Thank you. I was in a rush, trying to show how both the electoral college and popular vote have strengths and weaknesses. The popular vote, if using voter ID, would be the best choice in my opinion.
It would depend on who was in congress and for that matter who was president.
but it says that this will only kick in when and if they have the EVs for that person to win, so if they only have 260 EVs and keep in mind they are realloted every ten years then it will not work.
Yes, they will need more states to join this initiative for this to work. They just got one more containing 4 votes. Currently they are at 209, with states containing more than a hundred EVs having this legislation pending. It's still a long way to go, but not impossible by a long shot. As for reallotment, does that change the makeup for the electoral college that much? I've looked at the maps for 2010 and 2020, and there were either no changes or only one voter up or down, with the exception of Texas. And those changes can help the states who enacted this proposal as much as they can hinder them.
usually not that much, but it could be enough because they need 270 so if the votes came out to be say 268 during a couple of cycles and then up to 270 the next two or three. For example, this time there were like I think five or maybe six states that changed their votes they do not change a whole heck of a lot, but it does not take a whole heck of a lot either. Another example, and this has not happened in decades and would not be likely to happen, but third parties with the EV even if a third party wins one state that could turn the election and this particular election I am actually really interested to see not because I think a third party has a prayer of winning any EVs though I could be wrong, but because the two viable options are SO unpopular that looking at the polls in some states as many as 3 in 10 people would prefer a third party so I am interested to see which major party the third parties pull more votes away from that will likely determine who wins this election along with whose base is more motivated to vote.
Yes, all very fascinating theoreticals. On the other hand, I think that this initiative is a good thing. It might take a lot of the high-stakes TV drama out of the presidential election, but it's fairer and easier to understand than the outdated electoral college, which made sense when people voted for local representatives they knew and trusted to pick the right man for the job (which they barely knew and never saw).
I do not know if it would do a whole lot about the drama in fact it may make it worse since you would have to spend resources semi equally in all states. Right now, with only a handful of states really mattering and I happen to live in one may make me bias as my vote actually DOSE count more than most you can focus your resources where it is going to count. For example, right now it would make VERY little sense for Trump to spend a whole heck of a lot of resources in say CA where it is very blue. Meanwhile, Biden would be crazy to spend a whole lot of resources in AL that is so red that really even on the state level ( as opposed to the national level) there is very little point in democrats voting in most elections. On the other hand BOTH parties spend a lot here next door in GA because we are one of the very few states that are likely to decide he election
No I did not mean it like that. Instead I meant that right now you can focus your resources as opposed to having to spread them across 50+places
It would be awful if the one nation wide office we have had to try to appeal to the whole nation because reasons, clearly.
Why spend resources at places less likely to matter. Most states lean one way or the other anyway, so even with a popular vote system why would you spend a lot of money in a state where you KNOW most people do not support you. Like I said in many (if not most states state elections are the same way in tat the state is so red or blue that the opposing party (generally) has a hard time getting in office. Even with the house ( which is a federal or state office, but whose members are chosen on the local level VERY few districts tend to be competitive . There are 435 seats in the US house every two years all 435 of them are up for grabs yet there are MAYBE 20 districts that are competitive as far as whether a Republican or democrat will get the seat.
I mean that just highlights the issue with the EC. 6 million people voted for Trump in California in 2020. That's more than any other state of the Union, including Texas. Yet Trump did not campaign at all in that state but chose to focus on Georgia, which netted him only 40% of the same number of votes. But because Georgia was a swing state, those votes were more important than the ones in California.
not all places matter equally unless the people are evenly spread ( party wise) across the country which they are not. You would still want to focus on the areas of the country which are more mixed.
I am confused if a person knows that most people in a given states are likely to vote for the opposing party why would they spend money in that state?
Because those votes would matter is people, rather then states, got to vote for president.
