So, we change the system and all problems are resolved. 

WRONG ! 

Nothing would have changed with the issues that are tearing us apart IF Clinton had won. Now perhaps she might have been able to fix them better than Trump, but that is academic and truly unknowable at this point. 

There is a fundamental problem that is outside of how we choose a POTUS. Lager was right, that the issue is really the candidates and an informed electorate. 

TheLagerLad wrote:

While the analogy isn't perfect, there are parallels. If we force future presidential candidates to only campaign in big cities, because that's where the votes are, we will leave huge portions of the country out of the conversation.

Now I know what you're saying; "Lager, you idiot, we are leaving whole swaths of the nation out of the conversation with the electoral college since candidates only focus on a handful of states!"

 

I would have stated it in much kinder terms.  

Massachusetts was entirely left out of the recent conversation.
California was used merely to fundraise from elites. New York as well.
How many visits from the candidates did Kansas get? Oklahoma? Maryland? Delaware?
Alabama?

Hey, with a popular vote at least the big cities in my state would get into the conversation.
Unlike now.

This really is a fascinating issue, full of history, philosophy, debate about the definition of "fair", etc.
It's about more than the last election.

Last edited by Goose (11/21/2016 11:09 am)

Massachusetts was entirely left out of the recent conversation.
California was used merely to fundraise from elites. New York as well.
How many visits from the candidates did Kansas get? Oklahoma? Maryland? Delaware?
Alabama?

Couple of thoughts......

No one is really left out of the conversation when choosing a president with the flood of coverage the candidates and the campaign as a whole

New York and California are still going to be used as fundraising stops.

Does Maryland and Delaware need stops from a presidential candidate? Delaware is mostly in the Philly TV market. They're seeing the same campaign ads, and campaign events on the locals news. Additionally, the things that concern PA are for the most part are the same for Delaware voters because regions tend to have the same industries, demographics, etc.

When I think about it, going to a popular vote election model presents the following challenges

1 - If we're going to make our candidates stump for every vote from every voter in the nation, we're going to turn an already insanely long 18 month election cycle into a 24 month of more cycle.

2 - Campaigns will spend the overwhelming majority of their time in the nation's population centers. Why campaign in York, or Reading, or Scranton when all of the votes are Philly? How does that create fairness?

3 - If we're going to focus on the population centers to drive votes, we're going to significantly increase the costs to the campaigns, meaning the candidates will have to rely even further on outside money to fuel their campaigns. Why? Because TV ads cost more in big cities. Renting facilities for rallies cost more in big cities. Hotel rooms for campaign staff cost more in big cities. 

Goose wrote:

Man, I never knew that campaigning to get the most votes was such a horrible thing.
Maybe we should just have a king. 

Heh. Well I'd imagine every candidate campaigns to get the most votes. Just doesn't always work out that way. 

tennyson wrote:

TheLagerLad wrote:

Goose wrote:

Man, I never knew that campaigning to get the most votes was such a horrible thing.
Maybe we should just have a king. 

Heh. Well I'd imagine every candidate campaigns to get the most votes. Just doesn't always work out that way. 

They all knew the rule going in. I did NOT hear either side complain. As a matter of fact, I expect Hillary thought the electoral vote would actually work in her favor. 

 

I hate to be repetitive but I am NOT talking about the recent election!!!!!!!