Romney wins presidential debate

[Elok]

You realize that could be done right now, don't you? Under the constitution, states can assign electors any way they like--including without an election at all.

Yes, including the plan gribbler introduced (which I had read about before, but thanks for mentioning it, grib). At present, however, the majority--IIRC, all but two states--go winner-takes-all.

But you realize, if your vote is meaningless, everybody's vote is equally meaningless. Their voice may be the one represented, but by your logic, no one's voice is represented because and individual's choice does not affect the outcome. This would be true under any system unless the victor wins by exactly one vote. It would just be more reflected in the final tally.

? No, under a direct popular election, every vote for a candidate would count towards the final tally. They might not win, but each vote would push the balance to some extent. As it stands, 49.5% of a state's population can vote for a candidate and have no influence whatever on the nationwide contest. Their ballots are effectively thrown out at the state level. Multiply that by forty or so for all of the states that lean very strongly in one direction or another, and you can see why voter turnout isn't so high. It's just playing out a farce.

EDIT: wrote this wrong. I probably shouldn't start arguments after a long day at work on four hours of sleep...

[DaShi]

Elections are all for show now that the Free Masons have gained complete control of the process. Incumbents are guaranteed victory.

[Aeson]

The electoral college is ridiculous. It makes it possible for someone with ~34% (or even lower with 3+ candidates) of the popular vote to beat someone with ~66% of the popular vote. Theoretically you could get to the point where there are enough candidates that a candidate with ~50 people (not percent ... people) voting for them wins, even though ~50% of the population votes for another candidate.

Of course that's not going to happen to that extent. And rarely will happen to the extent that the popular vote doesn't match up to the electoral vote in effect. It could be avoided almost completely if states would go to proportional electorates ... but they are incentived not to! Going winner-takes-all means that they matter more as a state. If they're allotting electoral votes proportionally, no one is going to give a **** about them even if they're a state where the "winner" is in question. Only the winner-take-all battleground states really matter in Presidential elections. (Largely because of the two-party system. Which is itself incentived over 3rd party+ systems by the electoral college.)

This battleground state status has a very real effect on elections, party platforms, and policy. It tells people in battleground states that they matter more than people in "sure" states. It's not just the losers who don't matter in those "sure" states ... it's the winners too. Politicians and parties will spend much more time and political capital to appease voters in battleground states.

So because Florida is a battleground state, the things Florida cares about (Cuba, old people) get more support than they would if we were going with the popular vote or proportional allotment of electoral votes.

[Aeson]

dp

[C0ckney]

you have very neatly described the problem with 'winner takes all' or first past the post electoral systems. only the 'battleground' or marginal places matter and obviously politics comes to reflect that.