8 ms·
I think the problem would be that the focus would not necessarily be on urban voters (they are pretty dependable Democratic votes) but on very specific swing-vo
by gwright 14y ago
I think the problem would be that the focus would not necessarily be on urban voters (they are pretty dependable Democratic votes) but on very specific swing-voter geographies. This is also an issue with the existing Electoral College but is mediated by the fact that the smallest geographical unit (in most cases) is an entire state.
The Electoral College also helps to avoid a national recount should the popular vote be very close.
- raldi 14y agoStatistically, the odds of an election being close enough to require a recount is infinitesimally smaller with a single nationwide pool of 300 million voters than it is with 50 smaller pools. In other words, getting rid of the Electoral College would make recounts far less likely.
- gwright 14y agoYou are assuming that votes are randomly distributed, they are not. In fact the majority of votes are fixed (reliable Republican or Democratic votes). Even so, you really want to consider the 'pain' associated with the unlikely event not the probability of the event itself. The pain associated with the recount within a single state is much less than the pain associated with a recount for the entire country, even if the national recount scenario is less likely (even much less likely).