Will there ever be electoral reform of US presidential elections?

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

I suppose there wouldn't be much purpose to it over the idea of simply deciding the presidency on national popular vote. I just have a hard time with the notion that people in reliably red and blue states have absolutely no say in the presidential election if they vote for the non-dominant party.

I guess it is just a possible solution to compromise between those who favor the EC and those who want popular vote to decide.

I think this would also force the candidates to campaign to all states rather than just swing states. Neither Obama or Romney visited my home state or my current state of residence to campaign because my homestate is reliably red and my current state is reliably blue. Obama has no idea what my homestate needs/wants and I suspect he doesn't much care (we were politically punished under the Clinton administration, and I won't be surprised to see the same at the end of the Obama administration). Likewise, my current state of residence would have been a mystery to Romney most likely.

It's a shame.

So you think that by eliminating the EC, the candidates would campaign in all 50 states? I am going to say no for two reasons. One, time and money - a candidate simply won't have enough of either to get around to seeing EVERYONE, and two because red states will still be red and blue states will still be blue so things wouldn't really change. The proportional part of things is already taken into account with the census and how many electoral votes a state awards.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

So you think that by eliminating the EC, the candidates would campaign in all 50 states? I am going to say no for two reasons. One, time and money - a candidate simply won't have enough of either to get around to seeing EVERYONE, and two because red states will still be red and blue states will still be blue so things wouldn't really change. The proportional part of things is already taken into account with the census and how many electoral votes a state awards.

I think this sort of attitude is weak.

So just because the candidates will find it difficult to visit each state, we should be happy with the status-quo? I think if the candidates saw value in visiting some of these locations (the opportunity to pick up credit for any votes they won) they'd make the time to do it.

Also, states would cease being "red" or "Blue" and would rather be "purple" as each candidate could pick up EC votes from each state in proportion to the number of people they secured votes from. Romney and Obama could have grabbed 40 percent of the EC votes in Cali and Texas respectively rather than ignoring those states entirely.

And while the census may control how many EC votes a state awards, the EC betrays the wishes of a significant portion of each state's population by awarding EC votes in an all or nothing fashion.

Romney could have come within one vote of Obama in california this year and Obama would have still gotten all 55, that would be unfortunate for the 50% who wished to have Romney in office (in this hypothetical situation).

[APlotdevice]

I think the whole dang system should be reformed. First and foremost the presidency should, in my opinion, be a non-partisan position. Leave the red vs blue crap to the congress.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

I voted for Obama but I was really hoping that Romney would take the popular vote while Obama won the college. Just because this would seriously encourage criticism of the college from both sides (Gore lost one and now Romney).

I hate the electoral college, I think when it comes to the election of the president there should be no location requirements. I should be able to get a presidential voter card or ID number which allows me to vote for the president at any polling place in the country.

In the end this would probably help liberals much more than conservatives because it would make it easier for college students to vote, and they are overwhelmingly liberal.

Originally Posted by kavika411

Everyone hates the electoral college when it works against their favor.

Everyone loves the electoral college when it works in their favor.

The electoral college was created - at least in part - because of (1) the difficulty in individual-vote counting, and (2) the difficulty in ensuring each state got "proper" attention. The former is now irrelevant, and the latter is now championed only by democrats (e.g. California).

I used to agree with AP_piano. I'm non-committal now. The problem is that we are dependent on partisan, underfunded, and incompetent state election departments today. For the popular vote to work, we would need a uniform Federal election code, ID, etc. I'm OK with that, but, it would cost some real money to do it right.


I think I might prefer a more parliamentary system with a non-partisan President.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

I think this sort of attitude is weak.

So just because the candidates will find it difficult to visit each state, we should be happy with the status-quo? I think if the candidates saw value in visiting some of these locations (the opportunity to pick up credit for any votes they won) they'd make the time to do it.

Also, states would cease being "red" or "Blue" and would rather be "purple" as each candidate could pick up EC votes from each state in proportion to the number of people they secured votes from.

But that's just it. How realistic do you think it is to fly around to all 50 states in the few weeks leading up to the election? And why do you need some sort of dog and pony show validation anyway? I dare you to raise the money needed and then fly around to all 50 states putting on a major event in each one, and see how hard that proposition you propose really is. It would take enormous time, enormous staff, and enormous money. For very little benefit. The blue states will still be voting blue, the red states will still be voting red, and the purple states will still be the deciders no matter how you count up the votes.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

But that's just it. How realistic do you think it is to fly around to all 50 states in the few weeks leading up to the election? And why do you need some sort of dog and pony show validation anyway? I dare you to raise the money needed and then fly around to all 50 states putting on a major event in each one, and see how hard that proposition you propose really is. It would take enormous time, enormous staff, and enormous money. For very little benefit. The blue states will still be voting blue, the red states will still be voting red, and the purple states will still be the deciders no matter how you count up the votes.

You don't get it though. Most of the "red" and "blue" states are much more "purple" than I think you realize.

I was curious last night and so I used CNN's election results map to figure out how this idea would affect the race.

Turns out that Obama still wins (through my non-refined system) 281-257.

The main difference is that Romney picks up electoral votes in states like WA, OR, CA, NY, NJ etc. in proportion to the number of people who voted for him.

Obama picks up votes in states like UT, WY, TX, NC, etc. in proportion to number of votes he secured in those places.

So while Obama still wins handily, it's a much closer race this way than the way it's currently done. And it turns out that there are places in each state where candidates could have campaigned a little bit and probably picked up an electoral vote or two as a result. But because of the way our current system works, the candidates completely ignore the states which are traditionally red or blue and instead, the rest of us have to hope that the majority of folks in Ohio and Florida feel the same way we do.

For example, Clackamas county Oregon was nearly 50-50 in real voting, going slightly to Obama (51-47). But there were plenty of Republicans elected to state office in that county. Had Romney visited Clackamas, and maybe Lane and Columbia counties county a few times he might have picked up enough votes to snatch another electoral vote and out earn Obama in Oregon under my proposed system. (total voting in Oregon was 54-43 for Obama, but Clackamas is one of the most highly populated counties in Oregon).

Likewise in states like AZ where Obama only lost in Maricopa County by around 100K votes a little extra campaigning among the large hispanic population might have allowed him to out earn Romney in AZ.

The point is, that this idea more closely mirrors the will of the people when it comes right down to it. It would make voters feel like their votes actually counted (without allowing them to rely on others to help their candidate earn a simple majority nationwide), and it would force, or at least encourage, candidates to visit areas that have not seen presidential campaign attention in my entire lifetime.

It's just an idea, but it's infinitely better in my opinion to what we have.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

You don't get it though. Most of the "red" and "blue" states are much more "purple" than I think you realize.

Just because all states have both Republicans and Democrats in them does not make all the states purple. There are still definitely leanings one way or the other by most states.

Again, I am not sure why extending the dog and pony shows to additional areas actually benefits anyone. You can say well, the candidates will come see me and I can see them, but I don't think that really matters in the grand scheme of things and I would prefer to NOT be in a battleground state and be exposed to all the negative ads!