F... US voting bureaucracy

Essentially it is the Walmart principle.

Going to a popular vote would make LA, Chicago, NY the Walmarts of the voting world. Politicians could go there and get lots of stuff(votes) cheap(campaigning and gov't services/money) putting the locol mom and pops like Fargo out of business. The electoral college seeks to create a more balanced market place. Is it perfect? No but it certainly is better than a popular vote in that regard. I am actually pretty impressed by our founding fathers and their foresight on this. This is a damn clever solution to a problem that was probably more difficult to understand that in the late 1700's. Maybe some tweaks are in order though.

FRPLG: I doubt our founding fathers had this insight. The electoral college was created because of poor communication and very long travel times. It was the best solution to a rather spread out country.

FRPLG -- any way you cut it, the candidates would be campaigning to the majority. Not the minority of folks, but the majority of people.

I definitely think tweaks are in order, but I really don't understand why people complain about the campaigning in small markets. It's not like candidates spend a long time in those states anyhow once the presidential election comes. They're still going to go and campaign there during the primaries.

FRPLG: I doubt our founding fathers had this insight. The electoral college was created because of poor communication and very long travel times. It was the best solution to a rather spread out country.

FRPLG -- any way you cut it, the candidates would be campaigning to the majority. Not the minority of folks, but the majority of people.

I definitely think tweaks are in order, but I really don't understand why people complain about the campaigning in small markets. It's not like candidates spend a long time in those states anyhow once the presidential election comes. They're still going to go and campaign there during the primaries.

Again I don't think the campaigning has much to do with it anymore. It did in the past due the relative difficulties it took to coomunicate accross a large nation but now it really comes down to not leaving people out of the system completely. Economically it can be proven that almost 90% of country would become irrelevant to the process of gov't if their voices weren't artificially strengthened.

Essentially what the electoral college seems to do is weaken the relative voice of people in hig population densitys while strengthening the voices in the opposite. Without this type of system it is possible and maybe even likely that high density areas would have ALL the voice and low density would have NONE or close to it. So either way isn't perfect but one seems better than the other to me because it still lets everyone have a voice.

I get that it makes complete logical sense to elect via a majority but that isn't the only variable to the equation. What matters is that every vote counts for something and that everyone has a voice. If a straight popular vote within the context of a large geographical area with high density areas actually achieves the opposite of "one vote one voice" then it really isn't a popular vote at all.

Isn't a vote, that matters, a voice? I just don't understand your argument. In my scenario, every voting person in the United States has an equal say of who the next president is, as it is now many people don't have a vote. For instance, I typically lean more liberal in Virginia. My vote is more or less useless. Fairfax county is a different story, but Virginia is a majority Republican. I feel like my voice isn't heard because of this problem. Yes, programs will be directed more towards urban areas, but the point of this is to work to do what the majority of the country wants, not just a cell of the country.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I really can't fathom the argument you're making. Every person has their vote counted, and the majority of America speaks. Let's also remember, I know people think Democrats get the minority vote -- but Hispanics are often very conservative. I've said what I want to say, people know my stance. I'm actually a bit surprised there isn't more support on the issue, but that's what I like about civil political discussions. At least try to see what others think.

FRPLG: I doubt our founding fathers had this insight. The electoral college was created because of poor communication and very long travel times. It was the best solution to a rather spread out country.



This was one reason. I think the main reason was that the founders thought most people were not capable of responsibly carrying out their civic duties. When I see Jay Leno do that quiz thing he does, I tend to see their point.

Also, the the likelihood of someone winning the popular vote and losing in the electoral college is fairly remote. It's unlikely to happen again in any of our lifetimes. It really shouldn't have happened in 2000. It's very rare that a man has such a distasteful persona that he loses his home state. I mean, even Mondale won Minnesota.

Isn't a vote, that matters, a voice? I just don't understand your argument. In my scenario, every voting person in the United States has an equal say of who the next president is, as it is now many people don't have a vote. For instance, I typically lean more liberal in Virginia. My vote is more or less useless. Fairfax county is a different story, but Virginia is a majority Republican. I feel like my voice isn't heard because of this problem. Yes, programs will be directed more towards urban areas, but the point of this is to work to do what the majority of the country wants, not just a cell of the country.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I really can't fathom the argument you're making. Every person has their vote counted, and the majority of America speaks. Let's also remember, I know people think Democrats get the minority vote -- but Hispanics are often very conservative. I've said what I want to say, people know my stance. I'm actually a bit surprised there isn't more support on the issue, but that's what I like about civil political discussions. At least try to see what others think.

Maybe I am not explaining it well enough.

If a candidate only needs 51% of a popular vote to win then there is an extreme motivation for them to appropriate their efforts and resources towards only the 51%. IE 51% of the populous gets 100% of the benefits. Especially in the context of our populous it is very easy to find 51% in about 15-20 different cities. So in this example then the entire rest of the country doesn't get the resources that the bigger cities get... tax cuts, services, etc..

Again why would politicians even worry about small and medium size cities when it is easier and more effective to focus their attention towards only the big cities? This effectively removes the voice of the rest of the country. The 51% is being bribed to vote for one guy. It is an admittedly extreme simplistic example but the mechanics of the "market" hold true. By removing some of the value from the votes from big cities we are forcing politicians to take seriously the entire country and not just steer thier efforts and resources to one part of the country.

I don't understand why you're equating land mass to population. If a MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE (aka the welfare crowd as you ignorantly put) want a candidate, why should the less than 2 million people in north dakota have such a big impact?

Take a look at the POPULATION WON on the 2004 map. The candidate that absolutely cleaned house on area won ALSO won the popular vote, proving the system works.

I think you're just bitter that the majority of the nation elected someone you don't like.

Isn't a vote, that matters, a voice? I just don't understand your argument. In my scenario, every voting person in the United States has an equal say of who the next president is, as it is now many people don't have a vote. For instance, I typically lean more liberal in Virginia. My vote is more or less useless. Fairfax county is a different story, but Virginia is a majority Republican. I feel like my voice isn't heard because of this problem. Yes, programs will be directed more towards urban areas, but the point of this is to work to do what the majority of the country wants, not just a cell of the country.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I really can't fathom the argument you're making. Every person has their vote counted, and the majority of America speaks. Let's also remember, I know people think Democrats get the minority vote -- but Hispanics are often very conservative. I've said what I want to say, people know my stance. I'm actually a bit surprised there isn't more support on the issue, but that's what I like about civil political discussions. At least try to see what others think.


If everyone was spread about the nation equally instead of concentrated in a few select cities, a popular election would work. However, a President needs to be able to address the very different issues of ALL areas of the nation, not just the population centers.


The system has not failed us in 200+ years despite what pundits and media people who didn't get their way cry about. No need to change it.

Look at what happens when you tinker with the electoral system: right now the Democrat party is creating a mess by changing rules and trying to change them back when they don't get their desired results. (Michigan and Florida Democrat primaries)

The American Spectator (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12750)

SFGate: Politics Blog : Pelosi: Don't overrule the voters (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=24286)

Take a look at the POPULATION WON on the 2004 map. The candidate that absolutely cleaned house on area won ALSO won the popular vote, proving the system works.

I think you're just bitter that the majority of the nation elected someone you don't like.

Buster although I understand what you are saying, I don't think the argument was brought up in a bias way. I also think you are quick to try to disprove anything that doesn't jive with your political alignment. At least in my opinion you always seem to be aching for an argument and/or yelling match.

Your point is valid in this case, but it could completely be possible that that a candidate wins on area, and not population. I think the point here is we are not all equal based on the electoral system but rather the goal is to balance area. I think that is a huge distinction to that what we are taught in grade school.

The system has not failed us in 200+ years despite what pundits and media people who didn't get their way cry about. No need to change it.

Look at what happens when you tinker with the electoral system: right now the Democrat party is creating a mess by changing rules and trying to change them back when they don't get their desired results. (Michigan and Florida Democrat primaries)

The American Spectator (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12750)

SFGate: Politics Blog : Pelosi: Don't overrule the voters (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=24286)

You continue to prove my point.