pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 12th, 2011 at 11:53:24 PM permalink
Obama won the 2008 election by 96 electoral college votes over the amount he needed. If all the states decided to give one vote for the winner of each congressional district and two votes for the winner of the state, he probably would have won by only 32 votes.

Right now I believe that only Maine and Nebraska split their electoral college votes by district.

Campaign money and visits are obviously spent where it is possible to win an entire state.


Speculation that Florida will be a bigger battleground state this election has already resulted in President Obama going to Puerto Rico. Although that seems to be a unrelated it seems that Obama believes he has a better chance with the younger Puerto Rican vote in Florida than the older and more conservative Cuban vote. By going to Puerto Rico rather than Florida he can make a high profile statement.

It seems as if the debate about one vote per congressional district is doomed to go nowhere forever. The large states are simply not going to give up that much clout.

Do you think it is possible that a lesser compromised might be reached? That a congressional district that vote 60% for the opposite candidate as the state can still get an electoral vote. It won't make a major difference, but it will allow some people to feel like their vote still counts.
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 4:14:19 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

If all the states decided to give one vote for the winner of each congressional district and two votes for the winner of the state....

I thought that IS how they do it.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 4:44:12 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

I thought that IS how they do it.



That is how they determine the total number of votes. As paco said, all states but two decide to allocate them winner take all. If it is the state's goal to make the biggest splash possible in the electoral college, and to please the majority of its residents, that is what they should do. Of course, it alienates the minority, and causes predictable states like Maryland to not receive any attention.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 5:06:03 AM permalink
Oy. Brain fart.

I KNEW that, although I didn't realize that two states don't do the winner take all thing.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
JimMorrison
JimMorrison
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 597
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 5:16:05 AM permalink
Any change would come on the state level so even if a state or two changed the way they did it (which I don't see happening) it won't change much. For sweeping reform nationwide it would require a constitutional amendment and there is roughly 0% chance of that happening.
EvenBob: "Look America, I have a tiny wee-wee, can anybody help me?"
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 9:02:50 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

Oy. Brain fart.

I KNEW that, although I didn't realize that two states don't do the winner take all thing.



These two states made the change since they realized that they are so small that presidential campaigns didn't concentrate on them very much anyway. In the case of Maine it is largely symbolic since both congressional districts vote Democratic reliably.

If New York divided their votes then only a handful of districts would vote for the Republican candidate anyway. This map shows 29 congressional districts for NY, but that will be reduced to 27 by next election. My guess is that maybe 4-5 will vote Republican.



But, so far only small states seem willing to split their electoral vote. My question is maybe some states would consider a rule change to give the electoral vote to the losing candidate if he wins an overwhelming majority of votes in that district, not just a simple majority. Overwhelming could be defined by the state (but I think 60% would be a good definition). It would help people to not feel like their vote is wasted if they can't overcome the power of the metropolitan areas.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 9:29:55 AM permalink
Voting per district would be a step forward for representing the will of the people more equitably. But wouldn't just a straight run off be even more effective in the presidential vote?

The US, having effectively a two party system means it's got the problems of "first past the post" voting that Canada and the UK has.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 10:12:31 AM permalink
Just out of curiosity, some states don't change their apportionment very often. Minnesota for instance has had 8 congressional districts since the 1960 census. Do you know if these state adjust their district boundaries periodically to account for internal shifts in population, or don't they bother?
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 10:24:56 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Voting per district would be a step forward for representing the will of the people more equitably. But wouldn't just a straight run off be even more effective in the presidential vote?



A straight run off would be horrific to calculate if the two candidates are very close. You would have to examine every vote in the country.

Also to win a presidential election you must win a majority of the electoral votes, not a simple plurality. Although it has been a while since a third party candidate has won a significant number of electoral votes, the system is built to deal with that eventuality. It was more common in the first half of the countries existence.

Ross Perot won a significant amount of the popular vote, about 19% in 1992, denying a majority of the popular vote to either Clinton or Bush. However, Perot did not have a strong enough base in any state to win an electoral vote.

Because Perot's candidacy was so strong, only the District of Columbia and Clinton's home state of Arkansas were won by a majority vote. The other 49 states were won by a plurality.

Clinton won a huge majority of the electoral college vote, actually slightly stronger than Obama's win.
JimMorrison
JimMorrison
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 597
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 10:33:31 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

Just out of curiosity, some states don't change their apportionment very often. Minnesota for instance has had 8 congressional districts since the 1960 census. Do you know if these state adjust their district boundaries periodically to account for internal shifts in population, or don't they bother?



Yes, congressional districts can still be adjusted even if a seat is not added or subtracted. This is done since the population could have shifted in state creating unequal districts. Minnesota recently passed the bill to reorganize their district boundaries for the next election cycle.
EvenBob: "Look America, I have a tiny wee-wee, can anybody help me?"
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 10:46:26 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

A straight run off would be horrific to calculate if the two candidates are very close. You would have to examine every vote in the country.



And you should simplify the system for this eventuality, or just deal with it if it comes up and reduce the power of an individual vote in some areas?

Quote:


Also to win a presidential election you must win a majority of the electoral votes, not a simple plurality. Although it has been a while since a third party candidate has won a significant number of electoral votes, the system is built to deal with that eventuality. It was more common in the first half of the countries existence.



I didn't know that. What would happen if a presidential candidate only got 40% of the electoral college?

Quote:

Ross Perot won a significant amount of the popular vote, about 19% in 1992, denying a majority of the popular vote to either Clinton or Bush. However, Perot did not have a strong enough base in any state to win an electoral vote.

Because Perot's candidacy was so strong, only the District of Columbia and Clinton's home state of Arkansas were won by a majority vote. The other 49 states were won by a plurality.



This should be an arguement for at least voting per congressional district rather than per state, I'd have thought.

Quote:

Clinton won a huge majority of the electoral college vote, actually slightly stronger than Obama's win.



Though in the end, does it matter as much in a single winner vote like the presidential election? In something like a congressional election, it's more important that the congressional make up accurately reflects the voting and views of the whole country (so if the country in general voted 40% Democrat, 45% Republican and 15% Reform, you'd expect Congress to have roughly that make up in congress men). If the third party only has broad, low level support rather than regional strong points then it tends to not work out like that.

Though in Canada the Green Party has managed to turn a low-level broad support (3-4% of the country) into one seat in the house by strong local support in one of the local constituencies to me.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 11:09:23 AM permalink
Quote: JimMorrison

Minnesota recently passed the bill to reorganize their district boundaries for the next election cycle.



Good example. Here is a divided state where 5 of 8 congressional districts voted for Democratic representatives, and 5 of 8 districts voted for Obama instead of McCain. However, they were not the same 5 districts as two voted for one party for representative, and a different party for president.


The 2nd and 6th district have become oversized as a result of the growing suburbs since 1960.
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 11:20:47 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I didn't know that. What would happen if a presidential candidate only got 40% of the electoral college?



If no candidate wins a majority, the election is decided by a vote of the members of the house of representatives. It only happened in 1824, when four candidates all had reasonably strong showings, and no majority was won.


Andrew Jackson from Tennessee had 37.9% of the electoral college vote and John Quincy Adams from Massachusetts had 32.2% of the electoral college vote. The popular vote was only counted in some of the states. The House of representatives voted for JQ Adams despite the fact that he had not won the plurality.

JQ Adams won the HR vote by making a deal with one of the other candidates, Henry Clay. He made Henry Clay secretary of state.
slyther
slyther
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 691
Joined: Feb 1, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 11:22:59 AM permalink
My home state of Washington is picking up a 10th district as a result of the last census and I'm sure the haggling over how to draw (gerrymander) it will be immense. Generally in WA the Seattle-Everett-Tacoma-Olympia metro area and Spokane are generally liberal with much of the rest of state generally being conservative.

There was talk of a bill in WA state legislature to allocate the state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally (the so called 'Al Gore' clause). Thankfully it didn't happen I don't think. A law like that gives up the states' sovereignty since now my vote is not 1 out of Washington State, it is now 1 out of the entire US when determining our state's electors.
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 2:59:27 PM permalink
Quote: slyther

My home state of Washington is picking up a 10th district as a result of the last census and I'm sure the haggling over how to draw (gerrymander) it will be immense. Generally in WA the Seattle-Everett-Tacoma-Olympia metro area and Spokane are generally liberal with much of the rest of state generally being conservative.

There was talk of a bill in WA state legislature to allocate the state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally (the so called 'Al Gore' clause). Thankfully it didn't happen I don't think. A law like that gives up the states' sovereignty since now my vote is not 1 out of Washington State, it is now 1 out of the entire US when determining our state's electors.



I never heard of a state giving up it's right to vote for a candidate in favor of a nationwide statistic, especially since Al Gore won Washington State in 2000 anyway.

Washington has 2/9 districts that voted against Obama. The one on the fence seems to be #8, which voted for Obama for president, and Republican Dave Reichert for congressman. There were only 34 out of 242 districts (14%) that elected a Republican congressman and voted for Obama for President. The Republicans are clearly hoping for redistricting to 10 disctrict to carve out a solidly Republican one .
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 3:20:41 PM permalink
Quote: JimMorrison

Yes, congressional districts can still be adjusted even if a seat is not added or subtracted. This is done since the population could have shifted in state creating unequal districts. Minnesota recently passed the bill to reorganize their district boundaries for the next election cycle.



Not can but MUST every 10 years. It's going on right now. Reapportionment is the reallocating of the Congressional seats, redistricting is the slicing of the state. Since the Constitution is the supreme law and it says the districts must be equal, they must take the Census data and draw new districts that are even all the way down to one person. The only states that don't have to are the at-large ones, where there's only one Congressperson anyway (VT, DE, MT, WY, AK, ND, SD).

As for the splitting of EVs (Electoral Votes) by CD, this is a VERY interesting puzzle in game theory. Colorado in 2004 had a question on the ballot that would have split the EVs Proportionally (not by CD) based on the results. There was talk that it probably would have been thrown out had it passed, because the language in the law said that it would go into effect immediately, meaning for the election that was being held for President simultaneously. Now, if this were tried in California and you were a Republican, you would have voted Bush and Yes, with the hopes that you'd score at least some EVs for the Republican. But if you were a Democrat, you'd vote Kerry and No, because there was little doubt that Kerry was going to carry the state, so why risk giving anything to Bush. But in Colorado, the Presidential race was a tossup for much of the year. So now you have an important decision. Do you roll the dice and vote for your candidate and No to the proportional allocation, hoping to net all 9 EVs? Or do you "lock in" at least 4 EVs (because it was going to be close, the split was going to be 5-4 either way). As it turned out, Bush won the state by a few points and the question failed. Probably because most voters are optimistic enough to hope that their candidate can win, and they don't want to "give away" EVs.

While many above have suggested that states WOULDN'T want to allocate by CD, there are benefits. Look at Nebraska in '08. They did split votes and got more attention from the Obama campaign (including a visit) to the Omaha area, because he could win that one EV. If it was winner-take-all, he wouldn't have cared to make that effort. Of course, Obama probably won NE-02 because of all of the commercials and media attention in neighboring Iowa, which was a toss-up through a lot of the race.
slyther
slyther
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 691
Joined: Feb 1, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 3:27:34 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

I never heard of a state giving up it's right to vote for a candidate in favor of a nationwide statistic, especially since Al Gore won Washington State in 2000 anyway.

Washington has 2/9 districts that voted against Obama. The one on the fence seems to be #8, which voted for Obama for president, and Republican Dave Reichert for congressman. There were only 34 out of 242 districts (14%) that elected a Republican congressman and voted for Obama for President. The Republicans are clearly hoping for redistricting to 10 disctrict to carve out a solidly Republican one .



Oops I stand corrected, we did pass the popular vote law: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=WA (Calling it the Al Gore law is my name for it, since that election is what drove the idea)

I live in the 8th, and yes it seems to have become more balanced lately (that's a good thing IMO) as opposed to the fairly strong Republican slant it used to have. I'm not sure where they will put the 10th... I'm guessing Clark County but I have no idea. I'd like more of the districts to be balanced. Competition produces better candidates.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 3:50:15 PM permalink
Do you really need a more complicated Presidential election in America? I understand the reasons for the Electoral College, and they make sense for the most part. But the system in palce now is more complicated than most other systems where the people directly elect a chief of the executive branch. As far as I know there are no US states with a comparable system for gubernatorial elections (I may be wrong, of course).

You should be careful that you don't make a mess of the election process the way you've screwed up immigration.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 4:04:05 PM permalink
Quote: slyther

Oops I stand corrected, we did pass the popular vote law: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=WA (Calling it the Al Gore law is my name for it, since that election is what drove the idea)

I live in the 8th, and yes it seems to have become more balanced lately (that's a good thing IMO) as opposed to the fairly strong Republican slant it used to have. I'm not sure where they will put the 10th... I'm guessing Clark County but I have no idea. I'd like more of the districts to be balanced. Competition produces better candidates.



I'm sorry, now I understand the bill. It does not mean that Washington State will automatically vote for the candidate with the largest popular vote nationwide, it means that they will do it if all the other states agree to do it at the same time. There are a bunch of laws like that, which are essentially meaningless, because they know that all the states will not agree to it.

The 8th district is roughly 800K people, and the new target size for a district in Washington State must be 672K. I am sure that the congressman wants to lose some of the more urban neighborhoods in his district.

slyther
slyther
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 691
Joined: Feb 1, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 4:08:17 PM permalink
Our process in the good ol US of A isn't built to handle close elections. If it's close then the lawyers from both sides come out and start filing dozens of lawsuits demanding recounts, etc.

But overall, yes I like the Electoral College and think it should stay that way. And yes I would have said that had the result of 2000 election been reversed. I assert that the popular vote movement would not be present had the result gone the other way.

As for Washington State, it's just another hallmark of our ridiculous governor (who just today announced she will not seek re-election next fall..thank goodness. The likely Democrat and Republican nominees are both far superior) that she committed our state to this popular vote movement. Hopefully it will be un-done at some point, but I somehow doubt it.
slyther
slyther
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 691
Joined: Feb 1, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 4:14:52 PM permalink
Paco: I agree, i just hate the idea that the popular vote thing COULD happen, even if it's unlikely. Afterall, Even quad aces get cracked from time to time

I also hate to see non-competitive districts, though at times it's hard to avoid. In WA, The re-districting panel consists of 2 republicans and 2 democrats, I think there may be a public meeting in Seattle tonight actually.
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 4:31:13 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin


I'm sorry, now I understand the bill. It does not mean that Washington State will automatically vote for the candidate with the largest popular vote nationwide, it means that they will do it if all the other states agree to do it at the same time.



Not all states must agree, but rather just enough to create a 270 EV majority...
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 4:36:04 PM permalink
Quote: slyther

Our process in the good ol US of A isn't built to handle close elections. If it's close then the lawyers from both sides come out and start filing dozens of lawsuits demanding recounts, etc.



There's the problem.

In theory it should be super easy to count the votes, even in a close election. Elections down to 1 votes difference have been counted and recounted in the UK and (I think Canada), by hand in under 24 hours. There's a list of candidates and a box next to each. You put a cross in the box next to the candidate you support.

You put in two crosses, paper is spoiled. You put in a tick, paper is spoiled. You write in a candidate, paper is spoiled. The rule should be if you can't clearly follow the rules and indicate your preferred candidate such that non-one can quibble it, you don't get to vote.

I don't understand the need for any fancy/schmancy electronic voting system, or punch cards with hanging chads, EVEN with the massive bulk of ballot papers you might have for the various elections and proposals that occur at the same time in the US. I could understand punch cards with the voter being asked to check that it's properly punched through cleanly. With paper based voting, it's much much easier to give a record of the actual vote in case of dispute. And it seems to work in most of the cases too.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 4:36:30 PM permalink
Quote: cclub79

Not all states must agree, but rather just enough to create a 270 EV majority...



Yes, it is a kind of "trigger" law when that happens. Why a state would give up their votes is amazing. I can see what will happen if it passes. A close election will go to a GOP candidate and there will be cries that his election is "unconstitutional" due to those laws.

EC isn't perfect but it does what it was intended to do, balance the campaigns and power of large vs smal states.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 4:42:49 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, it is a kind of "trigger" law when that happens. Why a state would give up their votes is amazing. I can see what will happen if it passes. A close election will go to a GOP candidate and there will be cries that his election is "unconstitutional" due to those laws.

EC isn't perfect but it does what it was intended to do, balance the campaigns and power of large vs smal states.



I'd be willing to bet a cry of unconstitutional would go up if either candidate won, based on what I understand is the core basis for your electoral college system. Though in essence the electors can vote for whoever they choose (them faithless electors), so maybe it wouldn't be?

I can see the hue and cry if a state that en masse vote 60/40 for one candidate had it's electors vote for the 40% candidate.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 4:48:59 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I'd be willing to bet a cry of unconstitutional would go up if either candidate won, based on what I understand is the core basis for your electoral college system. Though in essence the electors can vote for whoever they choose (them faithless electors), so maybe it wouldn't be?

I can see the hue and cry if a state that en masse vote 60/40 for one candidate had it's electors vote for the 40% candidate.



That isn't supposed to happen. Electors are supposed to pledge their votes before being selected. I bieleve they are selected GOP/Dem/Independent (if needed) and there is no doubt they will not switch. Yes, they could. In 2000 there was some woman from DC or some very liberal bastion who got selected and there was worry she would abstain over wanting reperations for slavery or some other way-out-there nonsense. Even then it was unlikely.

You have to think of it in terms that if the elector does not vote as pledged they will never get another political favor or position in their lifetime.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 5:03:04 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

That isn't supposed to happen. Electors are supposed to pledge their votes before being selected. I bieleve they are selected GOP/Dem/Independent (if needed) and there is no doubt they will not switch. Yes, they could. In 2000 there was some woman from DC or some very liberal bastion who got selected and there was worry she would abstain over wanting reperations for slavery or some other way-out-there nonsense. Even then it was unlikely.

You have to think of it in terms that if the elector does not vote as pledged they will never get another political favor or position in their lifetime.



A DC elector was upset about no voting member in Congress, which was why she left a Gore ballot blank, so Bush only won 271-266. Also, a Minnesota elector screwed up in 2004 and flipped Kerry and Edwards on the ballot. So potential felon John Edwards actually came in 3rd in '04 with 1 Electoral Vote, 1 More than Perot, Nader, Anderson, et al ever got. (Kerry also got 1 VP vote). And there's no "correcting" the mistake. It's there forever in the books.

EDIT: Kerry didn't get the VP vote. Apparently as the story goes, the Minnesota elector who wasn't paying attention horrifyingly realized the mistake after the first vote, and fixed it in time for the VP vote. They also spelled Edwards incorrectly on the Pres ballot, but the Electoral College certified it as a vote for John Edwards.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 5:22:03 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

That isn't supposed to happen. Electors are supposed to pledge their votes before being selected. I bieleve they are selected GOP/Dem/Independent (if needed) and there is no doubt they will not switch. Yes, they could. In 2000 there was some woman from DC or some very liberal bastion who got selected and there was worry she would abstain over wanting reperations for slavery or some other way-out-there nonsense. Even then it was unlikely.



The elector from DC abstained in protest over the lack of representation (but still with taxation) in Washington DC. It was so unlikely, it actually happened.

Quote:

You have to think of it in terms that if the elector does not vote as pledged they will never get another political favor or position in their lifetime.



The faithless elector in Washington state is currently a judge. I assume therefore your statement is wrong (he voted for Ford instead of Regan as he had pledged to do so, in some very conservative bastion over some sort of stupid issue like anti-abortion (sic)).

There clearly IS doubt they will switch, and they CAN switch and DO, even if rarely. There was also unpledged electors in the 50's and 60's around the time the Democrats stopped being the party of segregation in the south, and the old southern Democrats started to be replaced by the southern Republicans (*). evolve

As an aside, I find it interesting how the Republican and Democrat party have evolved over the years and the revolutions of the "party system" (from the days of the Democratic-Republican party, for one) and the Civil War (the Democratic party being riven between the war Democrats and the peace Democrats, and the issue of state's rights) and beyond.

(*) I don't mean to imply one way or another that southern Republicans were/are segregationists.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 5:36:14 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

The elector from DC abstained in protest over the lack of representation (but still with taxation) in Washington DC. It was so unlikely, it actually happened.



The faithless elector in Washington state is currently a judge. I assume therefore your statement is wrong (he voted for Ford instead of Regan as he had pledged to do so, in some very conservative bastion over some sort of stupid issue like anti-abortion (sic)).

There clearly IS doubt they will switch, and they CAN switch and DO, even if rarely. There was also unpledged electors in the 50's and 60's around the time the Democrats stopped being the party of segregation in the south, and the old southern Democrats started to be replaced by the southern Republicans (*). evolve

As an aside, I find it interesting how the Republican and Democrat party have evolved over the years and the revolutions of the "party system" (from the days of the Democratic-Republican party, for one) and the Civil War (the Democratic party being riven between the war Democrats and the peace Democrats, and the issue of state's rights) and beyond.

(*) I don't mean to imply one way or another that southern Republicans were/are segregationists.



You are correct, but most "switches" aren't for the other candidate, but for someone else on their team. Most electors are chosen because they are the most loyal, stable, (and also many times high ranking) members of their respective parties. I wondered if the desire to make "diversity" an important part in choosing electors within a party could promote some less loyal members of the party, especially in larger states: (Party bosses: "We need an Asian elector to show outreach to their demographic." "We don't have any high ranking Asians..." "Just pick that new Mayor from Overtheresville, she'll toe the line...")
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 5:46:40 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

The elector from DC abstained in protest over the lack of representation (but still with taxation) in Washington DC. It was so unlikely, it actually happened.



OK, that is what it was. I just remember she was some kind of radical nutcase.



Quote:

The faithless elector in Washington state is currently a judge. I assume therefore your statement is wrong (he voted for Ford instead of Regan as he had pledged to do so, in some very conservative bastion over some sort of stupid issue like anti-abortion (sic)).

There clearly IS doubt they will switch, and they CAN switch and DO, even if rarely. There was also unpledged electors in the 50's and 60's around the time the Democrats stopped being the party of segregation in the south, and the old southern Democrats started to be replaced by the southern Republicans (*). evolve



"Unpleged Electors?" Are you perhaps confusing "Electors" and "Delegates" to conventions? All electors are pleged. Ford in 1980 would have been a write-in at the general election. There are indeed "unpleged delegates" and "superdelegates" moreso on the Democrat Party side but the GOP has some as well.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 5:46:45 PM permalink
Quote: cclub79

You are correct, but most "switches" aren't for the other candidate, but for someone else on their team. Most electors are chosen because they are the most loyal, stable, (and also many times high ranking) members of their respective parties. I wondered if the desire to make "diversity" an important part in choosing electors within a party could promote some less loyal members of the party, especially in larger states: (Party bosses: "We need an Asian elector to show outreach to their demographic." "We don't have any high ranking Asians..." "Just pick that new Mayor from Overtheresville, she'll toe the line...")



I guess I'm always interested less in what -should- happen than what -can- happen (even if unlikely)... I get paid to think about how people or machines can fsck up a process in ways that have yet to be thought about. But yeah, faithless electors are rare it seems, and those switching from their party even more so. I wouldn't expect the electors to go against the process in most cases. I just thought it could be interesting if a state voted from Republicans, but the popular vote was Democrat, and there was the general popular vote law in that state, whether there would be any faithless electors (and swap the party names if you want). Yes, what if, what if, what if :)

I don't know how public the slate of electors is in the US... could anyone actually name any of them before they do something screwy? Are they on the voting form? Do they campaign directly (or only for their candidate)?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 5:56:56 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I guess I'm always interested less in what -should- happen than what -can- happen (even if unlikely)... I get paid to think about how people or machines can fsck up a process in ways that have yet to be thought about. But yeah, faithless electors are rare it seems, and those switching from their party even more so. I wouldn't expect the electors to go against the process in most cases. I just thought it could be interesting if a state voted from Republicans, but the popular vote was Democrat, and there was the general popular vote law in that state, whether there would be any faithless electors (and swap the party names if you want). Yes, what if, what if, what if :)

I don't know how public the slate of electors is in the US... could anyone actually name any of them before they do something screwy? Are they on the voting form? Do they campaign directly (or only for their candidate)?



Some places they are on the ballot under the banner of the candidate. You do see that more in Primaries with delegates though. I remember in the NJ Republican Primary in 2000, McCain had dropped out but the delegates were still on the ballot under a blank heading, and Bush's delegates still had his banner.

But AZ, Cess is right, "Unpledged Electors" did indeed win votes as recently as the 60s. In the 1960 election, the slate of Unpledged Electors won the state of Mississippi and those 8 EVs went for Harry Byrd for Prez, Strom Thurmond for VP. Think of the slate as the ultimate "None of the Above"...it might be an interesting strategy for someone to run on...
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 13th, 2011 at 6:30:53 PM permalink
Quote: cclub79

Some places they are on the ballot under the banner of the candidate. You do see that more in Primaries with delegates though. I remember in the NJ Republican Primary in 2000, McCain had dropped out but the delegates were still on the ballot under a blank heading, and Bush's delegates still had his banner.

But AZ, Cess is right, "Unpledged Electors" did indeed win votes as recently as the 60s. In the 1960 election, the slate of Unpledged Electors won the state of Mississippi and those 8 EVs went for Harry Byrd for Prez, Strom Thurmond for VP. Think of the slate as the ultimate "None of the Above"...it might be an interesting strategy for someone to run on...



I'm still not getting it. You vote for a candidate/ticket NOT electors in the general election. In primaries states are different and you can vote for delegates in addition to the candidate. But there is no such thing as "unpledged electors." Electors are "winner take all" except in Nebraska and Maine. Even then you still just vote for the candidate.

Now, if Byrd/Thurmond won the state they won the electors and those electors were "pleged" to that ticket.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 7:00:34 PM permalink
Quote: slyther

Paco: I agree, i just hate the idea that the popular vote thing COULD happen, even if it's unlikely. Afterall, Even quad aces get cracked from time to time

I also hate to see non-competitive districts, though at times it's hard to avoid. In WA, The re-districting panel consists of 2 republicans and 2 democrats, I think there may be a public meeting in Seattle tonight actually.



I was not aware about the popular vote law, but there is also an agreement that states will vote their congressional districts individually that goes into effect if enough states sign the agreement. Both laws give states a way to satisfy their angry constituents without actually changing the law.

But Nebraska actually got some attention because they split their electoral college votes. It was worth at least one visit by Barack Obama to get that single electoral college vote.

Post Reagan, it is pointless to make a public speech in San Francisco. It's not worth the time of a Republican candidate, and it would only hurt a Democratic candidate in the eyes of much of the country. If California split their electoral college vote, it might make sense to candidates to appear there. They don't have to divide by congressional districts, they could a portion of the votes. If California gave 20 votes to McCain, and 35 votes to Obama last election, you could bet there would be some campaigning in California.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
June 13th, 2011 at 7:15:29 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I'm still not getting it. You vote for a candidate/ticket NOT electors in the general election. In primaries states are different and you can vote for delegates in addition to the candidate. But there is no such thing as "unpledged electors." Electors are "winner take all" except in Nebraska and Maine. Even then you still just vote for the candidate.

Now, if Byrd/Thurmond won the state they won the electors and those electors were "pleged" to that ticket.



There was such a thing as unpledged electors.

The unpledged Democrats would vote which way the wind took them, hoping to broker a deal with the Republicans or Democrats and get concessions. They WEREN'T pledged to vote for Thurmond directly, even if they were on a slate backed by him.

-- http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1960&f=0&off=0&elect=0&fips=1&submit=Retrieve : might be of interest. There was 11 electors on the Democrat ticket. 6 were unpledged. Note how there is a difference between the votes for the top Free Elector and the top Pledged Democrat. Now, I have no idea what the ballot paper in 1960 Alabama looked like.

Also interesting that voter turnout was around 25%...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
slyther
slyther
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 691
Joined: Feb 1, 2010
June 14th, 2011 at 12:01:21 PM permalink
In WA the electors are public record and can be found with a little searching (after the governor certifies their names to the electoral college). I believe some states have laws that require the electors to vote as they are 'supposed to' otherwise they are guilty of breach of duty and immediately removed from the position, thus invalidating their vote.

Regarding earlier discussion about hanging chads, etc... that's the biggest prob we have is that there is no 1 election standard. Every single county/parish runs their own elections, so you get different voting methods (electronic, butterfly, punch card, etc) even within states. Some of it has to do with money or lack thereof, some due to lobbying, etc.
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 14th, 2011 at 1:55:46 PM permalink
Quote: slyther

In WA the electors are public record and can be found with a little searching (after the governor certifies their names to the electoral college). I believe some states have laws that require the electors to vote as they are 'supposed to' otherwise they are guilty of breach of duty and immediately removed from the position, thus invalidating their vote.

Regarding earlier discussion about hanging chads, etc... that's the biggest prob we have is that there is no 1 election standard. Every single county/parish runs their own elections, so you get different voting methods (electronic, butterfly, punch card, etc) even within states. Some of it has to do with money or lack thereof, some due to lobbying, etc.



A lot of it has to do with money. Although people vote for things all the time, like American Idol, there is no requirement for identity checks. Since many voting systems charge a small fee per vote, they like it when you vote multiple times. Elections are done very seldom, and the equipment can be a major cost for county governments. They simply use technology that is decades old.
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
June 15th, 2011 at 4:03:27 PM permalink
Changing the electoral college to flow from who wins individual congressional districts is a PHENOMENALLY bad idea. Why? Congressional districts are regularly altered by state legislatures in accordance with reapportionment. Gerrymandering already has a huge effect on Congress... why should we make sure it has a huge effect on the Presidential race?

There are not really enough competitive states but honestly only about 1/3 of congressional districts would be competitive. You would just encourage selective campaigning in those areas rather than the population centers of competitive states. It doesn't really make anything better.

If you wanted to fix its absurdities you would just go by strict popular vote. It has its own absurdities, of course.
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
June 15th, 2011 at 5:42:41 PM permalink
Quote: bbvk05

Changing the electoral college to flow from who wins individual congressional districts is a PHENOMENALLY bad idea. Why? Congressional districts are regularly altered by state legislatures in accordance with reapportionment. Gerrymandering already has a huge effect on Congress... why should we make sure it has a huge effect on the Presidential race?



I think you overestimate the effect of gerrymandering. Look at Nebraska for instance. McCain won by 39% in district #3, and by 10% in district #1. Obama won by 1% in district #2 (around Omaha). So they gave 4 electoral college votes to McCain and 1 electoral college vote to Obama.




Now if you redraw the congressional districts so that you split the city into pieces in an effort to divide the urban vote, you would run the risk of the Democrats winning 2 of the districts. Because they win 2 out of 3 districts, where would you vote the other two votes? Would you give them to McCain because he wins the majority of the state popular vote, or to Obama because he won the majority of the districts? Besides, the congressional districts serve a purpose in government. The people would probably object to having the city of Omaha split in half.

Gerrymandering works better for local politics. Presidential politics are more variable. Last election 83 out of 245 congressional districts (1/3) voted for one party for representative, and the other party for the presidential candidate.

I also think that the most ridiculous gerrymandering schemes would lose out to common sense.
kohler
kohler
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:18:40 AM permalink
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

All the electoral votes from all the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

States have the responsibility to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the 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, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes-- 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

kohler
kohler
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:20:13 AM permalink
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.

The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%) that now get overwhelming attention, while two-thirds of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
kohler
kohler
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:24:55 AM permalink
The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines. (as with the National Popular Vote).

Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Support for a national popular vote remained steady, at 77% overall, after the National Popular Vote Bill was signed by Washington Governor Chris Gregoire. A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on May 5–6, 2009 showed 77% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. This 77% support level is the same overall percentage registered on the identical question in a December 2–3, 2008 poll in Washington. Percentages by subgroups were similar in both polls.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in the May 2009 poll was 88% among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and 73% among others.
By gender, support in the May 2009 poll was 85% among women and 67% among men.
By age, support in the May 2009 poll was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.

An additional question was asked in the May 2009 poll in which respondents were asked to make a three-way choice among three alternative methods for awarding the state’s electoral votes, with the following results:
73% favored a national popular vote;
16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district (as is currently done in Maine and Nebraska); and
11% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large population states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, The District of Columbia, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), Massachusetts (10), Vermont (3), and Washington (13). These eight jurisdictions have 77 electoral votes -- 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See
kohler
kohler
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:27:25 AM permalink
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
kohler
kohler
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:29:13 AM permalink
There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. Faithless electors are not a practical problem, and most states have complete authority to remedy any problem there could be, by means of state law.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.
Calder
Calder
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 534
Joined: Mar 26, 2010
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:43:03 AM permalink
I dunno. The founders had a healthy distrust for direct democracy. I don't have much trouble with the original plan, with each elected entity having its own unique process. I'm not certain that popular election of senators was an improvement.
kohler
kohler
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:03:07 PM permalink
Quote: Calder

I dunno. The founders had a healthy distrust for direct democracy. I don't have much trouble with the original plan, with each elected entity having its own unique process. I'm not certain that popular election of senators was an improvement.



Under the National Popular Vote bill, the U.S. still would not be a direct democracy, and the process for election of the president would be unique. All the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:06:49 PM permalink
Has this become some sort of campaign forum all of the sudden? This "kohler" registers on the site today and makes his/her first six posts in less than two hours, all in the same thread, promoting popular vote, with only Calder getting a word in edgewise.
kohler
kohler
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:08:57 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

Quote: slyther

. . . but there is also an agreement that states will vote their congressional districts individually that goes into effect if enough states sign the agreement.. .

But Nebraska actually got some attention because they split their electoral college votes. It was worth at least one visit by Barack Obama to get that single electoral college vote.

. . . they could a portion of the votes. If California gave 20 votes to McCain, and 35 votes to Obama last election, you could bet there would be some campaigning in California.



There is not also an agreement for states to vote their congressional districts.


Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own,, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
kohler
kohler
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:11:21 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

. . . EC isn't perfect but it does what it was intended to do, balance the campaigns and power of large vs smal states.



The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all 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. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be 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 (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 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.

2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, but under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:48:54 PM permalink
Uh, make that eight posts in the first two hours. I don't think even any of the infamous JerryLogan's incarnations started out to that extreme. Seems like a suitable tactic if one wishes to be ignored by most.
  • Jump to: