away with the electoral college, every vote counts, and each candidate would have to pay attention to all states and all people in this nation in order to win their votes (with the exception of D.C. 90% to 9% is a pattern there, not a fluke.)
Interesting that Bush actually won most of the counties in California, while taking it as a loss, might have had a surprise win with some visits.

The Senate was neither meant to be "wiser" nor "uninfluenced"...they were to represent the interests of states, and the congress was to represent the interest of the people.

A difference of opinion, I think that that was their intent. The founders made many points to avoid mob rule when it came to long term government desisions. I view this as one. :D

A difference of opinion, I think that that was their intent. The founders made many points to avoid mob rule when it came to long term government desisions. I view this as one. :D
I understand now what you were saying, yes, correct, I agree as well. I think the senators were to represent states rights(avoiding mob rule) and as the founders were still quite careful to make the states as separate entities in some aspects, instead of a hodge podge mix of simply being "American" for a long time, you were an "American" FROM Mass,Maine,PA,NY,SC,GA, etc. And still in keeping with the idea of the electoral college, the point being to make certain that states, even those without the great population, would at least not be totally swallowed up by the large cities.

I can't agree with this statement at all. Sure these men were important, powerful figures, and intelligent and well meaning, but just because it worked then doesn't mean it works now. They were political geniuses in their time, not ours. More people today are involved in politics than then (proportionally), or at least they have political opinions, and so the methods need to keep up with the times. And what is this few kids on the internet business? So we're kids, we're a few, but guess what - tomorrow we're going to be the ones in charge, and we're going to have bearing. You can't go around making all these excuses for being ignorant - i'm young, i can't vote, it doesn't matter now,- and then suddenly be 18, be an adult, and have no clue! You've got to be aware of the world, and be aware that you do matter! Yeah you're one person, or a few kids, but it's your world, and it's ridiculous to simply not care! You have to care, or else theres nothing to it.
As a matter of fact, Jefferson didn't even expect to get a century out of the system of the time.

Electoral College seems to rely on the fact that 49% of the population in a state deserve no say.

Proportional representation is the only true way to represent a nation evenly.

Electoral College seems to rely on the fact that 49% of the population in a state deserve no say.

Proportional representation is the only true way to represent a nation evenly.
The electoral college is to compensate for the fact that not all states are comprised of large cities. The entire middle of the country has only a spattering of large cities, but is responsible for growing the food which feeds most of our country, as well as a portion of the rest of the world. They deserve to have some say as well. The viewpoints there are not necessarily the same as somewhere like NY or Cali, and that too deserves to be taken into account.
That said, for those who seem to be taking this thread to mean"then Bush wouldnt have won" well...he won majority of votes as well, as have most presidents(not all) during more than two centuries of this system.

Electoral College seems to rely on the fact that 49% of the population in a state deserve no say.

Proportional representation is the only true way to represent a nation evenly.

The thing to realize is that each state decides how to assign their electoral votes. The federal government has no say. The system was designed that way for a reason. What I will NEVER understand is why the states seem to enjoy this All-or-nothing mentality. It's inane.

The electoral college is to compensate for the fact that not all states are comprised of large cities. The entire middle of the country has only a spattering of large cities, but is responsible for growing the food which feeds most of our country, as well as a portion of the rest of the world. They deserve to have some say as well. The viewpoints there are not necessarily the same as somewhere like NY or Cali, and that too deserves to be taken into account.
That said, for those who seem to be taking this thread to mean"then Bush wouldnt have won" well...he won majority of votes as well, as have most presidents(not all) during more than two centuries of this system.

Sounds like here. Except it's based on electorates that are based on around 80,000 voters in an electorate.

Of course, this means that if a party has a large support in one area (and the Greens in inner-city areas are a good example of this), they could get representation with only 41,000 people supporting them.

The thing to realize is that each state decides how to assign their electoral votes. The federal government has no say. The system was designed that way for a reason. What I will NEVER understand is why the states seem to enjoy this All-or-nothing mentality. It's inane.
I do agree there...AFAIK only Maine actually disperses them by congressional seat plus two for state at large to the winner.

Sounds like here. Except it's based on electorates that are based on around 80,000 voters in an electorate.

Of course, this means that if a party has a large support in one area (and the Greens in inner-city areas are a good example of this), they could get representation with only 41,000 people supporting them.
Yes, it seems close. In your example, the Greens SHOULD get at least some representation for that area as well, but the idea mainly is to prevent one area's ideas from by sheer numbers overwhelming the rest of the country, and that does sound close to yours.

They haven't won one YET... however, since they are attracting 20-22% in Inner Sydney areas, with the preference system in place, it may make them decicive in where these seats go.

So how does the biggest democracy in the world handle it?
Can the US learn from them.

Living in Indiana-- neither the most-populated state nor a possible swing-state-- neither system really matters to me. Indiana voted for Bob Dole, folks. The state always goes Republican. My Democrat vote is for solidarity, baby. And I'm never gonna see any of the candidates, because they know I can't help 'em or hurt 'em much.

The problem with a popular vote system is that you have to guarantee 100% accuracy on every vote, and recounts become nightmarish. If there's a question about Florida's or Ohio's vote, then we can do a recount in Florida or Ohio. But if A beats B by 500,000 votes in a country of 300,000,000... you can't have a fair recount unless every precinct is overseen recounting every single ballot. It would murder democracy.

So how does the biggest democracy in the world handle it?
Can the US learn from them.
Actually most democracies copy a large amount from the US.
As far as biggest, if you refer to by population, you probably mean India, and by area, Russia,both of whose elections have been rife with problems for a long time(well, in Russia's case, democracy is short lived so far)
Probably if the US could copy one thing from them, it would be a higher profile 3rd party, where regions still could be represented to some greater extent than a simple 2 party, majority take all system.

The problem with a popular vote system is that you have to guarantee 100% accuracy on every vote, and recounts become nightmarish. If there's a question about Florida's or Ohio's vote, then we can do a recount in Florida or Ohio. But if A beats B by 500,000 votes in a country of 300,000,000... you can't have a fair recount unless every precinct is overseen recounting every single ballot. It would murder democracy.
That is a nightmare scenario that never ocurred to me...very good point...we would still be recounting the 2000 election ;)

I, for one, greatly oppose our current voting system. However, the electoral collage, as some have already stated, is part of our inherant political system. The US isn't a democracy. Nor is it a republic. We're a democratic republic - a mixed system. If we were a full-fledged democracy, the common citizen would have a say in everything - which most people don't want to deal with. If we were a republic, the common man would have significantly less power than he does today, as representives would handle everything. Obviously there's more to it than that, but that's the simplified version I go with.

Anyway, just taking away the electoral collage in favor of a popular vote wouldn't be an improvement. It would just be one more step toward a full democracy without really improving anything. If we're going to change something for the better, I say completely do away with the first-past-the-post pluraity vote. Although many disagree, I think an instant run-off majority vote would do our country wonders. If that happened, the electoral collage wouldn't be neccessary any longer, and few would miss it.

The electoral college is to compensate for the fact that not all states are comprised of large cities. The entire middle of the country has only a spattering of large cities, but is responsible for growing the food which feeds most of our country, as well as a portion of the rest of the world. They deserve to have some say as well. The viewpoints there are not necessarily the same as somewhere like NY or Cali, and that too deserves to be taken into account.


Yeah, I'm sure they have a difference opinion from people in other parts of the country. That's why they've got a vote. There is no reason why someone's vote in a small mostly empty state should cound more than someone's who live in California. None. You're gonna say that you need to represent the midwest. No, voting doesn't represent the midwest, just as it doesn't represent the northeast. It represents what the people want. PEOPLE. Not an area. If not for the electoral college, canidates might actually have to address things like urban poverty and pollution, instead of catering to a bunch of farmers

I must agree with you, Asuras. The electoral college gives disproportionate power to states with ridiculously low populations; Wyoming, Alaska, etc. However this is exactly the reason it's gonna stay for a while--said states won't let it be taken away.

Damn ive got a conspiracy theory about how EC is a union plan to keep the south down the whole Industry vs Agriculture.

Just a theory dont know when it was created but the whole ACW cripling of Southern States it gives Northen Eastern Seaboard to much power.
Brings in the whole Immigrant New York recruitment thing.

But then if you won Fl,NY,TX,Cl, err i dont know but you could win maybe 10 states and be numero uno and not necasarily win 50% of votes go figure! :D

Yeah, I'm sure they have a difference opinion from people in other parts of the country. That's why they've got a vote. There is no reason why someone's vote in a small mostly empty state should cound more than someone's who live in California. None. You're gonna say that you need to represent the midwest. No, voting doesn't represent the midwest, just as it doesn't represent the northeast. It represents what the people want. PEOPLE. Not an area. If not for the electoral college, canidates might actually have to address things like urban poverty and pollution, instead of catering to a bunch of farmers

Damn straight wh wants to deal with issues that affect people :rolleyes:

Damn straight wh wants to deal with issues that affect people :rolleyes:

Who wants to deal with issues that affect 10 people, when there are issues affecting 10,000 people still unresolved?

That is a nightmare scenario that never ocurred to me...very good point...we would still be recounting the 2000 election ;)

But the real question is why are their so many invalid votes why do people find voting so hard/difficult.
And what about votes being discounted after someone dies is that illogical impractacle*

Yeah, I'm sure they have a difference opinion from people in other parts of the country. That's why they've got a vote. There is no reason why someone's vote in a small mostly empty state should cound more than someone's who live in California. None. You're gonna say that you need to represent the midwest. No, voting doesn't represent the midwest, just as it doesn't represent the northeast. It represents what the people want. PEOPLE. Not an area. If not for the electoral college, canidates might actually have to address things like urban poverty and pollution, instead of catering to a bunch of farmers
Well, those"farmers" who as I mentioned provide the food, may feel THEY have issues needing discussing as well(I am NOT a farmer, so don't go into this, just an example based on what you stated) To them, perhaps, urban poverty may not be important(I am sure it is, but as I said, I am using an example) because YOU may live in an urban area, you may find that important...that is the whole point...different AREAS give their people different PERSPECTIVES...and in the end, nearly all the time, the popular vote DOES still match with the electoral vote, but the process ensures(or is meant to , at least) that while campaigning etc problems of each area are seen and willl be dealt with better than if the candidate was a country boy or a city dweller,with only that perspective.As for cities seeming not to be important and thus not receiving visits, that is because regardless of anything, inner cities vote Democrat, without ever once demanding results. If the inner cities were more open and less gullible to one particular party, BOTH candidates would be courting them and bending over backwards to gain their votes. Instead what we have is Republicans, who already know that no matter if they brought manna from heaven to feed the poor inner city folk, these people still would vote Dem, so the Repubs spend their time and effort elsewhere, and we have Dems, who know that even if they ran Stalin himself as a candidate, these same inner cities will vote the Dem ticket, so they concentrate on the areas instead that the Repubs control, in order to win. It is a never ending circle in a two party system when the same constituencies like clockwork vote for their particular candidate, with only a few areas WILLING to swing, those become the swing states and get the attention.

But the real question is why are their so many invalid votes why do people find voting so hard/difficult.
And what about votes being discounted after someone dies is that illogical impractacle*
Votes are not discounted after someone dies. The problem with several elections has been that the names of dead people have been used to illegally register and vote for Democratic candidates in Florida in 2000, is the only time I have heard it actually quoted in papers, but this year, because of that , the Repubs were very careful.
Also this year there were few invalid votes, but there every year are some who end up to be by non citizens, people registered twice, etc.

Yeah, I'm sure they have a difference opinion from people in other parts of the country. That's why they've got a vote. There is no reason why someone's vote in a small mostly empty state should cound more than someone's who live in California. None. You're gonna say that you need to represent the midwest. No, voting doesn't represent the midwest, just as it doesn't represent the northeast. It represents what the people want. PEOPLE. Not an area. If not for the electoral college, canidates might actually have to address things like urban poverty and pollution, instead of catering to a bunch of farmers
Actually a small,mostly empty state does NOT count for "more than someone who lives in California". The electoral votes are divided among states by population, and California DOES have the largest number of electoral votes.My home state (Ohio) has 20 because of it's population, yours has 55 because of Cali's population, New Mexico for instance has 5, so to people who are thinking how unfair it is, do note it IS at least done by population.
And sure, maybe 49% of a state, wind up with not really seeming to count...well, 49% of a country wont count either, and I see not much difference.

Actually a small,mostly empty state does NOT count for "more than someone who lives in California. The electoral votes are divided among states by population, and California DOES have the largest number of electoral votes.My home state (Ohio) has 20 because of it's population, yours has 55 because of Cali's population, New Mexico for instance has 5, so to people who are thinking how unfair it is, do note it IS at least done by population.
And sure, maybe 49% of a state, wind up with not really seeming to count...well, 49% of a country wont count either, and I see not much difference.

Well, since a state is always guaranteed 3 electoral votes, regardless of the population, those states end up with more representation. Consider this. The population of California is 35,484,453, according to this (http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part6.html), and the state has 55 electoral votes. That works out to an average of 645,172 people per electoral vote. Whereas the population of Wyoming, 501,242, has 3 electoral votes, an average of 167,081 people per electoral vote. Therefore, California and Wyoming are not proportionally represented in the election. Granted those are the two most extreme examples, but you get where I am going with this, right?

Well, since a state is always guaranteed 3 electoral votes, regardless of the population, those states end up with more representation. Consider this. The population of California is 35,484,453, according to this (http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part6.html), and the state has 55 electoral votes. That works out to an average of 645,172 people per electoral vote. Whereas the population of Wyoming, 501,242, has 3 electoral votes, an average of 167,081 people per electoral vote. Therefore, California and Wyoming are not proportionally represented in the election. Granted those are the two most extreme examples, but you get where I am going with this, right?
I agree, and I even agree the system needs tweaked, but I think it should be in such a way as to still leave those people in WY for your example, with a voice that should encourage the politicos to pay attention to THEIR area's problems as well. In a simple,popular vote takes all, the middle of the country would have their problems completely ignored, and that is not sufficient either.
Edit:Also it still balances out in our system as it stands in some ways, as most of the tiny NE states vote Dem while the tiny(in population,not area) states in the middle vote Republican.

I agree, and I even agree the system needs tweaked, but I think it should be in such a way as to still leave those people in WY for your example, with a voice that should encourage the politicos to pay attention to THEIR area's problems as well. In a simple,popular vote takes all, the middle of the country would have their problems completely ignored, and that is not sufficient either.
Edit:Also it still balances out in our system as it stands in some ways, as most of the tiny NE states vote Dem while the tiny(in population,not area) states in the middle vote Republican.

It's all a matter of preference. With either a popular vote or a electoral vote, you're going to have plenty of people who are ignored by the candidates, it's just a matter of who's going to get ignored. With the popular vote, rural areas as a whole will get ignored, but with the electoral vote, low-population states get ignored. Either way, you aren't likely to see candidates stumping for votes in Montana or Alaska or Wyoming or South Dakota.

It's all a matter of preference. With either a popular vote or a electoral vote, you're going to have plenty of people who are ignored by the candidates, it's just a matter of who's going to get ignored. With the popular vote, rural areas as a whole will get ignored, but with the electoral vote, low-population states get ignored. Either way, you aren't likely to see candidates stumping for votes in Montana or Alaska or Wyoming or South Dakota.
I see that changing. I think it was only the past 2 elections that really got people to realize that a smallish state CAN alter the election.Tiny NH changing from R to D this election very nearly could have given it to Kerry if he had taken Ohio as well, despite losing some of the Dem states in the west(NM and NV) No candidate can be certain which states can affect, so they would do well to try for all, the only reason they dont, is as I mentioned before in this thread, that mostly there are only a few states WILLING to change their votes,and willing to base votes on something besides blind party loyalty. Those states wind up getting the attention. If ALL states would demand results instead of blindly voting D or R, that would solve the entire problem, as the candidates would actually pay attention to all states.

I see that changing. I think it was only the past 2 elections that really got people to realize that a smallish state CAN alter the election.Tiny NH changing from R to D this election very nearly could have given it to Kerry if he had taken Ohio as well, despite losing some of the Dem states in the west(NM and NV) No candidate can be certain which states can affect, so they would do well to try for all, the only reason they dont, is as I mentioned before in this thread, that mostly there are only a few states WILLING to change their votes,and willing to base votes on something besides blind party loyalty. Those states wind up getting the attention. If ALL states would demand results instead of blindly voting D or R, that would solve the entire problem, as the candidates would actually pay attention to all states.

Well, that is unlikely to change in the near to distant future.

Well, that is unlikely to change in the near to distant future.
True. The sad thing is, all it would take is the Democrats to open their eyes. ;)
Ok, don't send me hate messages, it was a joke. Both party voters need to open their eyes and demand actual results. My party delivers to me the results that I want in order to vote for them, each person should ask themself if the same holds true for themselves, and if not, QUIT VOTING FOR THEM.

The Electoral College is based on the idea that the United States is a union of states, not people. That idea was soundly defeated in the American Civil War, and the Electoral College has been outdated ever since.