Electoral College

[mykpart]

I know this isn't a new topic, but from time to time I like to imagine what a presidential election would be like if we didn't have the electoral college. I live in a red state, so neither party spends much time campaigning here, and that's a shame. I think that we might have a better chance of electing a Democratic governor and senators and representatives if people heard more from the party. The national Democratic party is giving NO financial support to Paul Sanders, running against Teabagger Cruz for Kay Bailey Hutchison's senate seat. Presidential candidates campaign in, and elections are decided in, a handful of states. No wonder the US has such poor voter turnout. Texas was once a blue state; it could be again if we ever got to see any Democrats. The state that gave us Ann Richards, Molly Ivins and Sam Rayburn deserves better. And George W. Bush is NOT a Texan; he's a carpetbagger.

[HopeHoops]

1. It's an historical artifact. The states decide the division or lack thereof of the EC votes.

That's part of why we're a "democratic republic" instead of a "democracy". If we were a true democracy, every vote WOULD count. All issues of electronic voting machine rigging aside, we can actually conduct a popular vote and use that as the ultimate deciding factor. The idea that someone can win the popular vote but not the EC vote is disturbing enough, but also past its time. The "delegates" at the conventions are nothing more than cheerleaders for the anointed one.

[unblock]

2. one of the few good things about it, though, is that it focuses fraud on swing states.

while fraud in swing states is obviously possible, it's harder to pull off because by definition half the people are on each side (though not necessarily in key state positions). there's no point in committing fraud in idaho because it's a foregone conclusion.

in a nationwide popular vote contest, fraud could be committed anywhere, and especially in places like idaho where it's easy to pull of because there there are so few people around to object.

as it is, better election monitoring in just a few places like ohio, florida, and virginia might suffice to ensure a fair election. in a popular vote contest, we would need election monitors EVERYWHERE.

without it, look for wyoming to report more people voting for the republican president than have ever lived in the state. then watch democrats try to prove them wrong and fail in front of wyoming republican judges.


personally, i agree that popular vote is still better overall and fear of fraud is no excuse not to try to prevent fraud, but know that it is a far more daunting task under straight popular vote conditions.