How the electoral college ruins everything

[Rustic]

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

Population shifts have converted states that were once solidly Republican into closely divided “battleground” states.
There do not appear to be any Democratic states making the transition to voting Republican in presidential races.

Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

In a PV only scenario say, the greater Minneapolis area would off-set like five rural states - population wise, how is that fair??
You can't have urban areas telling rural areas what to do with their land and call it fair.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not 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.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of the 10 most rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. 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. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural states

Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S,Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.comwhich were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

With just a PV vote there would be no reason for rural states to vote...

 

[candycorn]

Solely popular vote would mean, mob rule.

Solely popular vote would mean, mob rule.

If that were the case then we would have seen a lot of disagreement between the popular vote and the electoral college vote. However only 4 times has the electoral college picked a president different from the popular vote.

Whether you favor the popular vote or the electoral college depends whether you think the power should reside with the states or the people.

It would seem as though in both cases it rests with the people.

Not really. Electoral votes are not distributed according to population. The number of electoral votes is equal to the number in their congressional delegation, 2 for the senators and one for each representative in the House. The House Representatives are based on population but the Senate is not. Therefore, a voter in a smaller state would have a greater impact that voters in larger states.

We have an Electoral College because our founders did not believe in democracy. In fact, they were very afraid of it. What would happen if a state allowed people to vote at age 18 or allow blacks or women to vote. The common folks might be able to elect the president. That would have been unthinkable at that time when voting was restricted to white male property owners.

Yes but a candidate o my gets the votes based on a plurality of the PV

 

[candycorn]

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

Population shifts have converted states that were once solidly Republican into closely divided “battleground” states.
There do not appear to be any Democratic states making the transition to voting Republican in presidential races.

Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

In a PV only scenario say, the greater Minneapolis area would off-set like five rural states - population wise, how is that fair??
You can't have urban areas telling rural areas what to do with their land and call it fair.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not 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.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of the 10 most rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. 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. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural states

Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S,Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.comwhich were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

It's like talking to a bill board. How about addressing the issues that are brought up?

Secondly, Here is what you just said:
One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities
The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs,


Suburbs are not that far outside of the cities--meaning that (according to YOUR MATH) 5/6 of the population live in cities and suburbs all dominated by a single newspaper, 3-7 TV stations and 10 or so Radio stations.

Then you say, unbelievably that:

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not control the outcome.



Which directly contradicts everything else in your monologue

Seriously, you're not making any sense.

The size of population of where one lives does not mean all of the voters vote the same way.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally.

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.

Little reason. To debate a parrot

 

[Blackrook]

The Electoral College is in the Constitution and isn't going anywhere, so liberals you should stop acting a ***** about it.

Also, we know perfectly well that if Al Gore has won because of the Electoral College, you would be singing the praises of the Founding Fathers for thinking of the idea.

 

[Flopper]

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

Population shifts have converted states that were once solidly Republican into closely divided “battleground” states.
There do not appear to be any Democratic states making the transition to voting Republican in presidential races.

Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

In a PV only scenario say, the greater Minneapolis area would off-set like five rural states - population wise, how is that fair??
You can't have urban areas telling rural areas what to do with their land and call it fair.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not 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.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of the 10 most rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. 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. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural states

Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S,Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.comwhich were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

With just a PV vote there would be no reason for rural states to vote...

The Electoral College favors small state voters but no by a lot. 18% of the electoral votes are not allocated by population, that is each state regardless of size get's only 2 votes which gives smaller states voters more voice in electing the president than larger states. The remaining electoral votes, 72% are allocated based on population which gives voters in all states and equal voice in the election.

 

[Blackrook]

How long would small states be loyal to the United States if they never had a say in who would be President?

The current system may be slightly unfair to the large states, but the large states still have more power in the Electoral College than the small states.

 

[Nyvin]

The Electoral College only decides the outcome when the popular vote is within a 1% margin.

The primary effect of the Electoral College is to focus campaigning into swing states.

 

[candycorn]

The Electoral College is in the Constitution and isn't going anywhere, so liberals you should stop acting a ***** about it.

Also, we know perfectly well that if Al Gore has won because of the Electoral College, you would be singing the praises of the Founding Fathers for thinking of the idea.

332-206. Say what?

 

[dilloduck]

The Electoral College only decides the outcome when the popular vote is within a 1% margin.

The primary effect of the Electoral College is to focus campaigning into swing states.

Swing voting districts even.

 

[Nyvin]

How long would small states be loyal to the United States if they never had a say in who would be President?

The current system may be slightly unfair to the large states, but the large states still have more power in the Electoral College than the small states.

And the current boundaries between smaller states are completely meaningless nowadays and have no real purpose, so why should groups of people living within their borders be given special privileges?

A lot of the western mountain/plain states like the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming were only made in the 1880's and1890's by the Republicans to create a permanent majority in the Senate....that was their entire purpose.

 

[mvymvy]

The Electoral College only decides the outcome when the popular vote is within a 1% margin.

The primary effect of the Electoral College is to focus campaigning into swing states.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

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

“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.

 

[mvymvy]

. . . The current system may be slightly unfair to the large states, but the large states still have more power in the Electoral College than the small states.

The predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.

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.

The only states that received any attention in the 2012 general election campaign for President were states within 3% of the national outcome.

The indefensible reality is that 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).

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), ensured that the candidates in 2012, after the conventions, did not reach out to 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.

10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.

80%+ of states are 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.

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. They decided the election.

None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual.

About 80% of the country was ignored --including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.

It was more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).

In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

80% of the states (rural, small, medium, and large) and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 240 million Americans, ignored. 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. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

 

[mvymvy]

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. 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.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

 

[mvymvy]

The Electoral College is in the Constitution and isn't going anywhere, so liberals you should stop acting a ***** about it.

Also, we know perfectly well that if Al Gore has won because of the Electoral College, you would be singing the praises of the Founding Fathers for thinking of the idea.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

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.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
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.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority partyvoters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the presidential candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

 

[mvymvy]

A constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes would not make us a pure democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

 

[Rustic]

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

Population shifts have converted states that were once solidly Republican into closely divided “battleground” states.
There do not appear to be any Democratic states making the transition to voting Republican in presidential races.

Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

In a PV only scenario say, the greater Minneapolis area would off-set like five rural states - population wise, how is that fair??
You can't have urban areas telling rural areas what to do with their land and call it fair.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not 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.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of the 10 most rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. 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. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural states

Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S,Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.comwhich were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

With just a PV vote there would be no reason for rural states to vote...

The Electoral College favors small state voters but no by a lot. 18% of the electoral votes are not allocated by population, that is each state regardless of size get's only 2 votes which gives smaller states voters more voice in electing the president than larger states. The remaining electoral votes, 72% are allocated based on population which gives voters in all states and equal voice in the election.

With just a PV it would be pointless for rural areas to vote... It would be mob rule.

 

[candycorn]

You have 2 stocked lakes and 2 gals decide to have a fishing contest.

Lake one is 5 sq miles and has been stocked with 60,000 fish. Lake 2 is 500 sq miles and has 12,000 fish.

Now the gals decide that their friends want to take part so now each team has 2 boats. They can decide where to put the boats to be most effective. Since 5 out of every 6 fish are in lake one, lake two remains untouched. Besides, lake two has weeds, submerged hazards and a lot of places fish can't live and boats can't reach. Lake one is custom made for boats and fish are every where.

The gals would have to be idiots to waste one of their very two boats in the large lake where there are very few fish. As would any politician and her/his running mate's precious time in the less populated state.

 

[Kosh]

As the far left continues to demonstrate they do not understand anything beyond their programmed religious dogma..

The electoral college favors a more than two party system..

When you have multiple parties running, it is hard for anyone to get the majority over 50% of the popular vote..

 

[mvymvy]

As the far left continues to demonstrate they do not understand anything beyond their programmed religious dogma..

The electoral college favors a more than two party system..

When you have multiple parties running, it is hard for anyone to get the majority over 50% of the popular vote..

With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.

Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tough! The EC ain't going away.