I'm afraid.

Let's pretend there is no electoral college. The good people of California vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat every election. The good people of Texas vote overwhelmingly for the Republican every election. Meanwhile, the people in Florida are fickle. Sometimes they vote for the Democrat and sometimes they vote for the Republican....but no one can ever be certain which way they will go until the election. If you are the candidate where do you go to earn more votes....remember, there is no electoral college to consider here. If, as a Democratic candidate, you go to California you may pick another 1,000,000 votes...as you're already going to carry the state. If you go to Texas you may pick up another 50,000 votes...but if you go to FL you could pick up a millions of votes.....There are 11,778,140 registered voters in FL....of which 2,516,757 are registered with no party affiliation. Plus 4,715,684 Dems , 4,214,241 Republicans...and 331,458 minor party members. Keeping in mind that a large percentage of the FL voters switch their votes from one party to another in every election...where would YOU go?

While getting a huge turnout in IA or WI would matter much less. Candidates would be better off focusing on getting as big a lead as possible in the solid states, and small-ish states that are roughly tied would be ignored as much as the big solid-color states are now.

... would make those returns non-diminishing. But it would make the returns in places like OH and FL (which never seem to budge very far from 50/50) diminishing, so those states would get less time and candidates' attention, since losing Ohio by 1 vote wouldn't matter if you could get 1 more voter in California on your side.

I would be delighted to see less concentration on this state.... But I should point out I was referring to the diminishing returns for a candidate, not for the voter.

Our election season is at least 6 months too long now. If candidates had to woo each and every state I think it would lead to an even longer election season. Just when would anyone have time to govern, I wonder? For most of my life I lived in NY and NJ and never realized just how miserable it can be to live in a swing state until I moved to FL.

4 out of 44 presidents won the WH without winning the popular vote, 3 in the 19th century and Bush in the 21st century. Perhaps had Gore been a better candidate and campaigner he could have won his own state of Tennessee and picked up an additional 11 EC votes. I think all of the complaining about the EC is misdirected...I think the parties are to blame when their candidate loses.... But that's just MHO.

Go Broncobama!

As long as we are stuck with that antiquated setup, that's the way it's going to be - just a handful of states get to decide the outcome of presidential elections.

I don't think the Electoral College has anything to do with that.

So, getting another D vote in California doesn't matter, and getting another R vote in Texas doesn't matter. We could solve the first problem by the states going to proportional elector appointment of some sort; the overrepresentation could only be fixed with changing to a national plebiscite.

I wonder why you think small states are over represented in the EC...they get one elector for each congressional district (think House of
Rep) and one for each Senator, how is that over represented?

A national plebiscite in what respect? Aren't presidential elections national? I don't understand what you are suggesting, no doubt due to my own lack of vision, but could you explain, please?

they get one elector for each congressional district (think House of
Rep) and one for each Senator, how is that over represented?

Umm... by having one elector for each House district and one for each Senator. The Senate over-represents small states; that's its explicit purpose. A Montanan's vote has much more impact on the Presidential election than a Californian's. Montana represents 0.3% of the US population but appoints 0.5% of the Electoral College. California represents 12% of the US population but appoints 10% of the Electoral College.

A national plebiscite in what respect? Aren't presidential elections national? I don't understand what you are suggesting, no doubt due to my own lack of vision, but could you explain, please?

A national plebiscite would mean every voter in the US would vote for a Presidential ticket, and whichever ticket got the most votes nationally would win.

a very different effect than the equal distribution of senators in congress. As to the small percentage advantage Montana receives, I really have no problem with that...I believe the smaller states should not be bullied by the big boys.

Ah, so the national plebiscite was option #2...get rid of the EC. While the proportional assignment of electoral votes was option #1. Got it.

If Obama wins the election without gaining 50% +1 of the popular votes, I will personally be very happy the EC exists. It would be poetic justice for the 2000 election and the assholes remaining on the SCOTUS.

We have this debate every election season and the EC remains...

Those states don't always support one particular party. I sometimes think that we suffer through an endless election season because in the days before television candidates had to travel by train and then propeller planes in order to be seen. But even with jets, it takes time, money and energy to campaign in person....

We should start out with lots of viable candidates and vote, then narrow it and vote. Most definitely should never have ended up with Mitt the Religious Fanatic Uber-wealthy PIECE OF SHIT LIAR for a candidate so close to election day.

You know he will change his mind, just wait.

I wish he'd do one big public event here.

When his motorcade comes through Los Angeles, they make cars get off the same street - funnel us onto side street - so you don't even get the chance to see him go by.

First of all, the small states don't have much in common. Hawaii and North Dakota? Vermont and Wyoming? There's no such thing as a bloc of small states with common interests.

Second, in real life, the EC forces the presidential candidates to focus all their attention onto the swing states. In a pure popular vote, every state would be important.

If this amount of battling can't get Ohio to be better than roughly a tie, there's no real point for either campaign to spend time and energy there. Their best bet in a popular vote situation would be to focus on getting as many people out to the polls in their solid states as possible.

It's not safe.

at greater risk in the southern states, too.

He's got to win over the battle ground states.

But as it stands right now Alabama would be a waste of his time to campaign in. I doubt it would be any more dangerous than any other state for him, it would just be pointless for him to come here.

Hell I'll be thrilled if we can manage 45% of the vote here. It means there's a chance Alabama might go purple within my lifetime.

for photo ops with people who are going to vote for you anyway?

Perhaps if Dems were actually competive in some of the states it would be worth the time but as it stands Dems are not competative in may of the states you are talking about.

Did not Pres O tell people to make him do it?

If you want a visit elect some Dems at the Local, State and National Level.

I see rMoney house signs more often than Obama.

I don't wanna be a swing state. Let them skip me. I'm fine with it.

Or just accept that the electoral college drives all Presidential elections and always has. Waste of money to spend time and resources on states that are locked in already.

I live in Connecticut and the senate campaign is enough for me this year.

nt

....each of the states you mentioned by both major parties.

Just sayin'.