Cuckoo bird brings (the Honorable) Hillary Campaign to a standstill

[Cate]

By making each State's EC votes an all or nothing proposition, it forces the candidates to focus more on the smaller, more rural states and not just on the main centers of population. While the bigger states are still important to win, victory is not likely without winning many of the smaller ones as well. This increases the Federalism of our system and buffers the minority from undue influence of the majority. The net effect is to enfranchise a greater proportion of the populace during the electoral process.

But that same effect also concentrates campaigning and election season attention on swing states and those same big-vote states that always get attention anyway. Having lived in the Deep South through the past two elections, I've seen plenty of Republican candidates sliding through for face time and fundraising, and the Democrats generally pop in and out quickly if they come at all. Why? Because Alabama is just plain not going to vote for a Democratic candidate, and with the winner-takes-all system, Democratic candidates have no motivation to come down and do any campaigning, and that deprives the electorate of information and access that could help them make a more informed decision at the polls.

A more proportional voting system like Maine and Nebraska use, dividing the state up by congressional district and then awarding the two remaining electoral votes to the overall state winner, gives candidates motivation to play to win those extra two votes and gives them reason to show up at all. It also lessens the potential gap between electoral vote and popular vote. I'm a fan.

Of course, electors in most states aren't legally bound to actually cast their vote for the candidate they're meant to represent, so really, an organized elector revolt could render this entire debate academic.

 

[Spekkio]

Cate,

I wrote my response quickly, and was actually going to correct myself by saying exactly what you did.

A more proportional voting system like Maine and Nebraska use, dividing the state up by congressional district and then awarding the two remaining electoral votes to the overall state winner, gives candidates motivation to play to win those extra two votes and gives them reason to show up at all. It also lessens the potential gap between electoral vote and popular vote. I'm a fan.

I would be, too, so long as the electorates were bound by law to vote for the winner.

 

[WheelsUpHeelsUp]

Only if he got re-elected.

Besides, we also probably wouldn't be in Iraq right now, and that would be a very good thing.

Matter of opinion, most Iraqi vets I have spoke with think they ARE making a positive difference. Besides, it IS an all volunteer force, if you have reservations I suggest another career path.
Back on topic, why only if he were reelected? He could have fvcked shit up during his first term bad enough to make problems into the 22 century.

 

[Brett327]

This sounds nice because it is well-written

Thank you - I thought so as well.

Protection of the minority?!

You've misunderstood what I mean by minority. I'm not talking about the minority within a given state, but the minority of smaller states versus the giants like CA, NY, etc. The big picture take-away here is while a relatively large minority of people in more populous states may not have their input into the electoral equation, the net effect is that the several smaller states' voters are better represented and a higher number of people are enfranchised as a result.

If the electoral college enfranchises so many people, why are only less than 1/3 of Americans voting?

One has nothing to do with the other.

Well, times have changed, and it's time to get rid of the electoral college.

It's not likely to change for the reasons I've previously posted, so you might want to stop getting all worked up about it.

Most of it is 100% bullshit

That's oxymoronic

Brett

 

[eddie]

The big picture take-away here is while a relatively large minority of people in more populous states may not have their input into the electoral equation, the net effect is that the several smaller states' voters are better represented and a higher number of people are enfranchised as a result.

Spekkio,

In principle I am not a fan of the electoral college. When I first learned how it worked, I thought it was ridiculous, especially in today's context (mostly for the reasons you cite). State's rights are important, but nearly as much of a contention point as they were intially.

And yes, it is not operating for the same reasons that it did at inception, but despite it's un-democratic character (a flaw, and something to note), it does achieve some positive ends.

For instance, South Korea's strong cheif executive (president) is elected by direct elections. Parties and candidates are not / have not been so much differentiated by issues as they are region and the promise of pork. The industrialized centers have most often held power, arguably, in large part for this reason.

Now that's South Korea, a small, super-homogenous country, and we're talking about America here...

Really, you'd just be trading evils over the long term. No system is perfect, and I won't say accept the status quo simply because it works "good enough," but I no longer believe in quick fixes. And I do like to think that "the issues" should be more important than what home-town you grew up in, so that's how I live with the electoral college.

 

[Brett327]

Spekkio,

In principle I am not a fan of the electoral college. When I first learned how it worked, I thought it was ridiculous, especially in today's context (mostly for the reasons you cite). State's rights are important, but nearly as much of a contention point as they were intially.

And yes, it is not operating for the same reasons that it did at inception, but despite it's un-democratic character (a flaw, and something to note), it does achieve some positive ends.

For instance, South Korea's strong cheif executive (president) is elected by direct elections. Parties and candidates are not / have not been so much differentiated by issues as they are region and the promise of pork. The industrialized centers have most often held power, arguably, in large part for this reason.

Now that's South Korea, a small, super-homogenous country, and we're talking about America here...

Really, you'd just be trading evils over the long term. No system is perfect, and I won't say accept the status quo simply because it works "good enough," but I no longer believe in quick fixes. And I do like to think that "the issues" should be more important than what home-town you grew up in, so that's how I live with the electoral college.

And here's a man who "gets" it - no surprises here.

Brett