Two Thirds of States Don't Matter Under Current System
The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from the winner-take-all rule that awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state. Under the winner-take-all rule, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a small handful of closely divided “battleground” states. This means that voters in two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
As for 2008, the New York Times reported that both campaigns have agreed that only 14 states will be battlegrounds in 2008. This means that the issues of concern to voters in three-quarters of the states simply don’t matter to presidential candidates.
Under a national popular vote, every vote is equal and every vote matters, regardless of where it is cast. The votes of Republicans in New York and District of Columbia and the votes of Democrats in Texas and Wyoming would matter. Every vote throughout the United States would be equally important to presidential candidates.
Under a national popular vote, the issues of concern to the three-quarters of the states that are currently ignored would matter to presidential candidates. Presidential candidates would have to address the issues of concern to all voters in New York, District of Columbia, Texas, and Wyoming.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
With the electoral college individual votes DO NOT count in a national election. If you live in a state that typically goes either Democratic or Republican, and you have a contrasting opionon, your vote is nationally worthless as it now stands. The motivation to vote is significantly lessened. On top of this, for the political party opposite that of your state’s leanings, those issues of most concern to your state, are minimized at best or ignored at worst. In fact, the state's issues can be pretty much minimized by both partiies because in a presidential election, your state is mostly ignored so that the candidates can spend the most time and effort in those “battleground” states. Therefore, there is less interest in the issues that impact your state or the individuals that live within it.
As someone whose ancestors go back to the very beginnings of this country, it is not lightly that I consider tampering with the basics that were set up by our founding fathers, but the electoral college does not function the way it was originally intended, to protect the vote from being overwelmed by the highly populated states. It has, rather, become an advantage for those states where the opinions are more equally split. Just like our primary system now gives greater clout to those early primary states (as if many of them represent a cross section view of the country!), these battle ground states now have UNFAIR advantage in the national elections. This situation is JUST as unfair as what the founding fathers feared by allowing highly populated states to have a greater clout. The only FAIR solution with our country as populated and diverse as it is, is to return the decision to the individual and have each individual's vote count equally regardless of the state in which they live. Then our president will be chosen by the people and for the interests of the people, and no longer chosen by the battleground states, for the interests of those who live in the battleground states.
I really feel my vote would be more watered down than it is now. Basically, Chicago, New York City and other large metropolitan areas will determine the outcomes. Just take a look at those maps of the US after every Presidential election that is broken down by county. Its more RED than BLUE and it tells a story, but not necessarily the "whole" story.
What I would like to see is the electoral college changed to the following format (Presidential Election);
1. The winner of each congressional district (throughout the US) wins that Electoral College. This would negate the winner takes all as is now in most states.
2. The two Electoral College votes for US Senators (2 for each state) could either be;
a. Awarded to the candidate that has the most vote’s statewide (popular vote).
b. Awarded to the candidate that won the most congressional districts (may not necessarily be the popular vote winner).
c. Split the Electoral College votes among the top two candidates.
The problem is; The Presidential Election is a state run affair and it wouldn't work unless every state did it. Anyway, IMO it would truly represent a refection of the whole country, not just by the masses as it is now.
Would some of the elections have been changed in recent times? Dunno’, but the data is out there somewhere...
If you really want votes from small states not to count, go to popular vote . The Wyomings, Montanas, Dakotas etc. would receive absolutely zero attention. Why would a candidate care about working to make a difference in a few thousand votes in those states when he could focus all his attention on the NYCs, Chicagos, California etc? The Electoral College system, ensuring that each state (and DC) gets 3 electoral votes regardless of how small it is, truly continues to make every area relevant, which a popular vote election would not do.
One further thing...remember the debacle the 2000 election/recount was in Florida? Well, statistically speaking, the popular vote that year was a virtual tie...imagine if the country had to attempt a recount of every single vote from every single state, over 100 million votes, that year?!? That's another reason the Electoral College is better for a nation of this size.