Why an Electoral College?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When the Electoral College was conceived, votes had to be counted and collected/reported via horseback or sailing ship. Apparently, our founding fathers wanted someone watching the final voting, so they had representatives come from the states to do the deed. Times have changed.
If the new app created to report the votes of the Iowa caucus works well (which it seemed to last night), couldn't we eliminate the electoral college and go to a straight count of votes for the presidential election? We certainly don't need to wait until December anymore for the results of the popular vote.
Does it have some important purpose I'm not aware of?

The speed of vote tallying has nothing to do with why we have an Electoral College.

 

[mvymvy]

The elector system was not established in order to guarantee even campaign spending across the states.

No states are politically irrelevant, they all have votes to cast.

Of COURSE 38 states were politically irrelevant in the 2012 general election campaign. They were ignored. No significant money, if any, was spent in them. They had no campaign events.

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current state-by-state winner-take-all electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.

10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.

Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election.

After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10.

More than 99% of polling, organizing, ad spending and visits was showered on voters in just the ten states in 2012 where they were not hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and could win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes.

Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored.

Only 3 of the 27 smallest states receive any attention.

None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state.

24 of the 27 lowest population states, and 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored.

That’s over 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

Once the conventions are over, presidential candidates now don’t visit or spend resources in 80% of the states.

Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election with the National Popular Vote bill.

 

[Rouge Rover]

The elector system was not established in order to guarantee even campaign spending across the states.

No states are politically irrelevant, they all have votes to cast.

Of COURSE 38 states were politically irrelevant in the 2012 general election campaign. They were ignored. No significant money, if any, was spent in them. They had no campaign events.

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current state-by-state winner-take-all electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.

10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.

Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election.

After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10.

More than 99% of polling, organizing, ad spending and visits was showered on voters in just the ten states in 2012 where they were not hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and could win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes.

Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored.

Only 3 of the 27 smallest states receive any attention.

None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state.

24 of the 27 lowest population states, and 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored.

That’s over 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

Once the conventions are over, presidential candidates now don’t visit or spend resources in 80% of the states.

Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election with the National Popular Vote bill.

Voters aren't relevant if campaign funds aren't spent specifically targeting them? Even though they vote and their votes are counted you think it's campaign funds that determine relevance? You should come up with an different argument, this one makes no sense.

 

[mvymvy]

Voters aren't relevant if campaign funds aren't spent specifically targeting them? Even though they vote and their votes are counted you think it's campaign funds that determine relevance? You should come up with an different argument, this one makes no sense.

Follow the money and resources.

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

 

[jon_berzerk]

When the Electoral College was conceived, votes had to be counted and collected/reported via horseback or sailing ship. Apparently, our founding fathers wanted someone watching the final voting, so they had representatives come from the states to do the deed. Times have changed.
If the new app created to report the votes of the Iowa caucus works well (which it seemed to last night), couldn't we eliminate the electoral college and go to a straight count of votes for the presidential election? We certainly don't need to wait until December anymore for the results of the popular vote.
Does it have some important purpose I'm not aware of?

Yes, it balances power.

Any possibility you (or someone else) could explain a bit more? Whose power? We the people can't be trusted?

No, we can't be trusted, that's why we have the Senate.

well that used to be the case

 

[Rouge Rover]

Voters aren't relevant if campaign funds aren't spent specifically targeting them? Even though they vote and their votes are counted you think it's campaign funds that determine relevance? You should come up with an different argument, this one makes no sense.

Follow the money and resources.

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

There is nothing in the Constitution or in federal election law about votes not being valid if campaign funds weren't specifically targeted towards them. Votes are legitimate, it doesn't matter where the candidates spent their time or money.

 

[OldLady]

When the Electoral College was conceived, votes had to be counted and collected/reported via horseback or sailing ship. Apparently, our founding fathers wanted someone watching the final voting, so they had representatives come from the states to do the deed. Times have changed.
If the new app created to report the votes of the Iowa caucus works well (which it seemed to last night), couldn't we eliminate the electoral college and go to a straight count of votes for the presidential election? We certainly don't need to wait until December anymore for the results of the popular vote.
Does it have some important purpose I'm not aware of?

The speed of vote tallying has nothing to do with why we have an Electoral College.

mvymvy has been explaining. Thank you.

 

[OldLady]

Voters aren't relevant if campaign funds aren't spent specifically targeting them? Even though they vote and their votes are counted you think it's campaign funds that determine relevance? You should come up with an different argument, this one makes no sense.

Follow the money and resources.

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

There is nothing in the Constitution or in federal election law about votes not being valid if campaign funds weren't specifically targeted towards them. Votes are legitimate, it doesn't matter where the candidates spent their time or money.

This is all a bit over my head, to be honest, but I agree with you that where candidates spend time and money on campaigns isn't really my point. With 24 hour news and televised debates, the internet, etc., the voters in the 'ignored' states can certainly be as well informed and interested in the issues as citizens in swing states that are inundated with politicians and robo calls prior to the election. I live in an ignored state, and that is a blessing, I think. We have senators and congressmen to represent us in Washington. It just seems to me that with existing technology, there is no real reason to have one more layer of interference between the voters and who is elected. It seems, in my simple mind, to be another layer of political party control. Am I right?
I do appreciate mvymvy's efforts to explain all this.

 

[there4eyeM]

When the Electoral College was conceived, votes had to be counted and collected/reported via horseback or sailing ship. Apparently, our founding fathers wanted someone watching the final voting, so they had representatives come from the states to do the deed. Times have changed.
If the new app created to report the votes of the Iowa caucus works well (which it seemed to last night), couldn't we eliminate the electoral college and go to a straight count of votes for the presidential election? We certainly don't need to wait until December anymore for the results of the popular vote.
Does it have some important purpose I'm not aware of?

Not any more; it is an anachronism.

 

[mvymvy]

Voters aren't relevant if campaign funds aren't spent specifically targeting them? Even though they vote and their votes are counted you think it's campaign funds that determine relevance? You should come up with an different argument, this one makes no sense.

Follow the money and resources.

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

There is nothing in the Constitution or in federal election law about votes not being valid if campaign funds weren't specifically targeted towards them. Votes are legitimate, it doesn't matter where the candidates spent their time or money.

This is all a bit over my head, to be honest, but I agree with you that where candidates spend time and money on campaigns isn't really my point. With 24 hour news and televised debates, the internet, etc., the voters in the 'ignored' states can certainly be as well informed and interested in the issues as citizens in swing states that are inundated with politicians and robo calls prior to the election. I live in an ignored state, and that is a blessing, I think. We have senators and congressmen to represent us in Washington. It just seems to me that with existing technology, there is no real reason to have one more layer of interference between the voters and who is elected. It seems, in my simple mind, to be another layer of political party control. Am I right?
I do appreciate mvymvy's efforts to explain all this.

The point is that the CANDIDATES need to be educated and care about all of our states.
During the course of polling, organizing, visiting, and spending on ads, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

State winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

 

[Rouge Rover]

Voters aren't relevant if campaign funds aren't spent specifically targeting them? Even though they vote and their votes are counted you think it's campaign funds that determine relevance? You should come up with an different argument, this one makes no sense.

Follow the money and resources.

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

There is nothing in the Constitution or in federal election law about votes not being valid if campaign funds weren't specifically targeted towards them. Votes are legitimate, it doesn't matter where the candidates spent their time or money.

This is all a bit over my head, to be honest, but I agree with you that where candidates spend time and money on campaigns isn't really my point. With 24 hour news and televised debates, the internet, etc., the voters in the 'ignored' states can certainly be as well informed and interested in the issues as citizens in swing states that are inundated with politicians and robo calls prior to the election. I live in an ignored state, and that is a blessing, I think. We have senators and congressmen to represent us in Washington. It just seems to me that with existing technology, there is no real reason to have one more layer of interference between the voters and who is elected. It seems, in my simple mind, to be another layer of political party control. Am I right?
I do appreciate mvymvy's efforts to explain all this.

I'll just say this and then leave it be. Popular voting for President isn't going to happen. A Constitutional Amendment would be needed to have direct voting for President. "Winner Take All" however isn't in the Constitution in fact I think we have a couple of states right now that don't have winner take all so that could be changed.

 

[mvymvy]

Voters aren't relevant if campaign funds aren't spent specifically targeting them? Even though they vote and their votes are counted you think it's campaign funds that determine relevance? You should come up with an different argument, this one makes no sense.

Follow the money and resources.

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

There is nothing in the Constitution or in federal election law about votes not being valid if campaign funds weren't specifically targeted towards them. Votes are legitimate, it doesn't matter where the candidates spent their time or money.

I'm not saying votes aren't "valid" or "legitimate." I'm saying votes are not equally politically relevant. Where you live should not determine if your vote is politically relevant.
Most voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Most Americans do not think policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states should not be as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

 

[Rouge Rover]

Voters aren't relevant if campaign funds aren't spent specifically targeting them? Even though they vote and their votes are counted you think it's campaign funds that determine relevance? You should come up with an different argument, this one makes no sense.

Follow the money and resources.

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

There is nothing in the Constitution or in federal election law about votes not being valid if campaign funds weren't specifically targeted towards them. Votes are legitimate, it doesn't matter where the candidates spent their time or money.

I'm not saying votes aren't "valid" or "legitimate." I'm saying votes are not equally politically relevant. Where you live should not determine if your vote is politically relevant.
Most voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Most Americans do not think policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states should not be as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

I know what you're saying, how could I not? You've used a lot of words, too many words, way more than necessary, to make your point. I just disagree with you and another 40 paragraphs from you isn't going to change my mind.

 

[mvymvy]

Voters aren't relevant if campaign funds aren't spent specifically targeting them? Even though they vote and their votes are counted you think it's campaign funds that determine relevance? You should come up with an different argument, this one makes no sense.

Follow the money and resources.

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

There is nothing in the Constitution or in federal election law about votes not being valid if campaign funds weren't specifically targeted towards them. Votes are legitimate, it doesn't matter where the candidates spent their time or money.

This is all a bit over my head, to be honest, but I agree with you that where candidates spend time and money on campaigns isn't really my point. With 24 hour news and televised debates, the internet, etc., the voters in the 'ignored' states can certainly be as well informed and interested in the issues as citizens in swing states that are inundated with politicians and robo calls prior to the election. I live in an ignored state, and that is a blessing, I think. We have senators and congressmen to represent us in Washington. It just seems to me that with existing technology, there is no real reason to have one more layer of interference between the voters and who is elected. It seems, in my simple mind, to be another layer of political party control. Am I right?
I do appreciate mvymvy's efforts to explain all this.

I'll just say this and then leave it be. Popular voting for President isn't going to happen. A Constitutional Amendment would be needed to have direct voting for President. "Winner Take All" however isn't in the Constitution in fact I think we have a couple of states right now that don't have winner take all so that could be changed.

The National Popular Vote bill is not direct voting for President.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The National Popular Vote bill will go into effect when states with 105 more electoral votes enact it.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13).

 

[jwoodie]

To answer the OP, the United States was set up as a federal republic, wherein sovereign States agreed to a central government with limited powers. As such, the States themselves selected the President according to a process which mirrored the composition of the House and Senate. The method of selecting Presidential Electors was and still is left to the States:

"Except for the electors in Maine and Nebraska, electors are elected on a "winner-take-all" basis.[2] That is, all electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in a state become electors for that state. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by a statewide popular vote." -Wiki

Thus, the direct popular election of the President is opposed in large States, whose power and influence would be diluted by proportional assignment of electors to each candidate, and in small States, who fear that vote manipulation in large urban areas could sway a national election. The first step towards reforming this system would be to require proportional selection of all electors, but this would never be supported by the Democratic states.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The current system makes fraud less profitable than a popular vote system would.

It only took 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide, to elect the 2nd place national popular vote getter.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

Currently, fraud in Chicago could help Dems steal Illinois. LOL!
Under a popular vote system, it could help them steal the Presidency, again.

Again. With the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), we know that as little as 537 votes, all in one state can determine the election.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives for fraud and mischief, because a small number of people in a battleground state can affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.

In 2004, President George W. Bush had a nationwide lead of 3,012,171 popular votes. However, if 59,393 Bush voters in Ohio had shifted to Senator John Kerry in 2004, Kerry would have carried Ohio and thus become President. It would be far easier for potential fraudsters to manufacture 59,393 votes in Ohio than to manufacture 3,012,171 million votes (51 times more votes) nationwide. Moreover, it would be far more difficult to conceal fraud involving 3,012,171 votes.

The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives for fraud and mischief

Yup, we need voter ID.

In the current system, is there any incentive for Dem voter fraud in CA, NY or IL?
What about Republican fraud in Texas, Oklahoma or Utah?

Leave the EC system as it is.

 

[mvymvy]

The current system makes fraud less profitable than a popular vote system would.

It only took 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide, to elect the 2nd place national popular vote getter.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

Currently, fraud in Chicago could help Dems steal Illinois. LOL!
Under a popular vote system, it could help them steal the Presidency, again.

Again. With the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), we know that as little as 537 votes, all in one state can determine the election.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives for fraud and mischief, because a small number of people in a battleground state can affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.

In 2004, President George W. Bush had a nationwide lead of 3,012,171 popular votes. However, if 59,393 Bush voters in Ohio had shifted to Senator John Kerry in 2004, Kerry would have carried Ohio and thus become President. It would be far easier for potential fraudsters to manufacture 59,393 votes in Ohio than to manufacture 3,012,171 million votes (51 times more votes) nationwide. Moreover, it would be far more difficult to conceal fraud involving 3,012,171 votes.

The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives for fraud and mischief

Yup, we need voter ID.

In the current system, is there any incentive for Dem voter fraud in CA, NY or IL?
What about Republican fraud in Texas, Oklahoma or Utah?

Leave the EC system as it is.

There is HUGE incentive for voter fraud in any swing state.

We have seen as little as 537 votes, all in one state determine the election, despite a nationwide popular vote margin of more than 1,000 times that.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

 

[mvymvy]

To answer the OP, the United States was set up as a federal republic, wherein sovereign States agreed to a central government with limited powers. As such, the States themselves selected the President according to a process which mirrored the composition of the House and Senate. The method of selecting Presidential Electors was and still is left to the States:

"Except for the electors in Maine and Nebraska, electors are elected on a "winner-take-all" basis.[2] That is, all electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in a state become electors for that state. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by a statewide popular vote." -Wiki

Thus, the direct popular election of the President is opposed in large States, whose power and influence would be diluted by proportional assignment of electors to each candidate, and in small States, who fear that vote manipulation in large urban areas could sway a national election. The first step towards reforming this system would be to require proportional selection of all electors, but this would never be supported by the Democratic states.

The method of selecting Presidential Electors was and still is left to the States.

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, a proportional method falls far short of the National Popular Vote plan.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

It would make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. It has been enacted by small, medium, and large states -- the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13).

38 small, medium, and large states in 2012 had no political power or influence in the general election campaign.

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

 

[mvymvy]

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

The political reality is that campaign strategies in ordinary elections are based on trying to change a reasonably achievable small percentage of the votes—1%, 2%, or 3%. As a matter of practical politics, only one electoral vote would be in play in almost all states. A system that requires even a 9% share of the popular vote in order to win one electoral vote is fundamentally out of sync with the small-percentage vote shifts that are involved in real-world presidential campaigns.

If a current battleground state, like Colorado, were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

The proportional method also easily could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of 270 electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter equal.

It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[mvymvy]

Political reality

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.

The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.