tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post3991237485618783859..comments2024-03-18T07:11:29.068-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)Josh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-81078367072362593632008-06-24T18:21:00.000-04:002008-06-24T18:21:00.000-04:00Josh--I look forward to a centralized discussion o...Josh--I look forward to a centralized discussion of the national popular vote idea. Susan did get me to look at the specific proposal under consideration, and I now have further comments. But I'll wait until you provide a place to air them...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14690577323454357276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-84074536621924444832008-06-24T09:11:00.000-04:002008-06-24T09:11:00.000-04:00Thanks for the vote of confidence, Scott. Organiz...Thanks for the vote of confidence, Scott. Organizing these posts this way, I think, will help to deliver a clearer message. <BR/><BR/>Since Anonymous/Susan continues to post this same comment (word for word, mind you), I think I'll address that issue in its own post. It'd be a good discussion to have more broadly, instead of hidden away in bits and pieces across several electoral college projection posts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-91737207494733254362008-06-23T15:16:00.000-04:002008-06-23T15:16:00.000-04:00I love the new look! I figure since Susan brought ...I love the new look! <BR/><BR/>I figure since Susan brought it up, I'll note my opposition to a national popular vote. She's right that the current system causes candidates to disregard states which aren't competitive. But a national vote would cause retail politics to disappear altogether. The campaign visits she values wouldn't be spread over 50 states, they'd be replaced by fundraisers--largely in places like New York and California. The money she notes would go largely to national media--again in New York and California. I have nothing against those two states; in fact, I grew up in California and have lived in New York for twenty years. But I'd like "flyover" states to have a role other than casting a vote based on candidates who have run only a national campaign. <BR/><BR/>The past few cycles have had an unusually small number of battleground states. This cycle promises to be different, with Obama threatening to push the campaign into parts of the deep South and mountain West and McCain looking to parts of the "blue" Midwest. Not the full coverage Susan wants, but a reminder that it's tricky to propose a constitutional amendment based on conditions over a short period.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a candidate piling up votes in big cities and winning that way (and, incidentally, I'm an Obama supporter, so I'm not speaking out of partisan interest). There's a reason we allocate one house of Congress proportionally by population, and the other by states. The Electoral College is a hybrid of the two, and seems a sensible compromise.<BR/><BR/>--ScottUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14690577323454357276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-73791854822666584692008-06-23T13:27:00.000-04:002008-06-23T13:27:00.000-04:00The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain mig...The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states. <BR/><BR/>The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). <BR/><BR/>The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.<BR/><BR/>Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.<BR/><BR/>The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 19 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.<BR/><BR/>See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com <BR/><BR/>susanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com