Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProfessorPlum

(11,454 posts)
19. You are thinking about it in a skewed way, I think
Wed Nov 19, 2014, 11:38 AM
Nov 2014

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I think that many here might be unpleasantly surprised by a popular vote system Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #1
You're assuming a binary winner-takes-all system unrepentant progress Nov 2014 #2
If you get rid of the electoral college SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #4
You'll notice I was talking in hypotheticals unrepentant progress Nov 2014 #6
Getting one Constitutional amendment done is big enough of a hurdle SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #9
Who cares? unrepentant progress Nov 2014 #10
My bad SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #12
The National Popular Vote Bill - 61% of the way of going into effect mvymvy Nov 2014 #28
Thanks SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #30
and what is wrong with that concept wilt the stilt Nov 2014 #8
congressional districts should have a maximum allowed in any one district wilt the stilt Nov 2014 #5
Yep. unrepentant progress Nov 2014 #7
I have been against the electoral college since 1969 wilt the stilt Nov 2014 #3
The Candidate with the Most Votes Should Win mvymvy Nov 2014 #27
I have a degree in political science from the Electoral College. kwassa Nov 2014 #11
I'm sure the Founding Fathers came up with the idea customerserviceguy Nov 2014 #13
Minorities and women didn't have the vote until 1920 and 1964. CK_John Nov 2014 #22
unless there is sarcasm here ProdigalJunkMail Nov 2014 #42
Yes, thanks customerserviceguy Nov 2014 #45
On paper... world wide wally Nov 2014 #14
I actually think that getting rid of it, would be more of a disenfranchisment KMOD Nov 2014 #15
No shit, that is where the people are! One person, one vote. Odin2005 Nov 2014 #16
Doesn't it already? Through the House votes? n/t KMOD Nov 2014 #17
So issues important to North Dakota don't matter? davidn3600 Nov 2014 #18
A North Dakotan vote shouldn't have more weight in choosing a president ProfessorPlum Nov 2014 #20
You are thinking about it in a skewed way, I think ProfessorPlum Nov 2014 #19
Safe states, and swing states aren't static. KMOD Nov 2014 #31
States' Partisanship Has Hardened mvymvy Nov 2014 #33
Big City & Campaign Realities mvymvy Nov 2014 #34
Political Realities of Big States. They would not decide every election mvymvy Nov 2014 #26
8 small western states KMOD Nov 2014 #32
Small States Support a National Popular Vote mvymvy Nov 2014 #35
Near Misses are Now Frequently Common mvymvy Nov 2014 #36
Be careful what you wish for zipplewrath Nov 2014 #21
Near Misses are Now Frequently Common mvymvy Nov 2014 #23
When Every Vote is Equal and Matters, Turnout does and will Increase mvymvy Nov 2014 #24
When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere mvymvy Nov 2014 #25
No zipplewrath Nov 2014 #29
When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere mvymvy Nov 2014 #37
Tad Deceiving zipplewrath Nov 2014 #38
One Person, One Vote, Each Equal, Each Matters Equally, Most Votes Wins mvymvy Nov 2014 #39
And this will get worse with a purely popular vote zipplewrath Nov 2014 #40
Political Reality and Experience Don't Agree mvymvy Nov 2014 #41
Again decieving zipplewrath Nov 2014 #43
I have been saying this for years AgingAmerican Nov 2014 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The electoral college- th...»Reply #19