General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe electoral college- the greatest vote suppressor ever
What does a system say when the most important vote you can cast is deemed worthless. This is the beginning of disenfranchising the voter and it continues to the point until people give up. The two people most responsible for killing voting are Nixon and Reagan. one made all politicians crooks and the second made government the enemy.

Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)replacing the Electoral College.
Right now, every deep South state is in the bag for the Republicans. Extra people voting Republican in those states achieves precisely nothing; they can do no better than getting all of the electoral votes. But imagine a popular vote system, where every pastor in every church in the deep South thunders to their congregation that now EVERY VOTE COUNTS! The Republicans will pick up many, many more religiously motivated votes to add to their popular total. Not to mention the possibility of fraud by sneaky sheriffs deep in Redstateville, which would be superfluous under the Electoral College system.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)If we're getting rid of the electoral college we might get rid of that rotten old chestnut too. And let's try to institute something rational, and mathematically sound, like instant runoff voting to boot. And nonpartisan committees to draw districts, as opposed to districts gerrymandred by whomever happens to be in power at the time. Oh, and we could make urban and suburban districts much smaller and more numerous too so that a solitary Congresscritter doesn't represent hundreds of thousands of people.
A fella can dream.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,646 posts)Popular vote is all that's left for a Presidential race, and Nye Bevan makes a good point about this being an incentive for higher turnout for Republicans.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)If we were to do that, then we should do these things too.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,646 posts)Getting more than one done would be a near impossibility.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)Again, I'm talking about hypotheticals.
What would a sane, and responsive, representative government look like, and how would we make sure it stays that way?
I can say one thing with certainty -- what we got ain't it.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,646 posts)I'm thinking in terms off what is actually possible, not pipe dreams.
mvymvy
(309 posts)To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votesthat is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
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 virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,646 posts)But I've read this the other 1,082 times that you posted it.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)this would be the first step to shoving all the minorities into one district. once you reach the maximum you have to draw up a new district and stop this artificial 435 seats. have the amount equal to the real population.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)That was the original intention.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)when I started college. I think it is a joke and it has failed 12% of the time. ridiculous. your argument can be said about California and NY. Every vote should count.
mvymvy
(309 posts)Most American voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
From 1932-2008 the combined popular vote for Presidential candidates added up to Democrats: 745,407,082 and Republican: 745,297,123 a virtual tie.
The red states are redder than the blue states are blue.
Foreseeing apocalyptic numbers of religiously motivated voters as a reason for keeping a system where most people's votes don't count for anything is not a compelling argument.
If presidential campaigns polled, organized, visited, and appealed to more than the current 63,000,000 of 314,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.
Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences.
National Popular Vote makes every vote equal and every voter matter to the candidates. It adds up votes of all voters in each state and the candidate with the most popular votes from the states wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and I once almost collided with Wilt the Stilt's stomach as he was walking out of store, and I was walking in.
True story.
well, not the electoral college part.
customerserviceguy
(25,198 posts)to suppress minorities and women from turning out to vote.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)that may be* the dumbest thing i had read today...
with sarcasm? pretty funny.
sP
*no, it definitely is
customerserviceguy
(25,198 posts)Some folks have a firm grasp of the obvious, some don't.
world wide wally
(21,835 posts)A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Therefore (according to Republican philosophy), the people are the problem.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Basically, California, NY, and a couple other states would decide every election.
Small, densely populated areas, still deserve there right for their voice to be heard.
It's better to win them over with messaging and proven results, rather than leave them out of the game completely.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)California has, like, 50 times the population of North Dakota, it should have 50 times the influence.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The whole country has to revolve around California?
ProfessorPlum
(11,423 posts)than a Californian vote. Which it does now.
ProfessorPlum
(11,423 posts)The system as it stands now disenfranchises almost everyone. If you live in a state that will definitely go Democratic or Republican, then your vote simply doesn't count, either way. The outcome is predetermined. If you live in a state that could go either way, your vote begins to matter a little bit more, except that the winner take all states dilute the importance of your vote, especially as the margins get bigger.
Imagine, though, that suddenly everyone's vote counted equally, no matter where they lived, no matter which party they were in. That would be huge. _Everyone_'s vote would count. Equally. Every Republican in a Republican state would be rewarded for voting, because they would be "cancelling out" a vote from a Democrat in a Democratic state. Likewise. Every voter in every state would have a direct, measurable impact on the outcome, regardless of article boundaries and geography. That's real democracy!!!
And think about how great it would be. Right now, candidates can essentially ignore what people in California want, or people in Texas want, or what people in New York want, because they already know how those states will contribute to their EC count. But a Republican candidate could go after votes from Republican Californians! Suddenly, what they wanted would matter. likewise, a Democratic candidate could consider what Democrats in southern states would want . . . and articulate those policies, and pick up votes! Right now, no one cares what Democrats in red states want - their votes are essentially useless, and wasted.
Direct popular vote would be a huge, positive game changer, in that it would make presidential candidates suddenly have to care what many more people wanted, much more than they do now.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)They change over time. California at one point was red, and Texas was blue. Swing states, with the exception of Ohio (which seems to be a perpetual swing state) change as well.
A popular vote would have Presidential candidates only visiting the large cities, (NY, LA, Chicago, etc.) and all other places, would be virtually ignored.
This also serves as a reminder of why the midterms matter. If people want their vote to count, they need to vote in the midterms, so their state and local politicians, who serve as their electorate, represent what they want. That representation helps give their communities and state their voice. That voice, will be the loudest during the Presidential elections.
mvymvy
(309 posts)The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
States' partisanship is hardening.
19 states (including California with 55 electoral votes) with a total of 242 electoral votes, have voted Democratic, 1992-2012
13 states with 102 electoral votes have voted Republican, 1992-2012
Some states have not been 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. In a study before the 2012 election:
41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2008
32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2008
13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2008
19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2008
9 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
15 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988
mvymvy
(309 posts)With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates attention, much less control the outcome.
16% of Americans live in rural areas. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
If big cities always controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attentionroughly in proportion to their population.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't poll, organize, buy ads, and visit just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldnt be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
mvymvy
(309 posts)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!
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of wasted popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826
To put these numbers in perspective, 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). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of Californias population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
KMOD
(7,906 posts)I know you are a proponent of popular vote, so I'm confused by the argument you are making. Your numbers show that 8 small western states had a voice in the electoral college that year. Perhaps you could clarify for me, because I'm missing your point.
And yes, 4 times I believe a President has won the election without winning the popular vote. 4 times in two centuries.
mvymvy
(309 posts)8 small western states, with less than a third of Californias population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659). 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). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerrys 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.
The margins are "wasted" votes, that with a national popular vote would not be wasted. They would matter to their candidate.
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. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
mvymvy
(309 posts)Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. 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. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obamas nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
zipplewrath
(16,694 posts)A purely popular vote for President will have several affects.
And the biggest will be that the entire election for president will focus on the two coasts. And really, it will focus on about 10 metro areas. NYC, Boston, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philly, DC, Miami, Atlanta, San Diego/LA, and Frisco. Fund raising will happen more places, but the majority of campaigning will occur there. Yeah, maybe you can add Chicago and Dallas, but those metro areas will influence VAST areas around them. I haven't calculated it lately, but about 10 years ago, 25% of the US population either lived between Boston and DC or LA and San Diego. A few years back there was a big tado made about how 75% of the population lived within 50 miles of the border or something like that (This would include whole states including Florida). Campaigning will stop some where around Philly, MAYBE Cleveland, and start up again somewhere west of the Sierra Nevada's.
And the ONLY race this will affect directly will be the Presidential. State races won't be affected at all, except by any low turnout because people don't feel a need to because of the effect of their votes for president.
The EC skews the APPARENT result because the "margin of victory" seems absurdly high. And it often is. But it rarely is the converse of the popular vote. Of all the changes in our national election voting that needs to happen, this is the least of them.
mvymvy
(309 posts)Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. 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. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obamas nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
mvymvy
(309 posts)Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the 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 states 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 candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of Californias population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.
If presidential campaigns polled, organized, visited, and appealed to more than the current 63,000,000 of 314,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.
mvymvy
(309 posts)With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates attention, much less control the outcome.
16% of Americans live in rural areas. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
If big cities always controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attentionroughly in proportion to their population.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't poll, organize, buy ads, and visit just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldnt be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states or (gerrymandered) districts would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
Sorry, but from a campaign perspective, campaigning in almost any form in North Dakota is a loser.
It costs too much, regardless of how, and not just money.
Every voter one "turns on" in an extremely low population region, is easily 10 turned "off" in a high density region. And since campaigns are "national" in the sense of their exposure, you can't campaign one way in North Dakota and another in NYC. They'll spend their money in markets where it will expose them to the most number of potential voters FOR THEM. They'll spend their money trying to get as many voters from the 75% that live near the coast, and not waste money trying to get some of the 25% in the center. There will be no reason to go to Wyoming because every minute you spend trying to get some portion of their 500,000 people is a minute you're not trying to get votes from the 4 MILLION daytime residents in Manhattan.
Furthermore, in terms of crafting positions, it will become an urban race because when you can get 10% more of the urban population (80%) by taking a particular position, it doesn't matter than you lose 30% of the rural population (20%). At worst it's a wash, and at best much of that 20% wasn't going to vote for you anyway (or already was regardless).
Go to any state with severe disparities of urban/rural population distribution. The urban tends to dominate the state wide elections (mostly governors and cabinets). There are VERY frequent complaints about it, mostly from the GOP who then tries to address it through voter suppression and Gerrymandering.
mvymvy
(309 posts)The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
In the 2012 campaign, Much of the heaviest spending has not been in big cities with large and expensive media markets, but in small and medium-size metropolitan areas in states with little individual weight in the Electoral College: Cedar Rapids and Des Moines in Iowa (6 votes); Colorado Springs and Grand Junction in Colorado (9 votes); Norfolk and Richmond in Virginia (13 votes). Since the beginning of April, four-fifths of the ads that favored or opposed a presidential candidate have been in television markets of modest size.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/9-swing-states-are-main-focus-of-ad-blitz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attentionroughly in proportion to their population.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't poll, organize, buy ads, and visit just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldnt be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states or (gerrymandered) districts would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.
zipplewrath
(16,694 posts)This is a tad deceiving. Those larger metro areas DO dominate the politics. But the municipal areas don't technically qualify as the total area. You can't talk LA without meaning everything from Santa Barbara to Long Beach. And a visit to Ojia will still have value with the Santa Barbara electorate. A visit to Cheyenne is going to be relatively meaningless to the electorate in Jersey City.
The population distribution we are talking about is VERY severe. Just as no one campaigning for Governor of Tennessee worries much about the Buck Snort vote, A presidential campaign isn't going to worry much about the North Dakota vote in a popular election. Every vote counts, but not all activities pursue the same number of votes. They can visit a factory in New Jersey and influence thousands, or they can visit Wyoming and influence hundreds.
mvymvy
(309 posts)The facts are:
Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadnt taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
In the 2012 campaign, Much of the heaviest spending has not been in big cities with large and expensive media markets, but in small and medium-size metropolitan areas in states with little individual weight in the Electoral College: Cedar Rapids and Des Moines in Iowa (6 votes); Colorado Springs and Grand Junction in Colorado (9 votes); Norfolk and Richmond in Virginia (13 votes). Since the beginning of April, four-fifths of the ads that favored or opposed a presidential candidate have been in television markets of modest size.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/9-swing-states-are-main-focus-of-ad-blitz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
Where you live determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.
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), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 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 a 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.
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. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election.
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).
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 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. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
In California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't poll, organize, buy ads, and visit just in the metro areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.
With National Popular Vote, successful candidates will poll, organize, buy ads, and/OR visit in Wyoming and New Jersey. Now they don't do ANY of those basic campaign activities (in any other election in the country) after the conventions in 80% of the states.
Of course a presidential campaign hoping to win will worry about the North Dakota vote in a popular election. Every vote, everywhere would matter and count equally. Every voter ignored, ceded, or lost to another candidate would hurt.
A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attentionroughly in proportion to their population.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
zipplewrath
(16,694 posts)The campaigns will go where the votes are. They won't spend 5 minutes chasing 5 votes when the could spend the same 5 minutes chasing 500 votes. To go to Wyoming, or even cater to Wyoming, or North Dakota, will yield little compared to the same amount of effort and resources focused on a much larger, denser, and homogenous region. The same math that has them chasing votes in "battle ground" states will come to bear in a popular vote in terms of density of available votes. Why spend any money on a GOTV effort in rural Kansas when the same money can be spent in Cincinnati generating whole integer multiples of potential voters to the polls.
mvymvy
(309 posts)With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadnt taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states. [only 10 in 2012]
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
If people dont like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.
Campaigning is more than just "going" places.
Battleground state campaigning is NOT based on density of available votes.
In battleground states, every voter is equal, so a campaign must be run, and IS run everywhere.
Of COURSE candidates will go to rural states for classic photo opps.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
Where you live determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.
None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
With National Popular Vote, where you live will not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.
16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America voted 60% Republican.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
I have provided actual evidence. Statewide campaigns are not only active in big cities. Candidates try for every vote in the state they can get.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from national advertisers who seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. A national advertiser does not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor makes more sales in those particular states. Moreover, a national advertiser enjoying an edge over its competitors in Indiana or Illinois does not stop trying to make additional sales in those states. National advertisers go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located.
zipplewrath
(16,694 posts)You're ignoring the larger "metropolitan" areas of these cities. Especially in the north east, but also the metropolis extending from LA County all the way down to San Diego. Same thing for the population density extending from DC to Boston. There is nothing comparable in the midwest or plains area. Campaigning will focus on these exceeding large demographic areas, and rely upon the national "overflow" of advertising and TV news coverage to expose them to their candidate. There will be fundraising in other areas, and you'll see some campaigning associated with those activities. And of course there will still be House and Senate races that will need to be supported, especially for a candidate looking for "coat tails" in a presidential election. But just as the campaigns currently focus on the battleground states, in a popular election they will chase individual votes. And their efforts will focus on where the votes are.
This is a tad off as well. National advertisers aren't pursing votes where it is one or the other. They are pursuing purchases from people who can (and do) patronize MANY products. They advertise where they can turn a profit, and that profit includes a calculation of the advertising required to gain the required market share. A national campaign with relatively "unlimited" funds can afford to expand the reach of their campaign. But generally speaking, their funds won't be unlimited and they'll make choices, which is why even today campaigns rarely if ever go to Alaska, much less spend much up there. The cost in terms of time is too great.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Many more Democrats would come out and vote in Red states if their presidential vote actually counted.