20 ms·

There are discussions about the electoral college favoring small states. Some people think that's bad, some people think it's good. However, there's a more imp

There are discussions about the electoral college favoring small states. Some people think that's bad, some people think it's good. However, there's a more important issue: that's not really what the electoral college does. It gives a small edge to small states[0]. The much bigger effect is that in every given election, it favors a handful of battleground states over all the rest. If you live in Wyoming, the electoral college does not help you, because your vote is secure. Ditto for Vermont. But if you live in Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates will spend all their time in your state, trying to get your vote. While you can concoct a semi-coherent case for rural voters needing special protection, no one can explain why Ohio is more or less important than North Carolina, or Florida than Texas. [0] Which, if you're paying attention, is at least correlated with being rural, but only partially--another lazy generalization that surrounds this subject.

ShamelessC 7y ago
I'm not in favor of the electoral college, but wouldn't its elimination merely shift this problem to politicians only visiting the most poulated states (e.g. California) anyway?
- zik 7y ago
  At least then they'd be representing the concerns of a larger number of people which is arguably what they should be doing as representatives.
- TylerE 7y ago
  I think the whole “visiting” thing is overblown. We have TV and the Internet. This isn’t the 19th century when the only way the average American might EVER see or hear a President would be a short speech off the back of a train car.
  - jeremyjh 7y ago
    That's right. Whats at stake is in which markets and demographics the ad spend goes.
    - ajmurmann 7y ago
      Isn't the program also partially being tailored to those states?
  - mattnewton 7y ago
    Visiting here is a proxy for overall campaign message initiatives, which includes physical visits, but also ad buy and even shaping the candidates message and platform to better appeal to the swing stage demographic. Arguably the last one is the biggest potential problem since it means some minority has an outside influence on candidates.
    - freewilly1040 7y ago
      As an example of this imbalance shaping platforms see American policy on Cuba, where conservative policy is enduringly punitive appeal to Florida voters
    - Taniwha 7y ago
      It's not just visiting, it's pork too, there's a reason why there's a net wealth transfer through taxes from those states that are not in play to those that are. A NPV would go some way to spread the federal spending around a little more fairly
  - maratd 7y ago
    Nobody cares about visiting. They can craft their policies to entirely exclude or screw over states that aren't worth their time. For example, favor specific industries over others that are heavy in one state vs another. They'll do that anyway, but may think twice if they need to build a coalition of smaller states vs just winning the popular vote.
    - hyperpape 7y ago
      This idea doesn’t seem obvious to me. The biggest states are: California Texas Florida New York Pennsylvania Ohio Illinois Georgia North Carolina Michigan Which major industry unites them? Which major industries are not represented? You have tech, finance, automakers, agriculture, tourism, and oil. Maybe not much mining and fishing? Probably something else, but these are very different states.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - DSMan195276 7y ago
        It's worth adding that those states aren't even close to as homogeneous as most tend to assume. Only 60% of California voted Democrat in 2016, and you have to assume the turnout for Republicans would be higher if it wasn't guaranteed that their vote (for president) was meaningless. With the current system, you can cater only to the populous parts of California and win the whole state, and that goes for most other states as well. With a popular vote, that ~30 to 40% of California is relevant again, along with significant chunks of other states. It's also worth noting the math really doesn't work out, the electoral college makes it easier to win the whole thing while carrying less states/votes (Which really shouldn't be surprising). With both the popular vote and the electoral college, you only have to take the 10 most populous states to win the whole thing. But the difference is that, with the current electoral college you generally only need to get 51% of the vote to win the whole state, which is significantly easier and turns states like California from a 60% to a 100%. With the popular vote, to actually win in that fashion you would have to take almost every vote in those states, which is practically impossible considering the diversity.
  - 1337biz 7y ago
    You can't discount Trump's stadium tours as an important part in his campaign strategy. It's essential for emotionalizing the base. Almost the same way a Spotify stream compares to a live arena concert. I would even go so far that offline events have in these digital times a much higher voter activation potential.
  - ianai 7y ago
    Probably the biggest reason for physically visiting places is to get bigger donations from people and interest groups. Also to generate buzz that will land in the 24 hour media cycle.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    I totally underestimated the importance of visiting until I went to Iowa earlier this month. (My wife went to high school and college there and we went back for the state fair and some campaign events.) It shattered my East-coast preconceptions about how elections work. Because of the caucus system,[1] you actually have to meet people in person to encourage them to advocate for you at the caucus. My wife got selfies with nearly every democratic candidate. I met the mayor of New York at a Buffalo Wild Wings. (He was just there for a snack, as were we.) You go to a diner with like 20 people and a presidential candidate has to sit there and field rambling questions from 80 year old ladies. It’s completely nuts, but the people who engage in the process (and they are completely ordinary people) are incredibly committed to their role. The other thing I came away with from the whole process is a newfound appreciation for the “who would I like to have a beer with” factor. The issues and policy proposals you read on the Internet don’t really matter—none of that stuff will ever get through Congress. Being able to look the person in the eye, and see how they carry themselves while shleping to half a dozen events every day—that really makes an impression. [1] In the Iowa Democratic caucuses, registered party members in a precinct get together, discuss the candidates, take a first round vote where some candidates are cut, discuss the candidates some more, and then take a final vote.
    - rapind 7y ago
      "None of that stuff will get through Congress" I have a different opinion. Sanders and to a lesser extent Warren have created massive volunteer networks that do have a pretty big impact, like everywhere. Obama had that too, but it was dismantled when he took office (insanity). There's a good argument to say Obama would have been far more impactful had he kept it going. Sanders has no intention of shutting down his "revolution" (not my words) whether he does or doesn't get the nomination. There's going to be some serious pressure (like there already has) on congress in the years to come. I don't think the same ol' same ol' will continue much longer. I don't mean to be a fan boy, but it's pretty phenomenal what he / they have done since 2016, and it resonates with a lot of people. CNN and MSNBC don't talk about it too often, but it's very real. Don't take my word for it though. Easily researched.
      - tptacek 7y ago
  - heedlessly2 7y ago
    No, at the end of the day. People are humans and are affected by face-to-face interactions. Communication via television and internet feels impersonal. When a candidate visits your city, they discuss how your local and state politics tie together. So candidates can personalize their speeches towards a specific region per visit. Some people might not care about this, but many others will
- hyperpape 7y ago
  The answer is probably complicated. Game theoretically, they’ll pay attention[0] to the places where their campaigning has the biggest marginal impact, but that doesn’t immediately tell us much. That will make big urban areas appealing. However, if you think there are diminishing returns, it should cause them to spread that attention more, avoiding the last month where they repeatedly visit the same state over and over again. [0] This might or might mean visiting those states.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I'm not in favor of the electoral college, but wouldn't its elimination merely shift this problem to politicians only visiting the most poulated states (e.g. California) anyway? “Politicians”, no, it only effects Presidential (and Vice-Presidential) candidates. It has no direct effect on other politicians. Would it make them more likely to visit densely populated areas (where you can influence more poeple per unit time)? Yeah, probably. Right now, they focus on “swing states”, but within those states, on densely populated areas, for just that reason. But as long as there is a Senate, they'd be encouraged to visit small states (where a small number of voters determine a large share of power in the Senate, which can block both laws and Presidential appointments) for coattail effects. And they’d still be encouraged to spend efforts on campaigning in low-cost media markets where small money reaches lots of voters (even ones that would currently be neglected because the states aren't viewed as swingable), just probably not with personal visits as much, without some kind of broader free media exposure opportunities, because the candidates themselves can't be in more than one place at once.
- cecilpl2 7y ago
  Shouldn't politicians generally spend time and attention on the problems that affect the most people?
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    The region that gows all of our food affects us all. Just because you dont live in the midwest and population density is lower, does not make them less important.
- delecti 7y ago
  I've seen this pointed out, and absolutely do not see it as a problem. What's wrong with politicians paying more attention to the needs of more people? They're going to campaign somewhere, why should they pay more attention to Cleveland, Ohio (metro area population ~2m) than Los Angeles (city population 3m, metro population over 13m)?
  - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
    The issue is more that everyone should get attention, and removing the electoral college & going straight to popular vote will honestly erode that- as others have noted, politicians will spend more time in the highest population areas and possibly not the highest need areas.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      > everyone should get attention I’m not entirely convinced presidential candidates share this belief.
    - delecti 7y ago
      They already don't spend time equally. Currently they spend time where the expected votes are closest to 50:50. Why is that preferable to going to where there are the most undecided voters, which is what would happen?
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      They'll spend more time campaigning in the areas with the most people who can be convinced to change their votes. This isn't necessarily going to be the highest population areas, as those areas tend to be solidly liberal. I don't know why the electoral college would be better at identifying high need areas than willingness to change your vote. Shouldn't people who need help be more likely to change their vote than to live in a purple state?
      - wh0knows 7y ago
        This isn't necessarily true. If a 10m pop area has a 70-30 split, it's still better to campaign there than a 5m pop area with a 50-50 split. In absolute numbers it's still 3 million supporters versus 2.5 million supporters.
- pknopf 7y ago
  Not if you make the votes proportional. There are a huge number of Republicans in California that would have just as much of a say than Florida/Ohio/etc.
- zhoujianfu 7y ago
  This site has good responses for that question here: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.5 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.5
- ananonymoususer 7y ago
  No, politicians would not need to visit California because the way in which the electoral college is being eliminated is by keeping it intact, but forcing the state electors to follow the federal trend instead of the local one. The result will be ALL of California's electors going "blue" regardless of how the individual people vote. If we figured out a way of actually eliminating the electoral college, then it's entirely possible that a presidential election would result in no candidate winning more than 50% of the popular vote, and there would need to be some way to conduct a run-off election. If this scenario had unfolded in the 1992 election, Bush would have won instead of Clinton.
- surge 7y ago
  We already have a problem with politicians getting the majority of their donations from people out of their district and even have very low approval ratings in their district. Something needs to be done to ensure all districts are equally represented and the representatives work for their constituents, not benefactors from out of state.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    The issue is that states aren't - really. There is no barrier so said division is arbitrary and unenforcable. Local has been pushing its siren song for a while when marketing but it is actually a reactionary countertrend to essentially everything else.
- contravariant 7y ago
  They'd still visit the places where they're most likely to gain votes. These places just won't be limited to a select few states any more.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  But that's where the people are. What's the problem?
- rjmunro 7y ago
  They would go to places where people are. Particularly the sort of people who might be amenable to changing their mind. It's true that because more people are in populated states, they would go to populated states more, but that's just fairness. See also https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/
- hyperbovine 7y ago
  Isn’t that how a functioning democratic republic is supposed to work?
- newshorts 7y ago
  Should the not focus their attention on the centers with the highest population?
- beepboopbeep 7y ago
  ...is that bad? Why shouldn't the most populated areas be priority?
- specialist 7y ago
  I predict a presidential popular vote would have a moderating effect. Meaning more voters would be targeted. With FPTP, each side tries to have the smallest winning coalition. This results in more competitive races. So every vote would matter. Said another way, our current unfair gerrymandering worsens partisanship. Said yet another, when my local city council went from at-large positions to districts based, so kinda the opposite of from electoral college to presidential popular vote, candidate platforms went from "appeal city wide" mush to "better appeal to my district". (A better moderator would be to change from FPTP to approval voting or ranked choice voting. But that's another thread.) -- But to your point, in practical terms, with modern get out the vote (GOTV) technology and strategies, most every voter is already targeted. They're certainly accounted for. As the de facto head of their parties, presidential candidates are expected to do well every where, to help with down ballot races. As an extreme example, HRC 2016 was criticized for running up her margin in "safe" areas. But that's expected (demanded) of national (and statewide) candidates by the locals.
- screye 7y ago
  If 40 times as many people stay in California, it makes sense that they would go there 40 times more often. Why should people living dense regions be punished for it ?
- stevetursi 7y ago
  What it shifts is advertising from expensive media markets with small geographical boundaries (NY, LA) to less expensive ones that have large boundaries (Kansas City, Raleigh.) It works out that, because of the large boundaries, the cost to reach each consumer is far lower. Moreover, I'd wager that the stumps that stump speeches occur on will go to more places with more concentrated populations - there are more butts within n square miles to put in seats, as well as the most-watched news media. My opinion is that both outcomes are preferable to stumps AND media going to half a dozen battleground states.
WarDores 7y ago
Swing states shift, though. California was basically solid red from the 1950s through the 1980s. Until 2016, few people would have called Wisconsin or Michigan "swing states" judging from their voting in the past few elections. People move, demographics change.
- hyperpape 7y ago
  This is true, but I’m not sure having your vote count for a decade, then not count, then count again is all that much better. Note that going in to an election, the potential battleground states are usually known. Some states haven’t been swing states for a long time, too.
  - WarDores 7y ago
    I'm not sure what the correct answer is. Winning a national contest is always going to be about coalition-building all said and done. Trump changed the calculus on the traditional GOP coalition (going after unions -- once considered a Democrat lock), and won states he "shouldn't" have. Coalitions line up with states in a lot of cases. If Democrats started pandering to farmers (I can see this happening), the midwest might look different. I don't see this as a "states not counting" problem as much as the issues that come up in national elections affect different populations in different ways. If there was a national popular vote, there would still be people who feel disenfranchised because the candidates don't see their chosen issues as vital to their coalition.
    - pishpash 7y ago
      We're witnessing a party re-alignment in real time.
- ajmurmann 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's actually true. There was a great graphic a few years back that showed party allegiance by state over time. You could see how most states used to be fairly split between both parties and how they frequently swung from party to party between elections. However, in the 80s or so many states started to align more closely with one party. Given the duration for which that has been going on, I wonder if that's the natural end state of a defacto two party system.
anon1m0us 7y ago
You should be careful about the word "small" here. What you mean is least populous, but geographically, they are large. Thus, the question is: Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? If you eliminate the electoral college you give political control of resources to those who have absolutely NO physical control of those resources and yet still suffer the impact of their environmental influence. What I mean is, people in California, Texas, and New York would push all the bad things to the rural states and take all the good parts, leaving those who live in the rural areas to feel the full brunt of those decisions. Take Louisiana as an example. It's been decimated by everyone who doesn't live there.
- yks 7y ago
  Currently it seems that rural states push all the bad things on themselves, e.g. climate change and other environmental destruction, so how much worse can it be for them?
  - parineum 7y ago
    The non-rural states are responsible for more environmental damage but they export it to other states/countries.
- 0xB31B1B 7y ago
  To be fair, the primary cause of the decimation of Louisiana is it’s state government. I would also add that the resources of the country belong to all of us, not just those who live in close proximity (aka the same state).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - vollmond 7y ago
    Does this apply to other borders? Do the resources of Canada or Iraq belong to "all of us"? Or just internal US resources?
jonas21 7y ago
Wyoming gets 7 electoral votes per million people, while New York gets only 1.9. That's a 3.6x difference -- I would hardly call that a "small" edge.
- dmix 7y ago
  Those aren't static numbers though. California used to have 4 electoral votes in 1850s (edit) and now they have 55 (Wyoming has always had 3, New York has 29 today down from a peak of 47 in the 1940s). The ratio of votes per capita is relatively consistent - assuming a baseline level of votes so individual states aren't totally excluded - and is more a sign of a potential problem with the distribution not the system itself. But there's plenty of arguments which favour both ways. Much like gerrymandering, which both sides have a long legal record of accusing the other of taking advantage of as the last two Supreme Court cases on the matter clearly demonstrates - each by the other, this seems to be a who's on the "winning" side motivation which misses the bigger picture. In this case it's the smaller states who have been basically given a guaranteed entrance ticket to play the game, which is different than simply giving the state extra votes relative to their size. It functions almost as a social safety net which gives you a shot, not a good shot at that, but only if you'd otherwise have no other shot. If it was only per capita (even with balancing for size) the numbers would look a lot different.
  - jonas21 7y ago
    > California used to have 4 electoral votes in 1950s California had 32 electoral votes in the 1950s. You may have meant the 1850s, when California did have only 4 electoral votes. That's because California was tiny back then, with a population of under 100,000 in 1850. The electoral votes per capita has always been heavily skewed in favor small states. While it's true that some formerly small states have grown into large states, I don't see how that's relevant.
    - dmix 7y ago
      It's relevant because the numbers could be updated, while still giving the smaller states an entry ticket, while eliminating the only valid arguments against the whole policy (high multiples which are completely disconnected from population - not only when necessary, even among the big fast growing states like Texas). The other stuff about battleground states would have only a small connection to the electoral college, as even the small states would (still) only have a small amounts of votes, and have more to do with regional political trends. Of course there will be push back from who ever most benefits currently. But I'm sure the political machines will learn to adapt and adjust for their new markets. There will always be enough moderates to swing both ways. Each only has to focus on the important ones, so changing who is important shouldn't hurt the parties unless they don't like having power. Re 1850, thanks I updated my comment, I should note that doesn't change the fact they're not static.
rcpt 7y ago
Is visiting really the problem? I get the impression that issues that are huge for non-swing states, like housing, can be easily ignored despite the fact that they impact millions more people.
smsm42 7y ago
> If you live in Wyoming, the electoral college does not help you, because your vote is secure. For now. But if Wyoming doesn't like what happens with Republican party, it can change. There's a huge inertia in large parties, so probably won't happen overnight, but it's not a law of nature. From what I've heard, one of the reasons 2016 election went the way it did because Democrats considered certain states (not Wyoming) "secure" and didn't campaign there, while Republicans did, and turned out they've been not as secure as it seemed. The margins of victory in many states are not that wide, and the margins of uncertainty in any polls are wide, so it's never certain forever.
- hyperpape 7y ago
  I think it was pretty systematic. If you look at 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/), they were pretty accurate predicted which states were most and least likely to vote Trump or Clinton. It's just that in several states where they thought Clinton had a small lead, she lost. Meanwhile, there were no states they thought Trump had a small lead but he lost. The comparative judgments (Wisconsin is easier for Clinton to win than North Carolina, which is easier than Alabama) were right. The absolute judgments (Clinton will win Wisconsin) were wrong. If you had gone back in time and told Clinton's team "all the polls are too positive for you, you don't have a safety margin" they'd have known that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were at risk.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > "all the polls are too positive for you, you don't have a safety margin" they'd have known On my memory, this is not the first time polls tilt left. Politicians should have already learned that this is possible, especially with such an unorthodox candidate as Trump. My point also was that not many states are really "safe", yet less - forever. Relatively yes, some are further from the middle than others, but it's not a static picture and it's not a product of some permanent law but only current configuration which should never be taken for granted.
  - Marazan 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Monroe13 7y ago
The electoral college most certainly favors small states but I agree with you it also creates battleground states and I agree that is the more important effect. It’s not a matter of whether battleground states deserve special protection, it’s a matter of whether or not the battleground states in any given election serve as a good representation of the nation as a whole? Are they a better representation than a popular vote which would consistently favor coastal urban centers?
Fomite 7y ago
This. Living in a rural area on the border between a solid Blue and solid Red state, no one cares.
mixmastamyk 7y ago
It also makes many votes useless. I live in California, it has gone to a Democrat every time since I've been a voter. For president, I can't affect California, and I can't affect the national election either, due to the EC. Not that I'd vote for Trump, but there's no practical reason to vote for president in that circumstance.
raverbashing 7y ago
Well, there's a potential "easy" way of solving this: making votes in the electoral college proportional to how the electorate voted in the state
- gmoot 7y ago
  Yes. You don't need to abolish the whole college, just do this. And states can do it on their own and immediately, no need to sign a pledge only takes effect at some possible future time. The problem with this, and with the pledge, is that it requires the states that benefit from the current system to voluntarily decrease their own influence. Which won't happen.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  Alternatively, have each congressional district elect its own elector instead of a statewide pool. It gets even more interesting if the ballot only shows the potential electors’ names, without any party affiliation.
dclowd9901 7y ago
Very few people care if a candidate visits their state. I know I don't and I would be hard-pressed to list a single person that does. All I care about is if they're willing to answer questions directly and if their policies match my general ideas. In other words: if a candidate really wants to spend their whole campaign in Ohio, I could give a shit. Go for it. Abolish the electoral college. Now.
daleco 7y ago
Why aren't we talking about the Cambridge Analytica scandal example? Another issue of the Electoral colleges is that a candidate could target only a few amount of people (70k according to the documentary) for changing the course of the election. Even if this has been fixed by Facebook. Shouldn't it be considered as a major flaw of the election system? Source: "The great Hack" - Netflix doc.
- ananonymoususer 7y ago
  Why is it that the Cambridge Analytica "hack" is even an issue? The reason is because the data was used to get an "evil" republican elected. The exact same tactics were used to get Obama elected, and nobody seems to be complaining.
  - daleco 7y ago
    It’s harder to manipulate millions of people rather than 70k. You’re right, it was also used to get Obama elected. It’s still wrong.
    - choppaface 7y ago
      Though Obama won the popular vote, too, by 8% and 4%, respectively. Obama would still be elected under these changes.
  - SyneRyder 7y ago
    Indeed, the system Harper Reed built for the 2012 Obama campaign was widely hailed at the time for how it personalized campaigns to each individual voter, by building a big data store about every voter in the US: "Those apps include sophisticated analytics programs like Dreamcatcher, a tool developed to "microtarget" voters based on sentiments within text." "All of the data collected through various volunteer interactions and other outreach found its way into Narwhal's data store, where it could be mined for other purposes. Much of the data was streamed into Dreamcatcher and into a Vertica columnar database cluster used by the analytics team for deep dives into the data." [1] from Ars Technica: Built to win: Deep inside Obama’s campaign tech https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/built-to-win-deep-inside-obamas-campaign-tech/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/built...
lagadu 7y ago
Furthermore: Ohio is the single strongest predictor of the presidential election winner. Ohio is the only state where the local winner has matched the overall winner since 1960.
- verbify 7y ago
  I believe that to be a case of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
_pmf_ 7y ago
> There are discussions about the electoral college favoring small states. Some people think that's bad, some people think it's good. Diversity is only good when it concerns pink haired loud cat ladies, not rural farmers.
the6threplicant 7y ago
Isn't that the whole point of the Senate?
Shivetya 7y ago
It is not there to protect small states, it is there to protect from super large states. As in, no matter how big you get or how lopsided your political apparatus is the state cannot absolutely tip the balance. a popular vote presidency would be a disaster for the US, the illusion that votes matter would be completely destroyed at that level. it is like the difference of comparing a state only lottery to the multi state lottery
- jshowa3 7y ago
  a popular vote presidency would be a disaster for the US, the illusion that votes matter would be completely destroyed at that level. This is completely false. Having a popular vote would at least adequately represent, mathematically, the demographics of the US citizenry and what they want in a candidate. Now, FPTP is not the greatest voting scheme, I would prefer some sort of rank choice voting, but at least you would get a statistical representation of the populace with FPTP. The electoral college is such an antiquated, outdated system that only favors fringe views.
tekknik 7y ago
What I find interesting is this only came up after Trump got elected. What this says is it’s not about how “broken” the electoral college is and more so trying to elect more liberal presidents, since the densely populated areas tend to hive mind. We would have essentially 2 states voting in the new president, and both of these states are very liberal. Why didn’t this come up during Obama? This is an attempt at the liberal elite to get rid of a system that stops them from winning 100% of the time. This is how civil wars are started
- hyperpape 7y ago
  The electoral college has been criticized for generations: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-07/electoral-college-debate-has-dramatically-changed-in-50-years https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-07/electo..., though the contours of the debate have changed. As for the charge of hypocrisy, were Republicans passionately praising the wisdom of the electoral college in the 1990s? It cuts both ways.
notSupplied 7y ago
Here is a fun thought exercise: why group by state? A person's political views is not just shaped by where they live, but their race, gender, sexual orientation, education etc etc. If "location" is just another column in the table properties that describe a person, what if we had a "college" or "senate" based on some other property of an individual? How about we give all citizens who identify as straight 2 seats and all those who identify as gay 2 seats in this imaginary senate? Or a college roughly based on race, but for some reason the smaller races are grossly over represented? How about by religion? As an atheist myself, I'd love to get in on some of that sweet over-representation-of-minorities mojo that Ohioans get. My point is, cut this along any other descriptive property of an individual other than what state they live in and you get all sorts of colorful results that I'm sure would appall all the conservative proponents of the Electoral college or the Senate. Is state or location really the most important a property when it comes to deciding whether or not you are a "minority?" When it comes to national issues, do you think a gay black man in Nebraska has more in common with a striaght white man in Nebraska? Or another gay black man in New York? Why does the one in Nebraska get to be an overrepresented minority, yet the one in New York get to be an underrepresented majority?

ShamelessC 7y ago

I'm not in favor of the electoral college, but wouldn't its elimination merely shift this problem to politicians only visiting the most poulated states (e.g. California) anyway?

zik 7y ago
At least then they'd be representing the concerns of a larger number of people which is arguably what they should be doing as representatives.
TylerE 7y ago
I think the whole “visiting” thing is overblown. We have TV and the Internet. This isn’t the 19th century when the only way the average American might EVER see or hear a President would be a short speech off the back of a train car.
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  That's right. Whats at stake is in which markets and demographics the ad spend goes.
  - ajmurmann 7y ago
    Isn't the program also partially being tailored to those states?
- mattnewton 7y ago
  Visiting here is a proxy for overall campaign message initiatives, which includes physical visits, but also ad buy and even shaping the candidates message and platform to better appeal to the swing stage demographic. Arguably the last one is the biggest potential problem since it means some minority has an outside influence on candidates.
  - freewilly1040 7y ago
    As an example of this imbalance shaping platforms see American policy on Cuba, where conservative policy is enduringly punitive appeal to Florida voters
  - Taniwha 7y ago
    It's not just visiting, it's pork too, there's a reason why there's a net wealth transfer through taxes from those states that are not in play to those that are. A NPV would go some way to spread the federal spending around a little more fairly
- maratd 7y ago
  Nobody cares about visiting. They can craft their policies to entirely exclude or screw over states that aren't worth their time. For example, favor specific industries over others that are heavy in one state vs another. They'll do that anyway, but may think twice if they need to build a coalition of smaller states vs just winning the popular vote.
  - hyperpape 7y ago
    This idea doesn’t seem obvious to me. The biggest states are: California Texas Florida New York Pennsylvania Ohio Illinois Georgia North Carolina Michigan Which major industry unites them? Which major industries are not represented? You have tech, finance, automakers, agriculture, tourism, and oil. Maybe not much mining and fishing? Probably something else, but these are very different states.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - DSMan195276 7y ago
      It's worth adding that those states aren't even close to as homogeneous as most tend to assume. Only 60% of California voted Democrat in 2016, and you have to assume the turnout for Republicans would be higher if it wasn't guaranteed that their vote (for president) was meaningless. With the current system, you can cater only to the populous parts of California and win the whole state, and that goes for most other states as well. With a popular vote, that ~30 to 40% of California is relevant again, along with significant chunks of other states. It's also worth noting the math really doesn't work out, the electoral college makes it easier to win the whole thing while carrying less states/votes (Which really shouldn't be surprising). With both the popular vote and the electoral college, you only have to take the 10 most populous states to win the whole thing. But the difference is that, with the current electoral college you generally only need to get 51% of the vote to win the whole state, which is significantly easier and turns states like California from a 60% to a 100%. With the popular vote, to actually win in that fashion you would have to take almost every vote in those states, which is practically impossible considering the diversity.
- 1337biz 7y ago
  You can't discount Trump's stadium tours as an important part in his campaign strategy. It's essential for emotionalizing the base. Almost the same way a Spotify stream compares to a live arena concert. I would even go so far that offline events have in these digital times a much higher voter activation potential.
- ianai 7y ago
  Probably the biggest reason for physically visiting places is to get bigger donations from people and interest groups. Also to generate buzz that will land in the 24 hour media cycle.
- rayiner 7y ago
  I totally underestimated the importance of visiting until I went to Iowa earlier this month. (My wife went to high school and college there and we went back for the state fair and some campaign events.) It shattered my East-coast preconceptions about how elections work. Because of the caucus system,[1] you actually have to meet people in person to encourage them to advocate for you at the caucus. My wife got selfies with nearly every democratic candidate. I met the mayor of New York at a Buffalo Wild Wings. (He was just there for a snack, as were we.) You go to a diner with like 20 people and a presidential candidate has to sit there and field rambling questions from 80 year old ladies. It’s completely nuts, but the people who engage in the process (and they are completely ordinary people) are incredibly committed to their role. The other thing I came away with from the whole process is a newfound appreciation for the “who would I like to have a beer with” factor. The issues and policy proposals you read on the Internet don’t really matter—none of that stuff will ever get through Congress. Being able to look the person in the eye, and see how they carry themselves while shleping to half a dozen events every day—that really makes an impression. [1] In the Iowa Democratic caucuses, registered party members in a precinct get together, discuss the candidates, take a first round vote where some candidates are cut, discuss the candidates some more, and then take a final vote.
  - rapind 7y ago
    "None of that stuff will get through Congress" I have a different opinion. Sanders and to a lesser extent Warren have created massive volunteer networks that do have a pretty big impact, like everywhere. Obama had that too, but it was dismantled when he took office (insanity). There's a good argument to say Obama would have been far more impactful had he kept it going. Sanders has no intention of shutting down his "revolution" (not my words) whether he does or doesn't get the nomination. There's going to be some serious pressure (like there already has) on congress in the years to come. I don't think the same ol' same ol' will continue much longer. I don't mean to be a fan boy, but it's pretty phenomenal what he / they have done since 2016, and it resonates with a lot of people. CNN and MSNBC don't talk about it too often, but it's very real. Don't take my word for it though. Easily researched.
    - tptacek 7y ago
- heedlessly2 7y ago
  No, at the end of the day. People are humans and are affected by face-to-face interactions. Communication via television and internet feels impersonal. When a candidate visits your city, they discuss how your local and state politics tie together. So candidates can personalize their speeches towards a specific region per visit. Some people might not care about this, but many others will
hyperpape 7y ago
The answer is probably complicated. Game theoretically, they’ll pay attention[0] to the places where their campaigning has the biggest marginal impact, but that doesn’t immediately tell us much. That will make big urban areas appealing. However, if you think there are diminishing returns, it should cause them to spread that attention more, avoiding the last month where they repeatedly visit the same state over and over again. [0] This might or might mean visiting those states.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I'm not in favor of the electoral college, but wouldn't its elimination merely shift this problem to politicians only visiting the most poulated states (e.g. California) anyway? “Politicians”, no, it only effects Presidential (and Vice-Presidential) candidates. It has no direct effect on other politicians. Would it make them more likely to visit densely populated areas (where you can influence more poeple per unit time)? Yeah, probably. Right now, they focus on “swing states”, but within those states, on densely populated areas, for just that reason. But as long as there is a Senate, they'd be encouraged to visit small states (where a small number of voters determine a large share of power in the Senate, which can block both laws and Presidential appointments) for coattail effects. And they’d still be encouraged to spend efforts on campaigning in low-cost media markets where small money reaches lots of voters (even ones that would currently be neglected because the states aren't viewed as swingable), just probably not with personal visits as much, without some kind of broader free media exposure opportunities, because the candidates themselves can't be in more than one place at once.
cecilpl2 7y ago
Shouldn't politicians generally spend time and attention on the problems that affect the most people?
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  The region that gows all of our food affects us all. Just because you dont live in the midwest and population density is lower, does not make them less important.
delecti 7y ago
I've seen this pointed out, and absolutely do not see it as a problem. What's wrong with politicians paying more attention to the needs of more people? They're going to campaign somewhere, why should they pay more attention to Cleveland, Ohio (metro area population ~2m) than Los Angeles (city population 3m, metro population over 13m)?
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  The issue is more that everyone should get attention, and removing the electoral college & going straight to popular vote will honestly erode that- as others have noted, politicians will spend more time in the highest population areas and possibly not the highest need areas.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    > everyone should get attention I’m not entirely convinced presidential candidates share this belief.
  - delecti 7y ago
    They already don't spend time equally. Currently they spend time where the expected votes are closest to 50:50. Why is that preferable to going to where there are the most undecided voters, which is what would happen?
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    They'll spend more time campaigning in the areas with the most people who can be convinced to change their votes. This isn't necessarily going to be the highest population areas, as those areas tend to be solidly liberal. I don't know why the electoral college would be better at identifying high need areas than willingness to change your vote. Shouldn't people who need help be more likely to change their vote than to live in a purple state?
    - wh0knows 7y ago
      This isn't necessarily true. If a 10m pop area has a 70-30 split, it's still better to campaign there than a 5m pop area with a 50-50 split. In absolute numbers it's still 3 million supporters versus 2.5 million supporters.
pknopf 7y ago
Not if you make the votes proportional. There are a huge number of Republicans in California that would have just as much of a say than Florida/Ohio/etc.
zhoujianfu 7y ago
This site has good responses for that question here: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.5 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.5
ananonymoususer 7y ago
No, politicians would not need to visit California because the way in which the electoral college is being eliminated is by keeping it intact, but forcing the state electors to follow the federal trend instead of the local one. The result will be ALL of California's electors going "blue" regardless of how the individual people vote. If we figured out a way of actually eliminating the electoral college, then it's entirely possible that a presidential election would result in no candidate winning more than 50% of the popular vote, and there would need to be some way to conduct a run-off election. If this scenario had unfolded in the 1992 election, Bush would have won instead of Clinton.
surge 7y ago
We already have a problem with politicians getting the majority of their donations from people out of their district and even have very low approval ratings in their district. Something needs to be done to ensure all districts are equally represented and the representatives work for their constituents, not benefactors from out of state.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  The issue is that states aren't - really. There is no barrier so said division is arbitrary and unenforcable. Local has been pushing its siren song for a while when marketing but it is actually a reactionary countertrend to essentially everything else.
contravariant 7y ago
They'd still visit the places where they're most likely to gain votes. These places just won't be limited to a select few states any more.
CalRobert 7y ago
But that's where the people are. What's the problem?
rjmunro 7y ago
They would go to places where people are. Particularly the sort of people who might be amenable to changing their mind. It's true that because more people are in populated states, they would go to populated states more, but that's just fairness. See also https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/
hyperbovine 7y ago
Isn’t that how a functioning democratic republic is supposed to work?
newshorts 7y ago
Should the not focus their attention on the centers with the highest population?
beepboopbeep 7y ago
...is that bad? Why shouldn't the most populated areas be priority?
specialist 7y ago
I predict a presidential popular vote would have a moderating effect. Meaning more voters would be targeted. With FPTP, each side tries to have the smallest winning coalition. This results in more competitive races. So every vote would matter. Said another way, our current unfair gerrymandering worsens partisanship. Said yet another, when my local city council went from at-large positions to districts based, so kinda the opposite of from electoral college to presidential popular vote, candidate platforms went from "appeal city wide" mush to "better appeal to my district". (A better moderator would be to change from FPTP to approval voting or ranked choice voting. But that's another thread.) -- But to your point, in practical terms, with modern get out the vote (GOTV) technology and strategies, most every voter is already targeted. They're certainly accounted for. As the de facto head of their parties, presidential candidates are expected to do well every where, to help with down ballot races. As an extreme example, HRC 2016 was criticized for running up her margin in "safe" areas. But that's expected (demanded) of national (and statewide) candidates by the locals.
screye 7y ago
If 40 times as many people stay in California, it makes sense that they would go there 40 times more often. Why should people living dense regions be punished for it ?
stevetursi 7y ago
What it shifts is advertising from expensive media markets with small geographical boundaries (NY, LA) to less expensive ones that have large boundaries (Kansas City, Raleigh.) It works out that, because of the large boundaries, the cost to reach each consumer is far lower. Moreover, I'd wager that the stumps that stump speeches occur on will go to more places with more concentrated populations - there are more butts within n square miles to put in seats, as well as the most-watched news media. My opinion is that both outcomes are preferable to stumps AND media going to half a dozen battleground states.

WarDores 7y ago

Swing states shift, though. California was basically solid red from the 1950s through the 1980s. Until 2016, few people would have called Wisconsin or Michigan "swing states" judging from their voting in the past few elections. People move, demographics change.

hyperpape 7y ago
This is true, but I’m not sure having your vote count for a decade, then not count, then count again is all that much better. Note that going in to an election, the potential battleground states are usually known. Some states haven’t been swing states for a long time, too.
- WarDores 7y ago
  I'm not sure what the correct answer is. Winning a national contest is always going to be about coalition-building all said and done. Trump changed the calculus on the traditional GOP coalition (going after unions -- once considered a Democrat lock), and won states he "shouldn't" have. Coalitions line up with states in a lot of cases. If Democrats started pandering to farmers (I can see this happening), the midwest might look different. I don't see this as a "states not counting" problem as much as the issues that come up in national elections affect different populations in different ways. If there was a national popular vote, there would still be people who feel disenfranchised because the candidates don't see their chosen issues as vital to their coalition.
  - pishpash 7y ago
    We're witnessing a party re-alignment in real time.
ajmurmann 7y ago
I'm not sure that's actually true. There was a great graphic a few years back that showed party allegiance by state over time. You could see how most states used to be fairly split between both parties and how they frequently swung from party to party between elections. However, in the 80s or so many states started to align more closely with one party. Given the duration for which that has been going on, I wonder if that's the natural end state of a defacto two party system.

anon1m0us 7y ago

You should be careful about the word "small" here. What you mean is least populous, but geographically, they are large. Thus, the question is: Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? If you eliminate the electoral college you give political control of resources to those who have absolutely NO physical control of those resources and yet still suffer the impact of their environmental influence. What I mean is, people in California, Texas, and New York would push all the bad things to the rural states and take all the good parts, leaving those who live in the rural areas to feel the full brunt of those decisions. Take Louisiana as an example. It's been decimated by everyone who doesn't live there.

yks 7y ago
Currently it seems that rural states push all the bad things on themselves, e.g. climate change and other environmental destruction, so how much worse can it be for them?
- parineum 7y ago
  The non-rural states are responsible for more environmental damage but they export it to other states/countries.
0xB31B1B 7y ago
To be fair, the primary cause of the decimation of Louisiana is it’s state government. I would also add that the resources of the country belong to all of us, not just those who live in close proximity (aka the same state).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- vollmond 7y ago
  Does this apply to other borders? Do the resources of Canada or Iraq belong to "all of us"? Or just internal US resources?

jonas21 7y ago

Wyoming gets 7 electoral votes per million people, while New York gets only 1.9. That's a 3.6x difference -- I would hardly call that a "small" edge.

dmix 7y ago
Those aren't static numbers though. California used to have 4 electoral votes in 1850s (edit) and now they have 55 (Wyoming has always had 3, New York has 29 today down from a peak of 47 in the 1940s). The ratio of votes per capita is relatively consistent - assuming a baseline level of votes so individual states aren't totally excluded - and is more a sign of a potential problem with the distribution not the system itself. But there's plenty of arguments which favour both ways. Much like gerrymandering, which both sides have a long legal record of accusing the other of taking advantage of as the last two Supreme Court cases on the matter clearly demonstrates - each by the other, this seems to be a who's on the "winning" side motivation which misses the bigger picture. In this case it's the smaller states who have been basically given a guaranteed entrance ticket to play the game, which is different than simply giving the state extra votes relative to their size. It functions almost as a social safety net which gives you a shot, not a good shot at that, but only if you'd otherwise have no other shot. If it was only per capita (even with balancing for size) the numbers would look a lot different.
- jonas21 7y ago
  > California used to have 4 electoral votes in 1950s California had 32 electoral votes in the 1950s. You may have meant the 1850s, when California did have only 4 electoral votes. That's because California was tiny back then, with a population of under 100,000 in 1850. The electoral votes per capita has always been heavily skewed in favor small states. While it's true that some formerly small states have grown into large states, I don't see how that's relevant.
  - dmix 7y ago
    It's relevant because the numbers could be updated, while still giving the smaller states an entry ticket, while eliminating the only valid arguments against the whole policy (high multiples which are completely disconnected from population - not only when necessary, even among the big fast growing states like Texas). The other stuff about battleground states would have only a small connection to the electoral college, as even the small states would (still) only have a small amounts of votes, and have more to do with regional political trends. Of course there will be push back from who ever most benefits currently. But I'm sure the political machines will learn to adapt and adjust for their new markets. There will always be enough moderates to swing both ways. Each only has to focus on the important ones, so changing who is important shouldn't hurt the parties unless they don't like having power. Re 1850, thanks I updated my comment, I should note that doesn't change the fact they're not static.

rcpt 7y ago

Is visiting really the problem? I get the impression that issues that are huge for non-swing states, like housing, can be easily ignored despite the fact that they impact millions more people.

smsm42 7y ago

> If you live in Wyoming, the electoral college does not help you, because your vote is secure. For now. But if Wyoming doesn't like what happens with Republican party, it can change. There's a huge inertia in large parties, so probably won't happen overnight, but it's not a law of nature. From what I've heard, one of the reasons 2016 election went the way it did because Democrats considered certain states (not Wyoming) "secure" and didn't campaign there, while Republicans did, and turned out they've been not as secure as it seemed. The margins of victory in many states are not that wide, and the margins of uncertainty in any polls are wide, so it's never certain forever.

hyperpape 7y ago
I think it was pretty systematic. If you look at 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/), they were pretty accurate predicted which states were most and least likely to vote Trump or Clinton. It's just that in several states where they thought Clinton had a small lead, she lost. Meanwhile, there were no states they thought Trump had a small lead but he lost. The comparative judgments (Wisconsin is easier for Clinton to win than North Carolina, which is easier than Alabama) were right. The absolute judgments (Clinton will win Wisconsin) were wrong. If you had gone back in time and told Clinton's team "all the polls are too positive for you, you don't have a safety margin" they'd have known that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were at risk.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > "all the polls are too positive for you, you don't have a safety margin" they'd have known On my memory, this is not the first time polls tilt left. Politicians should have already learned that this is possible, especially with such an unorthodox candidate as Trump. My point also was that not many states are really "safe", yet less - forever. Relatively yes, some are further from the middle than others, but it's not a static picture and it's not a product of some permanent law but only current configuration which should never be taken for granted.
- Marazan 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Monroe13 7y ago

The electoral college most certainly favors small states but I agree with you it also creates battleground states and I agree that is the more important effect. It’s not a matter of whether battleground states deserve special protection, it’s a matter of whether or not the battleground states in any given election serve as a good representation of the nation as a whole? Are they a better representation than a popular vote which would consistently favor coastal urban centers?

Fomite 7y ago

This. Living in a rural area on the border between a solid Blue and solid Red state, no one cares.

mixmastamyk 7y ago

It also makes many votes useless. I live in California, it has gone to a Democrat every time since I've been a voter. For president, I can't affect California, and I can't affect the national election either, due to the EC. Not that I'd vote for Trump, but there's no practical reason to vote for president in that circumstance.

raverbashing 7y ago

Well, there's a potential "easy" way of solving this: making votes in the electoral college proportional to how the electorate voted in the state

gmoot 7y ago
Yes. You don't need to abolish the whole college, just do this. And states can do it on their own and immediately, no need to sign a pledge only takes effect at some possible future time. The problem with this, and with the pledge, is that it requires the states that benefit from the current system to voluntarily decrease their own influence. Which won't happen.
kd5bjo 7y ago
Alternatively, have each congressional district elect its own elector instead of a statewide pool. It gets even more interesting if the ballot only shows the potential electors’ names, without any party affiliation.

dclowd9901 7y ago

Very few people care if a candidate visits their state. I know I don't and I would be hard-pressed to list a single person that does. All I care about is if they're willing to answer questions directly and if their policies match my general ideas. In other words: if a candidate really wants to spend their whole campaign in Ohio, I could give a shit. Go for it. Abolish the electoral college. Now.

daleco 7y ago

Why aren't we talking about the Cambridge Analytica scandal example? Another issue of the Electoral colleges is that a candidate could target only a few amount of people (70k according to the documentary) for changing the course of the election. Even if this has been fixed by Facebook. Shouldn't it be considered as a major flaw of the election system? Source: "The great Hack" - Netflix doc.

ananonymoususer 7y ago
Why is it that the Cambridge Analytica "hack" is even an issue? The reason is because the data was used to get an "evil" republican elected. The exact same tactics were used to get Obama elected, and nobody seems to be complaining.
- daleco 7y ago
  It’s harder to manipulate millions of people rather than 70k. You’re right, it was also used to get Obama elected. It’s still wrong.
  - choppaface 7y ago
    Though Obama won the popular vote, too, by 8% and 4%, respectively. Obama would still be elected under these changes.
- SyneRyder 7y ago
  Indeed, the system Harper Reed built for the 2012 Obama campaign was widely hailed at the time for how it personalized campaigns to each individual voter, by building a big data store about every voter in the US: "Those apps include sophisticated analytics programs like Dreamcatcher, a tool developed to "microtarget" voters based on sentiments within text." "All of the data collected through various volunteer interactions and other outreach found its way into Narwhal's data store, where it could be mined for other purposes. Much of the data was streamed into Dreamcatcher and into a Vertica columnar database cluster used by the analytics team for deep dives into the data." [1] from Ars Technica: Built to win: Deep inside Obama’s campaign tech https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/built-to-win-deep-inside-obamas-campaign-tech/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/built...

lagadu 7y ago

Furthermore: Ohio is the single strongest predictor of the presidential election winner. Ohio is the only state where the local winner has matched the overall winner since 1960.

verbify 7y ago
I believe that to be a case of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

_pmf_ 7y ago

> There are discussions about the electoral college favoring small states. Some people think that's bad, some people think it's good. Diversity is only good when it concerns pink haired loud cat ladies, not rural farmers.

the6threplicant 7y ago

Isn't that the whole point of the Senate?

Shivetya 7y ago

It is not there to protect small states, it is there to protect from super large states. As in, no matter how big you get or how lopsided your political apparatus is the state cannot absolutely tip the balance. a popular vote presidency would be a disaster for the US, the illusion that votes matter would be completely destroyed at that level. it is like the difference of comparing a state only lottery to the multi state lottery

jshowa3 7y ago
a popular vote presidency would be a disaster for the US, the illusion that votes matter would be completely destroyed at that level. This is completely false. Having a popular vote would at least adequately represent, mathematically, the demographics of the US citizenry and what they want in a candidate. Now, FPTP is not the greatest voting scheme, I would prefer some sort of rank choice voting, but at least you would get a statistical representation of the populace with FPTP. The electoral college is such an antiquated, outdated system that only favors fringe views.

tekknik 7y ago

What I find interesting is this only came up after Trump got elected. What this says is it’s not about how “broken” the electoral college is and more so trying to elect more liberal presidents, since the densely populated areas tend to hive mind. We would have essentially 2 states voting in the new president, and both of these states are very liberal. Why didn’t this come up during Obama? This is an attempt at the liberal elite to get rid of a system that stops them from winning 100% of the time. This is how civil wars are started

hyperpape 7y ago
The electoral college has been criticized for generations: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-07/electoral-college-debate-has-dramatically-changed-in-50-years https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-07/electo..., though the contours of the debate have changed. As for the charge of hypocrisy, were Republicans passionately praising the wisdom of the electoral college in the 1990s? It cuts both ways.

notSupplied 7y ago

Here is a fun thought exercise: why group by state? A person's political views is not just shaped by where they live, but their race, gender, sexual orientation, education etc etc. If "location" is just another column in the table properties that describe a person, what if we had a "college" or "senate" based on some other property of an individual? How about we give all citizens who identify as straight 2 seats and all those who identify as gay 2 seats in this imaginary senate? Or a college roughly based on race, but for some reason the smaller races are grossly over represented? How about by religion? As an atheist myself, I'd love to get in on some of that sweet over-representation-of-minorities mojo that Ohioans get. My point is, cut this along any other descriptive property of an individual other than what state they live in and you get all sorts of colorful results that I'm sure would appall all the conservative proponents of the Electoral college or the Senate. Is state or location really the most important a property when it comes to deciding whether or not you are a "minority?" When it comes to national issues, do you think a gay black man in Nebraska has more in common with a striaght white man in Nebraska? Or another gay black man in New York? Why does the one in Nebraska get to be an overrepresented minority, yet the one in New York get to be an underrepresented majority?