An interesting argument in favor of the electoral college

Technically yes that is the house. I guess I can't blame gerrymandering on the feds so it's my responsibility as a state resident to promote a system where we're proportionally represented in the house.

It just seems so much easier to have the president be that proportional representative ... but oh well

 

I'm actually with stanger on this - the EC prevents candidates from running hyper-regional campaigns.

It actually skews the politics to the middle, not the right. If it was a straight popular vote, then the GOP would have nominated someone way more conservative, and then spent most of their resources in the Deep South and the Plains.

 

This can't be proven. For every ideologue you might get in Alabama you may lose one in Ohio or New Hampshire.

A vote is a vote is a vote is a vote. There's no proof that regionalizing your campaign would have the best results. Another candidate with better policies and better personality could bring together a bigger coalition from several regions and beat you. If anything it challenges the candidate to find new voters wherever they are instead of focusing everything on a handful of counties in Ohio.

 

In theory, sure. In practice, there's a message that's tested well over generations with Deep South voters, while radical messages haven't done as well in other regions.

And while an ideologue's vote may count the same as a moderate, an ideologue is more likely to vote and more likely to motivate others to vote.

I mean, seriously, this is stuff they teach in high school.

And a voting bloc is a voting bloc and a television market is a television market. Men are from Mars. The birds and the bees, etc etc.

Obviously not, since we have an Electoral College system. We can't really prove hypotheses, you know.

Except they're not, really. What happens is, while they have to appeal to the swing voters, they rely on their base to raise funds and GOTV.

 

Though with some people, it's hard to tell the difference.

 

That seems reasonable.

But then we have to build a bigger congress every few decades.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to have regional qualifying tournaments to eliminate minnows before they get to Congress?

 

Play in game

Wyoming vs Maine

 

Michelle Bachman = Monserrat?

 

States are people, my friend.

 

This tropical storm is actually one of the strongest arguments in favor of the electoral college.

 

Who will do the seeding? NCAA?

 

Think about it, smartass. If high density regions were struck by a natural disaster and turnout was severely decreased, unaffected areas would have a disproportionate level of influence on the outcome.

 

Not all states have the ability to reschedule their elections. And even if a state did delay their election, some voters could still be affected long-term, especially the poor, the displaced, and those who don't have access to transportation.

 

Because I don't want Tagg counting all the votes??

 

I have never understood the arguments for the electoral college (ie. Presidential candidates would spend all their time in CA, Texas, etc)...well California, New York and Texas are where 25% or so of the American population is! So, candidates would spend 25% of their efforts on those three states. Right now, those states get about 5%! Is that fair for people in those states?

For example, without the electoral college, the 2000 election fiasco wouldn't have happened since well Al Gore had half a million more votes than George W. Bush so it wouldn't have matter who won or lost Florida by 537 votes.

But does anyone think this will be replay of the 2000 election (in reverse) ? Romney wins the popular vote by (let's say) over 1 million votes but loses the electoral vote since he loses Ohio? How will Republicans respond then? Will they push for a direct election and eliminate the electoral college (which would require a constitutional amendment)?

Thanks.

 

You need electricity to vote online.