Increase Voter Turnout
Although our current system was not the intentions of the framers of our constitution (only 3 states used it for our first presidential election), most states now allocate 100% of their electoral votes to the candidate who carriers their state, even if they win by a small margin. This so-called “winner-take-all” system artificially divides our country into red, blue, and “swing” states. The safely red and blue states suffer from lower turnout.
Voter participation was 10 points higher in the 12 swing battleground states of 2004, which receive nearly all of the attention of the candidates, compared to the 12 safest states that are routinely ignored. It makes sense—if a voter knows that one candidate will carry their state regardless of how they vote then they have little incentive to make the trip to the polls.
A national popular vote would particularly increase turnout among young voters. In the last presidential election, turnout among 18 to 29-year olds was 64.4% in the top 10 battleground states and 47.7% in all other states. This 17-point margin could mean the difference between an engaged electorate and an anemic one over the next generation.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I love to explore I recently came across your blog and have been reading along.I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.Wish I had found this blog before. The advices in this post are very helpful and I surely will read the other posts of this series too. Thank you for posting this.I was very happy that I found this site. I want to to thank you for this great information!! I undoubtedly enjoyed every bit of it and I have bookmarked your website to see the new stuff you post in the future.
____________________________________ Clark 88-970 | 98-349 | 98-361 | 98-362 USA
I strongly agree! It’s time for each and every one of us to finally get our vote counted. Perhaps the Electoral College was the right system for the time, but systems must change with time. Communication and the distribution and flow of information in those days were slow and cumbersome. These days, things are radically different. Too many people feel – with good reason – that their votes do not really count. The time has come for a one person-one vote system. Many more people will vote when they honestly believe that their votes truly count.
Can you explain, either with data or argument, why any of that is true? Communication difficulties was at best a minor reason for the creation of the Electoral College (see Farand's Records and The Federalist), so that change weighs little in the scale.
You point out a feeling that many people have, but do you know why they feel that way? Is there any evidence, for example, that people take a ballot and vote in some of the races but not the presidential race? That would substantiate your argument, but the data is exactly opposite: more people vote in the presidential race than farther down the ballot. If we were to adopt your reasoning, we would have to assume that people prefer an Electoral College system. Your argument, such as it is, suggests that we should have more Electoral College rather than less.