41–48 of 48 posts
The election was won according to the previously set rules. That's why no one paid any attention to California. If the rule was to win the popular vote, you would see a lot different campaign with both the candidates paying much more attention to states like California.
I feel like if we eliminated the Electoral College, presidential candidates would only visit areas like La New York City Boston Chicago Atlanta to teach the maximum number of voters. Instead of removing it, are there ways we can improve it?
I feel like if we eliminated the Electoral College, presidential candidates would only visit areas like La New York City Boston Chicago Atlanta to teach the maximum number of voters. Instead of removing it, are there ways we can improve it?
Bingo, and this has been thoroughly analyzed. The election would reduce to 8-10 urban areas, which also makes cheating a lot easier. While we're at it, why don't we remove the other part of the great compromise that gave each state 2 Senators (#electors = #of House of Representative Members + 2) And that's one reason it'll never happen, you won't get enough state legislatures to vote their states out of relevance.
The same action will move popular vote by only 0.06%, which means there's a much smaller chance of it changing the outcome of the election. As a result it would also discourage state/local governments from trying something funny (not enough incentives).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bingo, and this has been thoroughly analyzed. The election would reduce to 8-10 urban areas, which also makes cheating a lot easier. While we're at it, why don't we remove the other part of the great compromise that gave each state 2 Senators (#electors = #of House of Representative Members + 2) And that's one reason it'll never happen, you won't get enough state legislatures to vote their states out of relevance.
On the other hand, under the present system the governor of, say, Florida can tilt the election by reducing/increasing the number of voting places in strategic locations. It may only affect 1% of the voters, but it can be enough. The same action will move popular vote by only 0.06%, which means there's a much smaller chance of it changing the outcome of the election. As a result it would also discourage state/local g…
Really??? That's not handled at the county level? It sure is in Missouri (http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/chaptersIndex/ChaptIndex11...), and I've never heard of it being done at the state level before---that would seem to be prima facie evidence of a discriminatory voting system---but maybe my education in this is lacking.
Hmmm, seems to be the same for Florida: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...
I feel like if we eliminated the Electoral College, presidential candidates would only visit areas like La New York City Boston Chicago Atlanta to teach the maximum number of voters. Instead of removing it, are there ways we can improve it?
CGP Grey's video addresses this point: https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=197
The country is mostly red. Even though Clinton got 200k more votes I'm sure you can see why the the electoral system is in place. I like to add there is still 4 million votes that are being counted. Projection even from CNN is that Trump wins the popular vote. [0] https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic-lands... . [1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-10/trumps-geographic-l... .
One sq mile, one vote!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CGP Grey's video addresses this point: https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=197
I think CGP Grey ignores the elephant in the room and doesn't account for the metro areas of such cities... And there's the fact the eastern seaboard is one giant city from NYC to DC basically with no breaks between townships.
Which brings me back to my original point: How can we improve it?