Anonymous wrote:So you recommend that the electoral college's votes be awarded in proportion to the popular vote...and how is this any different than getting rid of the electoral college?

States have autonomy on how they award there electoral votes. In fact, the Florida legislature threatened to ignore any recount, if the Supreme Court had ordered one, and give the vote to Bush. As has been mentioned, several states split their votes already. There is a legislative fix, not requiring any Constitutional amendment, already in progress, although not faring well. It is the "National Popular Vote" plan of MD State Senator Jamin Raskin (see, for example http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/08/deformed_reform.html), which would commit states with a majority of the electoral votes, if they pass the bill, to give their votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Go, Jamie!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why we don't do the popular vote.

Because in a popular vote, a handful of states with large populations - California, New York, Florida, Texas and a few others - could decide the entire election.

With the electoral college, even the tiny handful of votes from a state like Wyoming or North Dakota actually matter. Every state has a relevant voice in the electoral process. In a popular vote, citizens from some smaller states might as well not vote, because their numbers make no difference at all.

Actually, you are wrong here and I'm assuming that you must not have actually watched the video because it addresses the exact argument you make above and shows why it is invalid.

The video addressed the fact that winning the largest cities would not be enough, not the larges states (in terms of population). As long as states are winner take all, redistributing the electorial votes strictly by population will not make a difference. I say keep the electorial college, but allow the votes to be awarded proportionally.

So you recommend that the electoral college's votes be awarded in proportion to the popular vote...and how is this any different than getting rid of the electoral college?

You dont need to count every vote. It is faster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why we don't do the popular vote.

Because in a popular vote, a handful of states with large populations - California, New York, Florida, Texas and a few others - could decide the entire election.

With the electoral college, even the tiny handful of votes from a state like Wyoming or North Dakota actually matter. Every state has a relevant voice in the electoral process. In a popular vote, citizens from some smaller states might as well not vote, because their numbers make no difference at all.

Actually, you are wrong here and I'm assuming that you must not have actually watched the video because it addresses the exact argument you make above and shows why it is invalid.

The video addressed the fact that winning the largest cities would not be enough, not the larges states (in terms of population). As long as states are winner take all, redistributing the electorial votes strictly by population will not make a difference. I say keep the electorial college, but allow the votes to be awarded proportionally.

So you recommend that the electoral college's votes be awarded in proportion to the popular vote...and how is this any different than getting rid of the electoral college?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why we don't do the popular vote.

Because in a popular vote, a handful of states with large populations - California, New York, Florida, Texas and a few others - could decide the entire election.

With the electoral college, even the tiny handful of votes from a state like Wyoming or North Dakota actually matter. Every state has a relevant voice in the electoral process. In a popular vote, citizens from some smaller states might as well not vote, because their numbers make no difference at all.

Actually, you are wrong here and I'm assuming that you must not have actually watched the video because it addresses the exact argument you make above and shows why it is invalid.

The video addressed the fact that winning the largest cities would not be enough, not the larges states (in terms of population). As long as states are winner take all, redistributing the electorial votes strictly by population will not make a difference. I say keep the electorial college, but allow the votes to be awarded proportionally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why we don't do the popular vote.

Because in a popular vote, a handful of states with large populations - California, New York, Florida, Texas and a few others - could decide the entire election.

With the electoral college, even the tiny handful of votes from a state like Wyoming or North Dakota actually matter. Every state has a relevant voice in the electoral process. In a popular vote, citizens from some smaller states might as well not vote, because their numbers make no difference at all.

Actually, you are wrong here and I'm assuming that you must not have actually watched the video because it addresses the exact argument you make above and shows why it is invalid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why we don't do the popular vote.

Because in a popular vote, a handful of states with large populations - California, New York, Florida, Texas and a few others - could decide the entire election.

With the electoral college, even the tiny handful of votes from a state like Wyoming or North Dakota actually matter. Every state has a relevant voice in the electoral process. In a popular vote, citizens from some smaller states might as well not vote, because their numbers make no difference at all.

You really ought to watch the video. The Electoral College does not provide folks from Wyoming or North Dakota with ANY incentive to vote. Those states are absolutely going into the GOP column. That's why neither party campaigns there. There is no justification whatsoever in 2012 to adhere to the Electoral College. Maybe there was in 1789, but there certainly isn't now.

I don't understand why all states don't split their electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine have got it figured out.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why we don't do the popular vote.

Because in a popular vote, a handful of states with large populations - California, New York, Florida, Texas and a few others - could decide the entire election.

With the electoral college, even the tiny handful of votes from a state like Wyoming or North Dakota actually matter. Every state has a relevant voice in the electoral process. In a popular vote, citizens from some smaller states might as well not vote, because their numbers make no difference at all.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why we don't do the popular vote.

Because the founding fathers felt the need to insulate the presidency from the whims of the unwashed masses.

I feel the same way living in DC. Like, wooo I'm going to vote democratic like everyone else in the city has for the last 10 elections. 3 electoral votes, awesome.

I don't understand why we don't do the popular vote.

I have been registered to vote in three jurisdictions in my life -- New York, Virginia and (now) DC. In only one of them did I feel like my vote might matter. I read recently that the upcoming presidential election will be decided by 12 counties!! 12!!!! Most congressional districts are gerrymandered such that the outcome is all but certain. It's a sad state of affairs. In that vein, you really ought to watch the video below (and others posted on youtube by the same guy). He points out a good many absurdities about the electoral college, including that (although it's not likely), someone could win the presidency with only 22% of the vote. So, this begs the question, why do many of us actually go out and vote?