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

[Vepres]

The right question to ask is what system would you like to resolve the outcome when votes are close or there is no clear majority?

This is why I support the electoral college. I believe another person on this board said this, but I will reiterate it. The electoral college and popular vote only differ, for all realistic scenarios, when the nation popular vote is so close that it is almost a tie. In this case, the candidate with more regional appeal wins the election.

Besides, as the resident of a swing state, I can't complain.

[Vepres]

Here's what an election without the electoral college would look like. A candidate would visit the top 1-5 cities (depending on the state's size) in a state and try to get high turnout among their base. For example, my home state of Colorado. Swing voters in Pueblo or Grand Junction wouldn't matter. No, it would be who could get higher turnout. Democrats in Denver, or Republicans in Colorado Springs. Pennsylvania, high Dem turnout in Philly vs. high Rep turnout in Pittsburgh, while ignoring the central area. Arizona, high Dem in Tuscon vs. high Rep in Phoenix while ignoring the northern areas. You see where I'm going. Even medium sized cities would get no attention, and swing voters wouldn't matter.

Consider this. Without the electoral college, Obama and McCain would've been far less moderate than they were.

Besides, it's a reminder that we are a federalist country.

[Vepres]

No, absolutely not!  Candidates would actually have to campaign in more than a handful of swing states because every vote would suddenly be important.  Even if they didn't have a shot at winning a state, it would be important to keep their opponent's margin down in the state.  Conversely, even if they knew they were going to win a state, they would still need to campaign there in order to bolster their margin.  Candidates would visit long forgetten places in Presidential elections such as Washington D.C., Salt Lake City, Utah., Los Angeles California, and Birmingham, Alabama.  You better believe that the candidates would also visit rural portions of America in order to get good photo ops so as to persuade rural voters that they are on their side as well, so to me the argument that abandoning the electoral college would result in candidates only visiting large metropolitan areas simply doesn't hold water.

But their campaign would be focused not on swing voters but on turning out the base.

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.