If we got rid of the electoral vote system....

[Vepres]

Can anybody explain why exactly it would be a bad thing if candidates spend time in urban areas?

I remember when Obama completely ignored Pueblo, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and many other cities because of the electoral college.

[I left.]

Can anybody explain why exactly it would be a bad thing if candidates spend time in urban areas?

I remember when Obama completely ignored Pueblo, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and many other cities because of the electoral college.

Why should people in Albuquerque get more attention than those in New York? Does that make any sense?

[Vepres]

Can anybody explain why exactly it would be a bad thing if candidates spend time in urban areas?

I remember when Obama completely ignored Pueblo, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and many other cities because of the electoral college.

Why should people in Albuquerque get more attention than those in New York? Does that make any sense?

Sure, because this place worships them:

[I left.]

What's your point, Vepres?

[Vepres]

What's your point, Vepres?

State governments are more powerful than the federal government, the federal government is secondary really. The New York state government focuses on NYC and Buffalo and Albany, etc, so who cares if the President doesn't campaign there. Besides, while Presidents campaign in swing states, they still govern with a proportional focus of resources and time on urban areas such as New York.

[I left.]

as evidenced by the amount of federal dollars that large states on average get back?

[Vepres]

as evidenced by the amount of federal dollars that large states on average get back?

Rural areas always receive more money in any developed democracy because they have much smaller tax bases to sustain local governments, and are generally poorer, thus they have a hard time just sustaining themselves. The Colorado state government to this day favors rural farmers with water rights over other groups, the state has always had a Governor elected by popular vote and a proportional legislature.

[I left.]

OK, that argument is fair enough....but do you honestly think Colorado should get so much more attention than....say.....Alabama simply because Colorado is close enough that both candidates believe they have a chance of winning?

What's so terrible about having each vote count equally....especially in a single winner election where the winner is supposed to have a mandate from a majority of the country? Why should a person in New York care about voting if he knows he has no way of helping his candidate further?

[Vepres]

OK, that argument is fair enough....but do you honestly think Colorado should get so much more attention than....say.....Alabama simply because Colorado is close enough that both candidates believe they have a chance of winning?

What's so terrible about having each vote count equally....especially in a single winner election where the winner is supposed to have a mandate from a majority of the country? Why should a person in New York care about voting if he knows he has no way of helping his candidate further?

Colorado has lots of independents, and thus lots of voters that one can convince. Does NYC have that? Not really. It is very polarized between affluent Republicans and poor Democrats. New York, in a typical election, gave it's mandate to the Democrats by default.

To continue on my analogy, Boulder County, in a typical election, gives the Democrats its mandate by default (for all intents and purposes). Why should Hickenlooper give as much attention to Boulder County as the similarly populated, but far less partisan, Lairmer County? Similarly, Colorado and Alabama have similar populations, but Colorado is far less polarized than Alabama, thus there are more votes up for grabs.

In my opinion, the electoral college wouldn't change where candidates visit that much, but it has the benefit of ensuring that our strong federalist structure isn't subverted by the federal executive branch. As I like a weak federal executive branch generally, I don't mind if there is less of a mandate for the President.

As for turnout, New York turnout would be just as low absent a Presidential election because all state-wide offices will likely go Democrat.

[I left.]

Whether or not you like a weak executive branch.....the executive branch isn't getting weaker any time soon....so wouldn't it be preferable that citizens have an equal chance to elect that executive?

Your only arguments are the "federal structure" and keeping the executive branch weak. The reasons that people vote how they do should be completely irrelevant in determining how much weight to give those votes. Who are you to tell New Yorkers that their opinion is worse less because it's a battle between afluent Republicans and poor Whites (which certainly isn't even entirely true anymore)?

[Vepres]

Whether or not you like a weak executive branch.....the executive branch isn't getting weaker any time soon....so wouldn't it be preferable that citizens have an equal chance to elect that executive?

Your only arguments are the "federal structure" and keeping the executive branch weak. The reasons that people vote how they do should be completely irrelevant in determining how much weight to give those votes. Who are you to tell New Yorkers that their opinion is worse less because it's a battle between afluent Republicans and poor Whites (which certainly isn't even entirely true anymore)?

It isn't worth less. If they were less polarized, I can guarantee candidates would visit New York far more than Nevada. Black communities get no attention in Presidential elections because they're locks for the Democrats. Changing the EC would not change that.

I'm not saying New Yorkers' votes should be worth less by virtue of them voting one way. I am saying that, given how New Yorkers vote, their votes would carry far less weight as far as the campaigns were concerned.

So they're votes are worth 10% than they would be in a popular vote system. They are still a huge population center. If they voted differently, they'd get more attention. That would be the case in any system.

[feeblepizza]

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

[Californian Tony]

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

[I left.]

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

[Californian Tony]

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

Come on, you certainly know what gerrymandering means. The GOP is favored in States like Michigan, Pennsyvania or Texas because the democratic vote is concentrted in overwhelmingly dem districts so that the other ones lean blue. It's very easy to see what would happen in a cse of tie or for a dem+1 margin. In most of these case, republicans would win with NE/ME system. That doesn't mean the GOP will always take the House, just that democrats need a strong advantage in the PV to take the House.

[I left.]

Only problem is that what You're saying isn't confirmed by reality.

[I left.]

For example:

2008: DEMs have 53pc of the vote....and actually 59pc of seats.

2006: DEMs have 52pc of the vote...and 54 pc of seats.

2004: DEMs have 46pc of both seats and votes.



Forgive me, but I don't see how gerrymandering benefits only Republicans.

[Californian Tony]

What led me to my conclusion were those posts in Libertas' threas. As evidenced, Gore would have needed a 3% edge nationwide to win EC using NE/ME, and Kerry a 2% edge. Doesn't it look like there is a republican advantage ?

[Bo]

What led me to my conclusion were those posts in Libertas' threas. As evidenced, Gore would have needed a 3% edge nationwide to win EC using NE/ME, and Kerry a 2% edge. Doesn't it look like there is a republican advantage ?

There might be one for the 2000s, but the Democrats are going to do a lot of gerrymanders in their favor after the 2010 midterms and thus it might benefit Democrats instead in the 2010s.

[Χahar]

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

It's worth noting that there are far more McCain districts represented by a Democrat than Obama districts represented by a Republican. The effect was even more extreme in 2004.

[beneficii]

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

It was shown that with the Maine-Nebraska method, Bush still would have won 2000 (with a larger margin!), even though his popular vote was less:

As to accurately reflecting the nationwide popular vote, a second-place candidate could easily win the Presidency under the congressional-district approach. If the congressional-district approach had been applied to the results of the 2000 presidential election, then Bush would have received 288 electoral votes (53.3% of the total number of electoral votes), and Gore would have received 250 electoral votes (46.5% of the total). That is, the congressional-district approach would have given Bush a 6.8% lead in electoral votes over Gore in 2000. Nationwide, Gore received 50,992,335 popular votes (50.2% of the two-party popular vote), whereas Bush received 50,455,156 (49.7% of the two-party popular vote). Under the existing system, Bush received 271 electoral votes in 2000 (50.4% of the total number of electoral votes)—a 0.8% lead in electoral votes over Gore. In summary, the congressional-district approach would have been even less accurate than the existing statewide winner-take-all system in terms of reflecting the will of the voters.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m21.php

[muon2]

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

It was shown that with the Maine-Nebraska method, Bush still would have won 2000 (with a larger margin!), even though his popular vote was less:

As to accurately reflecting the nationwide popular vote, a second-place candidate could easily win the Presidency under the congressional-district approach. If the congressional-district approach had been applied to the results of the 2000 presidential election, then Bush would have received 288 electoral votes (53.3% of the total number of electoral votes), and Gore would have received 250 electoral votes (46.5% of the total). That is, the congressional-district approach would have given Bush a 6.8% lead in electoral votes over Gore in 2000. Nationwide, Gore received 50,992,335 popular votes (50.2% of the two-party popular vote), whereas Bush received 50,455,156 (49.7% of the two-party popular vote). Under the existing system, Bush received 271 electoral votes in 2000 (50.4% of the total number of electoral votes)—a 0.8% lead in electoral votes over Gore. In summary, the congressional-district approach would have been even less accurate than the existing statewide winner-take-all system in terms of reflecting the will of the voters.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m21.php

That's in part because we have no agreed criteria for CDs other than racial and language minority protection under the VRA. This allows politically gerrymandered districts that tilt the balance during competitive elections.