"The one change I would suggest is the adoption of the proportional electoral vote as Maine and Nebraska have it. The vote in each state is recognized with the 2 at large votes, and each district gets a voice. It's closer to the popular vote, but still retains insulation - and I like the symmetry with the congressional setup. I think it would work." If I'm not mistaken, awarding electoral votes by congressional district would actually _increase_ the chances that the popular vote winner would lose the electoral vote. The 1960, 1968, and 1976 elections were all substantially closer in the popular vote than in the electoral vote, and I believe that if electoral votes had been awarded proportionally, the popular vote loser would have won in the electoral college in at least one of these elections (1968?). But it's been a really long time since I've read up on this stuff, so I don't remember for sure. "Keep in mind that if the vote were popular, you would have seen Gore and Bush spend all of their time in the major markets, and would have ignored a lot of other states." I find this argument more convincing, but I don't quite buy it either. After all, most presidential candidates already focus on the big markets--there probably would be a change even more in that direction, but I don't think the change would be as clear-cut as you suggest. And how much did the candidates really campaign in small swing states anyway? New Hampshire, after all, was a small swing state that saw much less action than I'd expected, for example. At the same time, abolishing the electoral college would provide incentives to the candidates to campaign more actively in places they wouldn't dream of going under the current system. Why should Al Gore try to raise Hispanic turnout in Texas under the current system, if he knows he's going to lose the state anyway? Why should George W. Bush try to get out the Republican vote in upstate New York, if the Empire State is firmly in the Democratic column? Without the electoral college, everyone's vote would be equally important, and campaigns wouldn't be aimed mostly at swing voters in swing states. In short, abolishing the electoral college might lead to a slightly greater focus on the big media markets, but I'm not sure the change would be terribly clear-cut--and even so, I think it would be worth it to ensure that the winner of the popular vote actually won the election. --Ed
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST