But it doesn't always work like that. In countries like India where there are tons of regional parties, coalitions consist of one large party and a ton of smaller parties that fight for posts and get them based on who threatens hardest to leave the party. As a result, you get idiots like the minister of trains/rail who hasn't completed high school, but he's also conveniently the loudest. Coalitions like Germany tend to be very compact with only a few parties making up the coalition and thus it functions very similarly to a two party system since it's the same two groups that fight among each other. In countries like Italy with several parties that have representation, it's just a nightmare to form a government and its even harder to control parliament ad get things done.
But they do get a visit or two. They would get nothing in the proposed system. An election isn't just for president, there are so many important races to be determined. I'm tired of people trying to say their is no point in voting just because their state's race for president seems determined because of a poll. People should need incentive to vote like that. Most years people know who is going to win the election before the polls open. Does that mean their vote doesn't count? I really wish people saw voting as a civic duty and a wonderful right and it's a shame more people don't go out an vote. If anything, that's the biggest danger to our democracy and way of life.
Of course its a civic duty but you're arguing on the wrong side. My vote is meaningless because I live in Texas and generally vote the other way. A republican's vote is meaningless in Massachusetts because like it or not Republican's aren't winning there. The current system creates votes of unequal value. A vote in a swing state like Florida or Ohio is a hell of a lot more valuable then a vote in Hawaii, which is small and votes solidly democratic. If you want to give people an incentive to vote, then make it based on the popular vote or force the states to split their electoral votes based on the distribution of voting in their state. Every vote is given equal weight and as a result there isn't the unequal value of votes in the country. The attention argument just seems bogus. Either way, some states will get precedence over others. Right now, I'd argue small states get too much in terms of attention. That's why we still have worthless agriculture subsidies or the fact that the Statue of liberty isn't an official DHS terror target but a goat farm in Iowa is. The politics of small/swing state campaigning only serves to disenfranchise the vast majority of Americans who get no attention and consequently have little power.
You're missing the point. Changing one Californian's mind would have as much impact as changing one Montanan's mind - that's not the case now. In the new system, winning a state wouldn't be the goal - the margin of victory is important. So Kerry would have benefitted by having an agenda that appeals to Texans because it's better for him to lose 55-45 than 60-40. Similarly, if Bush ignored Montana, then Kerry can go make up ground there more easily, whereas right now, it's totally pointless. You'd have to have a message and agenda that resonates with all people - not just a small demographic of voters that you're trying to target. If you target your message, you'll gain voters in one place but lose them in other places. Bush, in his first term, gave tons of pork projects to Pennsylvania to try to win that state - garbage like that would disappear (on the Presidential level). More states would have an impact, and candidates would have to cater to the whole country.
I agree totally. The problem with electoral college and winner takes all results in states being ignored unless they are swing states. If you have a lock on a state, then you don't care whether you win 60/40 or 90/10, you still get the same number of electoral votes. But if every vote is counted individually, then it sure as hell matters. In this case in 2004, Bush might lose NY as a whole but he'll still bother to campaign there to get as many votes as he can because a vote in NY counts towards his total popular vote. Similarly, Kerry might lose Georgia but he'll have a reason to campaign there because every vote in Georgia counts even if he knows he'll lose the state. Having the populate vote count would actually result in candidates paying attention to more states not less. If every vote counted there's no way a candidate could ignore a whole state because losing 40/60 would still be better than losing 0/100 but that's not the case now.
Well, if we did do a popular election, then two elections would have been changed in our history - that's it. This change would require a change to our constitution - so it's not likely to ever happen. Finally, you'd be moving us away from a localized republic into more of a federalist society. Not sure I agree.
It doesn't require a constitutional amendment. You would just need a majority of states to agree to cast their electoral votes based on the results of the popular vote. No constiuttional changes needed and it wouldn't change our status as a republic.
I think the concept of having states split up their electoral votes to reflect the statewide returns is a good compromise. The small states get that extra kick from having the senate analog electors, the big states draw campaigns because of the number of electoral votes availavble, and no state is a write-off.
It is but there is a workaround. The voting procedure of the electoral college is solely within the jurisdiction of the states. Thus a majority of states could form a compact in which they decide how to cast electoral votes. Currently two states already do this.
Yes, but that still can't create a popular national vote. You could still have scenarios where a persident lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote.
Yea it would, a group of states with the majority of electoral votes would form a compact declaring that they would cast the votes solely based on whoever wins the popular vote. Therefore the winner of the popular vote would win a majority of electoral votes.
No - two elections run as they were would be changed. It would completely change the way every presidential election is campaigned and managed. No - it would require 270 votes' worth of states adopting what California apparently might be adopting. This happened long, long ago. Everything from education to security to commerce is federalized these days. Education is what's considered most "local", but every state has to cave in to federal demands or get vital federal funding pulled, so they all follow federal guidelines/regulations/etc.
But this still marginalizes small states. If your state has 4 electoral votes, you have to go from 50/50 to 75/25 to win 1 extra EC vote. That will never happen, so why campaign there? A 4 EC vote state would always give 2 votes to each candidate. You'd have to get upwards of 15 or so EC votes for a state to really have any impact on the election. As opposed to a state with 50 votes, you just have to win 2% more of the vote to gain an extra EC vote.
Just don't require that votes be given as whole numbers - problem solved. Now Rhode Island can get you 1.02 votes.
Ok, so let's say we have a popular election....what would happen in terms of the campaign.... Presidential canidates would chase votes versus electoral ballots. That means they would go where they could harvest the most votes - or high density population areas. Rural areas such as Montana would never get visited, because "winning" Montana means nothing now. So then L.A., Chicago, the Northeast Corridor, major cities. I think this would give Democrats a decisive advantage since urban areas are their strong-holds. Presidential politics would change dramatically. Those in highly populated areas would receive much more focus then in rural areas. It would be interesting....
