6 ms·

The United States has a federal government for a reason. The government is constructed in such a way that the majority doesn't get whatever it wants, if that ma

The United States has a federal government for a reason. The government is constructed in such a way that the majority doesn't get whatever it wants, if that majority isn't broadly representative of America as a whole. In particular, the Electoral College ensures presidential candidates must appeal to a wide variety of people, from across multiple regions of America - instead of just focusing on running up the totals in large cities, which is what would happen if the Electoral College didn't exist. In the last election both political parties had to pay attention to the entirety of the electorate, from every county, in states as diverse as Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Nevada. You could do America a favor by calling your state representatives and telling them what a goofy idea this is.

Cushman 14y ago
Please read the site. You are exactly wrong. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php MYTH: Candidates would "fly over" most of the country under a national popular vote. This criticism applies to the current system of electing the President—not a national popular vote. Under the current system, two-thirds of the states are indeed "fly-over" country. In 2004, the presidential candidates concentrated two-thirds of their campaign visits and money in just five states, 80% in just nine states, and 99% of their money in just 16 states. As early as the spring of 2008, the major political parties acknowledged that there would be only 14 battleground states in 2008. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just states, and 98% in just 15 states.
- gyardley 14y ago
  I did read the site, and I am exactly right. You just don't understand the point I'm making. Where did the candidates go in the states they did visit? Did they just stick to the cities, or did they go talk to people in small communities? Did they decide that they could get by with only one type of person, or did they have to try to appeal to the entire population of that state? I am pretty confident that a presidential campaign that has to contend with rural and small-town voters in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado will have to take into consideration some people like me, even though my state's not going to be a 'swing state' any time soon. Those states are plenty different and there's plenty of difference within them, as well. I can't say the same about a campaign that focuses on the top fifty metropolitan statistical areas, which is exactly what would happen with your scheme.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    > I did read the site, I want to believe you, but it's hard to when it refutes the exact claim you're making: MYTH: Only the big cities, such as Los Angeles, would matter under a national popular vote. ... The populations of the 50 largest cities together constitute only 19% of the nation's population. Arlington, Texas is the nation's 50th largest city (with an estimated population of 363,000 in 2005).
    - gyardley 14y ago
      Your advocacy site is confusing 'city' with 'metropolitan area', probably deliberately. Here's some real stats: In 2010, the fifty largest metropolitan statistical areas had a population of 166,033,000 -- 53.8% of the United States' 308,745,000 people. In the 2012 election, Los Angeles County alone had more voters than any of thirty-two of America's fifty states. Also in the 2012 election, just 150 of America's 3,033 counties - less than five percent of the total, and all attached to a metropolitan area - made up 50% of the vote. Given a limited amount of time to get in front of the voters, where do you think the candidates are going to go? Do this thing, and the days of candidates getting outside an urban area are pretty much over.
      - Cushman 14y ago
        So, disregarding the fact that an MSA includes an urban center and its non-urban surrounds... You're saying that a candidate is going to just pander to every voter in, say, the Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area (#35, population 1.7 million) and ignore the rest of Indiana (population 4.8 million). > Given a limited amount of time to get in front of the voters, where do you think the candidates are going to go? Do this thing, and the days of candidates getting outside an urban area are pretty much over. I don't really care where they go; re-enfranchising the majority of the country will mean that personal visits by candidates to a handful of geographic areas will be much less important than, for example, their policies. I'm sorry if that sounds like a bad thing to you, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that.
        14y ago
- diminoten 14y ago
  15 states as opposed to what, under a popular vote? certainly not 50, and probably not 1.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    Why not 50? Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium-sized, and large towns of every small, medium-sized, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every potential customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off a particular state merely because a competitor has an 8% lead in sales. Furthermore, a national advertiser with an 8% edge in a particular state does not stop trying to make additional sales in the state.
    - diminoten 14y ago
      Because to get 50% + 1 of the votes from a national popular vote, you don't need to campaign in all 50 states, as there are some states which are more populous than other states. National advertisers are more expensive, and don't help local races as much or at all. Spend less money, hit more people in states with more people in them.
      - Cushman 14y ago
        In a national campaign, anywhere you don't advertise, you leave up for grabs by your competition. Currently, candidates can get away with leaving most undecided voters on the table, because the mechanics of the electoral college mean that their votes don't matter anyway. That fundamentally changes if I can counter your Times Square billboard with a direct mail campaign in Minnesota.
        diminoten 14y ago
        > In a national campaign, anywhere you don't advertise, you leave up for grabs by your competition. And you can have Nebraska. The whole state, I wouldn't run a single ad there for a national campaign, in either scenario. Why would I? The ad money I might have to spend in Nebraska to get a thousand eyeballs might get me closer to ten thousand eyeballs in California or New York. Not to mention the ten thousand eyeballs I get in New York are also eyeballs I want to see my general platform and the fact that my party exists, because as you may well know, most people vote a straight ticket. I see a lot of compelling reasons to believe that local media would remain a primary means of communication between candidates and prospective voters, even if we switched to a popular vote.
nikcub 14y ago
Look at the last few election campaigns, the candidates spend all of their time in tossup states with a large number of college votes. The candidates only go to New York or California to raise more money to spend in Ohio of Florida.
ruswick 14y ago
Or did you miss the 6 months of campaigning this year in which the candidates spent almost the entirety of their time and money in a handful of districts? The electoral college coerces candidates into appealing only to a small number of strategic areas. If anything, a popular vote liberates candidates because they can make gains anywhere, and appeal to minority (the minority political party, that is) populations in areas where they wouldn't have bothered to go otherwise because the winner-take-all system makes it fruitless. When every vote counts, candidates have an incentive to appeal to everyone.

Cushman 14y ago

Please read the site. You are exactly wrong. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php MYTH: Candidates would "fly over" most of the country under a national popular vote. This criticism applies to the current system of electing the President—not a national popular vote. Under the current system, two-thirds of the states are indeed "fly-over" country. In 2004, the presidential candidates concentrated two-thirds of their campaign visits and money in just five states, 80% in just nine states, and 99% of their money in just 16 states. As early as the spring of 2008, the major political parties acknowledged that there would be only 14 battleground states in 2008. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just states, and 98% in just 15 states.

gyardley 14y ago
I did read the site, and I am exactly right. You just don't understand the point I'm making. Where did the candidates go in the states they did visit? Did they just stick to the cities, or did they go talk to people in small communities? Did they decide that they could get by with only one type of person, or did they have to try to appeal to the entire population of that state? I am pretty confident that a presidential campaign that has to contend with rural and small-town voters in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado will have to take into consideration some people like me, even though my state's not going to be a 'swing state' any time soon. Those states are plenty different and there's plenty of difference within them, as well. I can't say the same about a campaign that focuses on the top fifty metropolitan statistical areas, which is exactly what would happen with your scheme.
- Cushman 14y ago
  > I did read the site, I want to believe you, but it's hard to when it refutes the exact claim you're making: MYTH: Only the big cities, such as Los Angeles, would matter under a national popular vote. ... The populations of the 50 largest cities together constitute only 19% of the nation's population. Arlington, Texas is the nation's 50th largest city (with an estimated population of 363,000 in 2005).
  - gyardley 14y ago
    Your advocacy site is confusing 'city' with 'metropolitan area', probably deliberately. Here's some real stats: In 2010, the fifty largest metropolitan statistical areas had a population of 166,033,000 -- 53.8% of the United States' 308,745,000 people. In the 2012 election, Los Angeles County alone had more voters than any of thirty-two of America's fifty states. Also in the 2012 election, just 150 of America's 3,033 counties - less than five percent of the total, and all attached to a metropolitan area - made up 50% of the vote. Given a limited amount of time to get in front of the voters, where do you think the candidates are going to go? Do this thing, and the days of candidates getting outside an urban area are pretty much over.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      So, disregarding the fact that an MSA includes an urban center and its non-urban surrounds... You're saying that a candidate is going to just pander to every voter in, say, the Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area (#35, population 1.7 million) and ignore the rest of Indiana (population 4.8 million). > Given a limited amount of time to get in front of the voters, where do you think the candidates are going to go? Do this thing, and the days of candidates getting outside an urban area are pretty much over. I don't really care where they go; re-enfranchising the majority of the country will mean that personal visits by candidates to a handful of geographic areas will be much less important than, for example, their policies. I'm sorry if that sounds like a bad thing to you, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that.
      - 14y ago
diminoten 14y ago
15 states as opposed to what, under a popular vote? certainly not 50, and probably not 1.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Why not 50? Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium-sized, and large towns of every small, medium-sized, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every potential customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off a particular state merely because a competitor has an 8% lead in sales. Furthermore, a national advertiser with an 8% edge in a particular state does not stop trying to make additional sales in the state.
  - diminoten 14y ago
    Because to get 50% + 1 of the votes from a national popular vote, you don't need to campaign in all 50 states, as there are some states which are more populous than other states. National advertisers are more expensive, and don't help local races as much or at all. Spend less money, hit more people in states with more people in them.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      In a national campaign, anywhere you don't advertise, you leave up for grabs by your competition. Currently, candidates can get away with leaving most undecided voters on the table, because the mechanics of the electoral college mean that their votes don't matter anyway. That fundamentally changes if I can counter your Times Square billboard with a direct mail campaign in Minnesota.
      - diminoten 14y ago
        > In a national campaign, anywhere you don't advertise, you leave up for grabs by your competition. And you can have Nebraska. The whole state, I wouldn't run a single ad there for a national campaign, in either scenario. Why would I? The ad money I might have to spend in Nebraska to get a thousand eyeballs might get me closer to ten thousand eyeballs in California or New York. Not to mention the ten thousand eyeballs I get in New York are also eyeballs I want to see my general platform and the fact that my party exists, because as you may well know, most people vote a straight ticket. I see a lot of compelling reasons to believe that local media would remain a primary means of communication between candidates and prospective voters, even if we switched to a popular vote.

nikcub 14y ago

Look at the last few election campaigns, the candidates spend all of their time in tossup states with a large number of college votes. The candidates only go to New York or California to raise more money to spend in Ohio of Florida.

ruswick 14y ago

Or did you miss the 6 months of campaigning this year in which the candidates spent almost the entirety of their time and money in a handful of districts? The electoral college coerces candidates into appealing only to a small number of strategic areas. If anything, a popular vote liberates candidates because they can make gains anywhere, and appeal to minority (the minority political party, that is) populations in areas where they wouldn't have bothered to go otherwise because the winner-take-all system makes it fruitless. When every vote counts, candidates have an incentive to appeal to everyone.