5 ms·

What specific concrete difference do you see happening in that case? What does it mean to "campaign to all people"?

comex 14y ago
Candidates currently essentially have no reason to pay any attention whatsoever to non-competitive states, but if the election were a popular vote, going from, say, 20% to 40% in a state would be a significant advantage.
afterburner 14y ago
If you can move one percent of the population everywhere with some nation-wide issues, that's huge. Currently, that strategy is less useful, being costly and with less payoff.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
One effect - economic conservatism may make a comeback. NY, CA and several other liberal states tend to have people who call themselves "conservatives" (folks like me). We tend to be libertarian leaning economic conservatives who don't identify with religious culture war stuff (war on christmas, the gays are gonna get you). We get ignored since our vote doesn't matter. This leads to national candidates who are basically Democrats with a little bit of Jesus thrown in (e.g. Bush, Romney), albeit answering to different special interest groups.
- backprojection 14y ago
  Isn't what you're describing more an effect of a two-party system? Unrelated policies tend to get pushed together just because they fit best under one party vs. the other one.
- jbooth 14y ago
  That'd be nice, but for the record, spending a lot of money on the military and cutting taxes (Bush, Romney) is not 'basically democrats with a little bit of jesus thrown in'. I think your beef is more with the national security conservatives than the religious ones, religion is orthogonal to economic conservatism and often employed in its favor (megachurches hating on 'socialism', etc)
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    spending a lot of money on the military and cutting taxes (Bush, Romney) is not 'basically democrats with a little bit of jesus thrown in' I'm referring to spending lots of money on subsidized medicine (Busy, Romney), assorted redistribution schemes (Bush, Romney), increasing the regulatory state (Bush), more executive power (Bush), opposing freedom of political speech (Romney), opposing free speech on the internet (Bush, Romney) and pushing/subsidizing real estate speculation (Bush, Romney).
    - jbooth 14y ago
      Well, FWIW, Obama's cut federal domestic discretionary spending relative to the economy, inflation and other measures and has promised to continue to do so in his next term. Of course, military and entitlements need to be addressed as well but reducing healthcare costs is obviously a priority of his as is reducing military spending. Maybe you should just vote democrat.

comex 14y ago

Candidates currently essentially have no reason to pay any attention whatsoever to non-competitive states, but if the election were a popular vote, going from, say, 20% to 40% in a state would be a significant advantage.

afterburner 14y ago

If you can move one percent of the population everywhere with some nation-wide issues, that's huge. Currently, that strategy is less useful, being costly and with less payoff.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

One effect - economic conservatism may make a comeback. NY, CA and several other liberal states tend to have people who call themselves "conservatives" (folks like me). We tend to be libertarian leaning economic conservatives who don't identify with religious culture war stuff (war on christmas, the gays are gonna get you). We get ignored since our vote doesn't matter. This leads to national candidates who are basically Democrats with a little bit of Jesus thrown in (e.g. Bush, Romney), albeit answering to different special interest groups.

backprojection 14y ago
Isn't what you're describing more an effect of a two-party system? Unrelated policies tend to get pushed together just because they fit best under one party vs. the other one.
jbooth 14y ago
That'd be nice, but for the record, spending a lot of money on the military and cutting taxes (Bush, Romney) is not 'basically democrats with a little bit of jesus thrown in'. I think your beef is more with the national security conservatives than the religious ones, religion is orthogonal to economic conservatism and often employed in its favor (megachurches hating on 'socialism', etc)
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  spending a lot of money on the military and cutting taxes (Bush, Romney) is not 'basically democrats with a little bit of jesus thrown in' I'm referring to spending lots of money on subsidized medicine (Busy, Romney), assorted redistribution schemes (Bush, Romney), increasing the regulatory state (Bush), more executive power (Bush), opposing freedom of political speech (Romney), opposing free speech on the internet (Bush, Romney) and pushing/subsidizing real estate speculation (Bush, Romney).
  - jbooth 14y ago
    Well, FWIW, Obama's cut federal domestic discretionary spending relative to the economy, inflation and other measures and has promised to continue to do so in his next term. Of course, military and entitlements need to be addressed as well but reducing healthcare costs is obviously a priority of his as is reducing military spending. Maybe you should just vote democrat.