It’s why a Dem like me often goes across the fence to vote in Republican primaries. The Dem candidate in my voting district will almost never win. So by voting in the Republican primaries I might be able to help get the lesser of two or more evils elected. My vote in the actual election is just a matter of me saying I voted, therefore I have a right to an opinion … has little or no effect on who gets elected.
I don’t agree that where candidates travel is reflective of whose views they will accommodate but ignoring that, your assertions are contradictory. If it is bad that some will get ignored then why in God’s name would we want a system where most people get ignored? It’s like saying that acid rain is bad so give us more acid rain. It’s not unpredictable where candidates will campaign right now. They concentrate on campaigning in the swing states every time.
Why would you assume that people living in safe states would be screwed without the EC? How can going from having a vote candidates have no incentive to seek to an equal vote with everyone else leave them worse off than before?
And again, politicians simply cannot visit every single town across the country. It’s not possible. So some will be “ignored”. But that doesn’t mean that candidates wouldn’t seek votes from people living in all of those towns… provided those votes could help them win.
No, right now, there is just as much incentive to do these things in swing states, but not others. (I’m not sure what makes pulling in legal voters by the truckload ‘shenanigans,’ though. Seems as legal and reasonable as church on Sunday.)
I’m sure you’re right initially: the first thing each side would do is ramp up its turnout in its previously safe states. Dems would have an incentive to get every Dem-leaning voter in California and New York to the polls; Republicans would have a similar incentive in Texas and the deep South.
Gotta admit, though, I consider this a good thing. I’m all for a more involved citizenry, and this would give previously taken-for-granted voters in safe states a reason to get out and vote.
But once both parties have realized their potential gains from ramping up their turnout efforts, they either have to accept the new status quo, or try to persuade persuadable voters who currently vote the other way. Since both parties want the White House, chances are that at least one party will want to rectify the new balance.
They aren’t likely to do this in DC or Wyoming, because there simply aren’t that many voters in DC and Wyoming to be persuaded. But they’d go to Massachusetts and Georgia, I’d bet. There are swing voters in both states, and both states are reasonably populous.
Quoth jtgain:
Of course you can, and you should. It’s people who vote, not acres. What you shouldn’t do, though, and what the electoral college (and the Senate) does, is to marginalize a large part of the population because they occupy a small area of land.
You must have missed this part:
A state is “ignored” now, large or small, only to the extent that state has collectively decided one party best serves their interest, no need to discuss it any further. As a practical matter, they haven’t been ignored at all: rather, one party has so accommodated their needs, the other party hasn’t a chance. If the favored party truly ignores that state, then the populace can switch allegiance. (Of course, it is correct to point out that the EC only minimizes the unfavorability of being a small state–it doesn’t eliminate it.)
Without the EC, however, it is that much more likely that a small state will be ignored. Only this time? It’s because nobody gives a @#$% what they think. They are that much more not worth the effort. They are truly being ignored. How much time do you think the Republican candidate focuses on appealing to NY voters now? How much time without the EC? Who do you think will suffer? Hint: it ain’t CA.
yes, but ALL THE VOTERS IN THE SAFE STATES WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY (such as me) ARE IGNORED BY BOTH PARTIES UNDER THE “BY THE STATE” SYSTEM. Switching to a national majority would mean my vote would count, something that decidedly does NOT happen now. And let’s face it, a party that runs 60/40 for one party is considered a safe state for that party … that means that 40 percent of the voters in that state might as well be pissing in the wind in EVERY FRICKING ELECTION. It’s not a very good system. True, one party or other has to lose, but hell, it if weren’t for local elections and referendums I would not vote, there would simply be no point in it.
Thank you for the clarification. As Evil Captor points out, there are millions of people in the safe states who have not been accommodated and no candidate has any incentive to do so since everyone knows up front that their votes simply won’t matter. Is it not a bad thing that they are ignored?
I also notice that we have moved away from the idea that not having the opportunity to see a candidate in person is the same as being ignored as the majority in safe states are accommodated. Since that is true then how is it that individuals living in smaller states would be ignored under a popular vote? Politicians would have an incentive to seek their votes after all since they would count just as much as a person living in NYC or LA.
That’s the drawback of the EC. It maximizes the collective power of the smaller state, but at the expense of the minority in the state. That said, eliminating the EC, IMO, makes any part of the constituency of that state a non-factor. If the national candidate has policies consistent with their sensibilities, it’s purely coincidental. Because they’re concentrating on the large population centers. The EC at least reduces that dynamic.
“Speeches” are just a metric for “attention.” The real issue is not that they don’t visit, it’s whether they care what your state wants. The candidate’s attention is not efficiently directed to smaller states. Fashioning a platform specifically for them is inefficient as well. Sure, they’ll take their vote. But they’re not going to spend a lot of time working for it, or trying to appeal to them in particular. Not enough hours in the day, too many voters in CA, NY, PA, OH, FL, etc., and too many perspectives in the country to make everybody happy. Pander to the large populations. Any regional interests in smaller states impacted by Federal policy–tough shit.
Absent travel I would think that cultivating support in rural areas would be easier than in urban areas. Cities are more culturally diverse. Out in the country things are more homogenous. There is a single large minority in some parts (African-Americans in the South, Mexican-Americans in the Southwest) but the countryside of the Midwest and the Northern Plains are almost completely white. Sure there are more people in cities but there is also more diversity making it harder to corral votes. Not that cultural values are or should be the sole arbiter of deciding on a political candidate. Individuals decide for themselves. A popular vote allows them to do so. They can vote in confidence knowing their vote will count no matter how others in their state feel.
Under a popular vote there is nothing stopping politicians from taking up regional issues. Since no one outside the region has an interest they can safely do so without endangering support elsewhere. As it is now pols have no incentive to address regional issues unless they happen to occur within a swing state. If a campaign doesn’t have the manpower or local knowledge to involve themselves then they will be at a disadvantage and vulnerable to a more robust campaign.
In sum, while I don’t deny that there might be campaigns the choose to focus too much upon large urban areas under a popular vote they would be putting themselves at a disadvantage by doing so and nature would take its course. Campaigns would evolve to encompass the entire nation in a truly national election as the dumber candidates and “experts” were weeded out.