How many tiny red states get the same number of senators as California and NY? The one time a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election it favored the Republican. I don't know what conservatives have to complain about, but if they want to get rid of the EC or Senate too then I'm all for it.
I was kind of hoping for a Romney popular win so that conservatives would increase their support for a national popular vote.
Obama has the popular vote. Just wait. And to people who stuck by Romney, despite his faith in women, minorities, middle class (teachers, like myself, are not victims) and constant lies, I will never understand.
What Democrats can do is make the blue states allocate the electoral votes by the popular vote therein.
Problem with this country isn't the electoral college - it's the utter disrespect and demonization of the other side and unwillingness to compromise. We are two nations. Not one. And that's a recipe for decline.
As it's currently implemented, I do not like the EC. However, I'm not sure I'm on board with scrapping the Electoral College entirely. The way the political landscape is now, I'd say that, with the EC, upwards of 70% of all eligible voters' votes are irrelevant and arguably disenfranchised when it comes to voting for President. Only people living in a few select states (Ohio, Florida, etc.) matter. Not sure I'd blame the EC itself for that though...it's just the way people are distributed throughout the country. More urbanized states are going to lean Democrat, that's just the way it is. Rural and religious states are going to lean Republican. Going to a pure "popular vote decides the presidential election" system trades one set of currently existing problems with another set of problems. Disenfranchisement will still exist; it'll just instead be rural voters who's votes will lose relevancy. Campaigns will focus on "swing" urban areas. A popular vote system is likely to increase turnout, which is good...but it also may compel more ignorant and uninformed people to vote. And there are many such people out there. I like how Maine and Nebraska handle their electoral votes - they divvy them up proportionally based on the state's popular vote. I wouldn't mind seeing that implemented on a wider scale. To ensure that smaller states still retain some influence while giving bigger non-battleground states (such as TX and CA) more influence, maybe modify the EC such that states that meet or exceed X number of total electoral votes are required to divide up those votes proportionally to popular vote. States below this threshold would be winner-take all. On a side note - I also want to see reforms in the voting process for primaries, too. It is absurd that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc. have so much influence in presidential candidate nominees every four years. There's just a lot of stinky **** in the U.S. political and election system currently.
I think most people are missing the debate here. The point is to protect the interest of states. The people of North Dakota can have defined and regional interests distinct from New Yorkers but if you do a strait popular vote, their voice counts for A LOT less than it does now. The number of electoral votes IS NOT precisely proportional to population. It would become harder for a politician from a smaller state to get momentum because they would not carry that many raw votes. If a Texan runs for president, a lot more votes will be cast in the gigantic state for the republican party independent of the candidates actual appeal. A candidate from Nevada would be at a disadvantage because he/she doesn't bring that many automatic home field votes. Most states don't matter because the people in those states are on the same page. That isn't something to be mad about.
I agree. I remember the morning I left to vote for Gore, and told my roommate that the EC sucks but it might get Gore elected (thinking he'd get the EC but lose the popular) and as much as I wanted that too happen I didn't like it. And then the exact opposite happened. I said the exact same thing today concerning Obama but it looks like he won both the EC and popular vote. Anywho, watching the coverage tonight was a Numberwang. Thanks to Patton Oswalt dropping this awesome reference on Twitter. Mitchell & Webb in '16! <object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjOZtWZ56lc?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjOZtWZ56lc?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Actually it would be interesting. I know a lot of conservatives who simply dont vote or get excited to vote cause it doesnt matter out here in california. Im sure its the same for dems in texas.
I'd love an end to the electoral college so I'd have more incentive to vote ("civic duty" doesn't do it for me in Texas), but even though it would've made the race closer this year, Republicans will be forever against it. If Romney had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, maybe they'd change their tune... but it'd be a 180 from the entrenched position.
