Why hasn't this been an amendment to the Constitution? I live in Kentucky, part of the "Bible Belt", that has already placed it's 9 votes for Republican president in 2016. Whoever runs in 2016 does not have to even campaign here. Its BS. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but won the presidency. Of course it had nothing to do with his brother. Why wasn't the first bill to eliminate the Electoral College? Why has it not happened with Obama? If you remember government from High School, it would not be hard to pass the Amendment if 3 of 4 states voted to ditch it if Congress or the President continue to ignore it. It's common sense.
Because the constitution is poorly written and amendment is effectively impossible under the current state of the system.
Maybe this will become a reality some day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact TLR version. States enter into a compact that says when enough states (whose total electoral votes equal a majority) join, they'll all pledge their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote, ensuring that the winner of the popular vote wins the election. So far only 8 states plus the District of Columbia, totaling 132 EVs, have signed on.
The electoral college was set up when it wasn't easily accessible to get to a polling station. Also, it was set up before mass media was invented, with the thinking that the average Joe wasn't informed enough to make his or her vote count. It's BS, really.
If you eliminate the electoral college, then Presidential candidates would spend most of their time in NYC, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, L.A., etc. They would never visit KY anyway because it didn't have enough votes. The EC was created to ensure that states like KY had a say in choosing the president. The EC makes smaller states more relevant, not less. I do think a popular vote makes more sense but it will never happen as it favors the Democrats. Imagine if all those NY'ers realize their vote now counts - it would be a blow-out.
There is no ideal solution because we are a vast nation with different groups of people having different needs. And we are a federal system. A popular vote would mean a Presidential Candidate or the POTUS once elected would have absolutely zero reason to care about the needs of the middle of America. As long has was favored by the population centers of the country he'd be fine.
They don't visit Kentucky now anyway. And not Texas or California or New York unless it's to fund raise. There's no point in campaigning in a state where the outcome is essentially already determined. The problem with Electoral College is that only a handful of states really matter in determining the election and everybody else gets ignored. After the primaries, candidates pretty much stick to states that are up for grabs. Candidates would actually have to campaign in more of the country if the national popular vote mattered.
KY was irrelevant in the 2012 election, despite Romney's margin there being more than Obama's in Ohio and Florida combined. Had it been a national popular vote, Romney could have overcome narrow losses in Ohio and Florida with his blowout win in Kentucky, meaning Obama would have had every reason to campaign in Kentucky to narrow that margin. Candidates couldn't just ignore huge chunks of the country because they would lose by such large margins that they couldn't overcome it with close wins in the larger states. While not a perfect example since it was still delegate-oriented, this is part of what Hillary learned in the 2008 primaries, winning all the population centers but getting blown out so badly in the small states that it didn't matter.
This "poorly written" document has stood the test of time for 225 years (September 17, 1787) with just 27 changes. Yeah, I do not think the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
I disagree. Obama would spend more money in get out the vote efforts in Cali, NY, Illinois, etc. He's spend more time in NY for sure, but even less time in KY. It just has less people. Your impact per hour campaign is a lot less in KY then in NY. He would come to Brooklyn and tell people to go vote. That's all he'd have to do. You don't need to win rural votes if you can get a sizable margin in the urban centers. The proof is in the fact that NY and Cali are blowouts. The majority of the LAND area votes republican in both states, but it's the urban population that makes them swing Dem.
No, it was to consolidate the power of the elite and prevent a government of mobocracy. All the founding fathers were rich, land-owning, some slave-owning white men.
Except urban centers are uniformly Democratic - the suburbia tends to be staunchly Republican. There's no evidence in the national data that when turnout increases in big states, they lean more one way - you can see that by comparing those states when there are significant state races vs not. Again, Ohio and Florida - two large population centers with extremely high turnout - would have been more than counteracted by Kentucky, despite no campaigning there at all. Winning a big state 53-47 is not much better than winning a small state 60-40 in a popular vote setting. Besides, it sort of misses the larger point. Right now, with 40 states being irrelevant to the campaign, you target your campaign and your policies towards specific states. For example, no one wants to piss off the Cuban American population because it affects Florida. That's silly. If 100,000 people in Nebraska are as relevant as 100,000 Cuban Americans, it changes the way a campaign works - your policies have to appeal to the whole country instead of small geographic and demographic subsegments. Even if an individual state doesn't get more attention, their population will by default.
I am saying you won't see Obama campaign in KY if we had a national poll instead of the EC. They would just run TV ads in those markets. New York would get more attention, but KY - nope. But what's the goal here. To make sure every vote is chased after? KY may not get national attention, or much love from anyone. But people are still voting there. If I lived in KY, I"d be against a national poll. Why, because my vote would count less, not more. Especially if I was a republican KY voter.
Electoral college is good for two party system, so it will stay, even though I think it have outlived its usefulness. Everyone's vote should count the same, why should vote in smaller states count more?
It has nothing to do with a two party system. A national popular vote in a system of government like ours would STILL result in a two party system. It's the winner take all aspect that it makes it hard for a 3rd party to emerge.
No. We are winner take all in all of our elections. It's just how the system was setup. A parliamentary system is the only way to truly create a good multi-party system.
