To go back to the wyoming example, how many democrats in that state not even bother to vote in the presidential election because they know its a lost cause anyway? Republicans in DC?
I would wager a fair number feel this way, and eliminating the EC would actually get more voters out, resulting in a more accurate count.
I personally think that small states should not carry extra weight in when voting for president anyway. They already get that in the senate.
Yes, but you’ve got those big ol’ hands, so counting should be easy for you! 
Well, if we had a decent voting machine standard (i.e. local election boards can buy whatever machine they want, but it must conform to nationally set standards to ensure things like easy recounts, and low-risk of errors), then it would’t be a problem to do a recount.
Umm… No, 538 is predicting a 2% chance that Obama is going to win Arizona, not that he will only win 2% of the votes. Nate Silver of 538 is currently projecting that Obama will get 44.2% vs 53.6% for McCain. There is a huge difference between 2% of the vote and 44.2%.
Not that that invalidates your basic point. But I thought it should be mentioned.
Yeah, I figured that I was probably misreading the percentages there, but they made for some handy numbers to illustrate what I was getting at. Still, if its that close in AZ, there exists the possibility that Obama could shift the vote there in favor of himself with a little more effort. (Not unheard of, as Gore lost his home state of TN in 2000, which, in some ways puts him in a worse light than Mondale back in '84 who managed to win his home state, while losing everywhere else in the country except for DC.)
But some years the popular vote will be close. You’ll have to wait a lot longer to find a year in which (A) Alabama (for instance) has some chance of going Democratic and (B) the election isn’t already a total blowout for the Democrats.
Even putting that argument aside, I’d favor determining the President by popular vote. Under the current system some states have a higher electoral vote to population ratio than others, which means not every vote carries the same weight. A popular vote system where every vote counts exactly the same seems inherently more democratic.
That’s not really a fair comparison. Both states were becoming more conservative in Presidential elections during their respective time periods, but TN was accelerating whereas MN was decelerating. There’s only so much you can do to fight a demographic shift.
AFAIK, Gore’s the only Presidential candidate to do so.
Do what, lose his home state? That’s not even close to true.
Who else lost theirs?
Dozens, such as McGovern, Stevenson, Taft, Roosevelt…
I’m 100% in support of abolishing, and moving to direct popular vote.
And, eventually, move on to approval voting. Baby steps, though.
I stand corrected.
This argument doesn’t make sense. The EC either has an effect that can counter the weight of a straight popular vote, or it doesn’t. If it does, my statement stands: it at least minimizes the dismissal of WY’s concerns (and mathematically, it does–it’s inarguable).
If it does not create this effect, than what exactly is the point again?
Um, yes, that’s the position of the EC abolishers. That’s not my belief. I think the EC is a nice compromise.
While a direct popular vote certainly seems attractive on the face of it (seems fairest) a bit harder look reveals it is not all it is cracked up to be.
Our Founding Fathers were no dummies. While not infallible I think one has to look long and hard before undoing what they wrought.
Below is a snippet but please read the whole thing at the link before deciding the EC needs to be tossed out.
Yes, yes, abolish it. Why should a guy in Montana have a vote that weighs more than mine just because he lives in an underpopulated state? Elect the POTUS by direct popular vote, and use instant-runoff voting to avoid the third-party “spoiler” problem.
So you are retracting your previous assertion that there were local issues that would be ignored with a popular vote?
Hively’s article is sentimental crap. Worse, it seems designed to deceive people. It’s not true that everyone can have an equal vote under the EC, as I have seen people citing the article claim. Nor is it possible to give everyone to have more electoral power simply by playing with the election mechanism. The voters all ready have ALL of the power so it’s a zero sum game. The only way to empower one set of voters is to disempower another. When Hively gets this simple concept through his brain maybe he can try again.
Okay, I still vote to abolish it.
If the majority votes for it, I say go with it. In the example, *If a Serb party wins national power, minorities have no prospect of throwing them out; 49 percent will never beat 51 percent. Knowing this, the majority can do as it pleases (lacking other effective checks and balances). *
And? Good, 49 percent will never beat 51 percent. I like the “majority rules” idea. Don’t like it? You’re neither forced to agree with the majority or forced to stay in the USA. We do have effective checks and balances in the process–one being impeachment, another being a new election every 4 years, etc.
Really, 1 vote per person. The president is the leader of the national government, ergo his interests should represent the majority of the country. Local issues should be handled by the state or city. Someone mentioned before about having New Yorkers vote for Wyomingite issues. That shouldn’t be an issue, as issues relating only to Wyomingites should be decided by Wyomingites. Federal issues, though, should appeal to the majority – and if that majority happens to be concentrated in our large cities, then so be it.
atomicbadgerrace raises a good point. It’s not as if voting for president exists in isolation from the rest of our constitutional system. Nor are we electing an all powerful dictator. There are other institutions and procedures to protect minority rights.