Probably for the same reasons the founders did.
Considering all the terrible things states have done (or tried to do) supposedly justified by “states rights”, I don’t see how this is a positive thing.
And under the popular vote, even fewer small states would matter, like Nevada, New Hampshire and Vermont.
Well, the thing is that under a popular vote, no STATES would matter, only the people. If the campaigns thought it was worth spending lots of time and money on the 700000+ people of South Dakota they’d do it–not because they were trying to win the state but because every vote counts.
But they still want every dollar to count also. It is cheaper to reach more people in densely populated states.
The ten most populous states contain half the population of the US.
Eleven states have a single city with a population of 100,000 or more. Five states do not even have that.
Yeah, there’s no world in which a national popular election causes candidates to spend any time at all, ever, in Wyoming or West Virginia or Maine. That’s just silly.
Great point. The commonly held fear is that a convention would go crazy and write a whole new constitution – much like the last one did that created the current Constitution, which was originally convened just to amend the Articles of Confederation.
I agree the small States are unlikely to ever sign off on the destruction of the EC, and even the state compact designed to do an end run around the amendment process I think will run into legal problems.
That being said, I do not think a national popular vote election would have candidates only campaigning in the 11 largest states. If you think about it, it’s not like those states are winner take all now–instead you get whatever votes you get from them. If one candidate only campaigned in the large states and another candidate ran a national campaign I suspect the national campaign would win. There’s a certain level of guaranteed support a Republican candidate (for example) is always going to get even in States like California and New York, it’s not like the Democrat gets 100% of the votes in those states in their 11-state campaign. And if the Republican gets “favorable” vibes from the rest of the country that the Democratic candidate is ignoring you could see historic margins of victory in those states, say 70-30, considering some of the large States will pull more votes for the GOP candidate regardless of what the Democrat does, all those voters in the rest of the country breaking hard for the candidate that campaigned in their areas will likely give the election to the Republican. (Again, just using the parties as convenient examples.)
Wow…y’all are talking about the poor guy like he’s worthless or something.
That new constitution was, after great public debate, ratified by every state, though. Nothing was foisted on the states undemocratically.
I know. Still, there are many people who fear that any new constitution wouldn’t turn out well even if the states ended up ratifying it.
Why should they? What’s special about Wyoming? Do the people of Wyoming have special issues they face that no other people in other states do?
You do have a point about the winnter-take-all system in the Electoral College. That’s a huge distortion. But focusing on individual states and ignoring others isn’t a big deal. Our problems aren’t state-by-state.
They have some, or at least some that only a few other states share–but that’s largely what State governments are supposed to deal with.
A couple of thoughts:
-
Candidates don’t focus on the most popular states, they focus on swing states, especially the larger ones like Ohio, Penn., and Florida. A straight popular election would likely smooth that out and potentially make some state-specific interest groups a bit less powerful. Wyoming isn’t likely to lose much, if anything, because they are so solidly Republican that few candidates feel the need to do much campaigning there.
-
I’m not sure I care; I don’t live in a swing state and I get enough soliciting from the candidates. The swing states can have it!
Every state has special issues. Or, at least, a unique mix of priorities and circumstances relating to the eneral broad issues.
^ “general broad issues”
The politicians in Washington can barely get their act together enough to pass a budget. The result of a Constitutional Convention would be years of gridlock followed by a final decision to just pass a continuing resolution to keep the one we’ve got.
Few states have special issues that require unique attention though. My point is that a state is just lines on a map. The voters don’t matter more, or less, just for being in a particular state.
Certainly. That’s why it’s very far from ideal that the same particular states should always be in front for primaries.
It does not follow that testing candidates against successive, somewhat different subsets of the national electorate is a bad idea.
No, they wouldn’t.
Obama won by five million votes in 2012. That’s more than three times the total number of votes cast in Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota combined. Big states that are currently winner-take-all and mostly dominated by one party would get more attention (e.g., the 5 million Romney votes in California or the 3.3 million Obama votes in Texas would be worth pursuing if every vote counted), but small states don’t have enough votes to be worth the time and money. Even in a very close election, getting extra turnout in Cali or NY or Florida is likely to yield more votes than trying to find swing voters in a small state.
Most of the people who voted for Romney in Idaho would have voted Republican even if Obama had campaigned there vigorously (and likewise, Romney stood little chance of attracting substantial votes in DC no matter how much effort he spent). The presidential election is decided by the swing voters, and in an every-vote-counts election, you get the best return by focusing effort on the places with huge numbers of swing voters, and that’s not Idaho or Montana.