13 years on what are your thoughts on the U.S. presidential election of 2000?

[Ben Kenobi]

Exactly so. Thanks Drake. Removing this check will make it just as meaningful to get a vote in CA as a vote anywhere in the country. It will mean the opposite that the largest states will dominate, which means we'll get CA governance everywhere.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't get your point. If a guy wins a blowout in California and other places (because 100% in California and 0% everywhere else doesn't equal popular vote landslide, it equals loss) because he'd still need some blow outs in other places in order to win the popular vote. What's the difference between winning a blowout in California, or winning one in Texas and Florida? In the end, it takes more people in the country voting for the winner, and what is wrong with that?

Obama won by a 5 million margin. Half of which he racked up in 2 counties only, LA and Cook county. The current system mitigates this by awarding him two states, CA and Illinois. Popular vote would make those votes stand as sufficient margin to win the entire election outright.

Do you want LA and Cook county alone deciding who and who will not win?

[Tupac Shakur]

It will mean the opposite that the largest states will dominate, which means we'll get CA governance everywhere.

Or Texas governance, which could be worse depending on your point of view.

[Aeson]

The EC actually gives both parties an incentive not to play to the extremes. Picking up extra votes from extremely left-wing people in California doesn't help the Democrats any, while picking up extra votes from extremely right-wing people in Texas doesn't help the GOP any.

Irrelevant because they cancel each other out across the national population. By focusing on specific swing states you give the loonies in those states more sway.

Both parties have to target their messages to appeal to the population of swing states which, while certainly containing members of both the left and right-wing fringes, are the most evenly balanced states in the country in terms of partisan political leaning.

No, the populations of those states aren't balanced in regards to regional policies. Retirees in Florida don't want SS fixed. Cuban exiles in Florida don't want the embargo to end. Farmers in mid-west swing states don't want farm subsidies to end.

Supporters of the EC just hate young people, free trade, and free market competition.

[giblets]

The EC actually gives both parties an incentive not to play to the extremes. Picking up extra votes from extremely left-wing people in California doesn't help the Democrats any, while picking up extra votes from extremely right-wing people in Texas doesn't help the GOP any. Both parties have to target their messages to appeal to the population of swing states which, while certainly containing members of both the left and right-wing fringes, are the most evenly balanced states in the country in terms of partisan political leaning.

Under the current system politicians only pander to extremists to win primaries and secure funding. Totally different.

[kentonio]

Exactly so. Thanks Drake. Removing this check will make it just as meaningful to get a vote in CA as a vote anywhere in the country. It will mean the opposite that the largest states will dominate, which means we'll get CA governance everywhere.

That's pretty stupid. Unless there are more votes to be had in CA than in the entire rest of the goddamn country, then pandering to the CA vote only would risk losing huge chunks of the more moderate votes elsewhere.

Having to work for votes everywhere means that parties have to be moderate to win. If they move towards either extreme they risk pissing off huge numbers of people in the other wing of the party. Why on earth do you think the Republicans keep getting their asses kicked since they went so far right?

[Ming]

Obama won by a 5 million margin. Half of which he racked up in 2 counties only, LA and Cook county. The current system mitigates this by awarding him two states, CA and Illinois. Popular vote would make those votes stand as sufficient margin to win the entire election outright.

Hell... CA and Illinois alone were 60% of his margin of victory in the EC and over a quarter of what he needed to win. So what's the difference?
You keep making it sound like those two states are only powerful if it were a popular vote. Well guess what, they are just as powerful under the EC.

[DinoDoc]

You keep making it sound like those two states are only powerful if it were a popular vote. Well guess what, they are just as powerful under the EC.

They are meaningless in the EC. In 2012, I would be surprised if either campaign focused much effort there when other states were actually competitive.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

They focussed their time there in order to fund raise. But as far as cash expenditure per capita likely extremely small andlikely only targeted for local race help where needed.

[Ming]

They are meaningless in the EC. In 2012, I would be surprised if either campaign focused much effort there when other states were actually competitive.

The reason why neither party will focus any effort there is that under the EC, pretty much nothing will change the outcome.
But Meaningless? 75 EC votes in the hip pocket of the Dems is hardly meaningless.

[DinoDoc]

But Meaningless? 75 EC votes in the hip pocket of the Dems is hardly meaningless.

Any EC vote not in a swing state is meaningless. Seriously, Illinois and California have about as much influence on the election as Mississippi.

[Ming]

Over a quarter of the votes needed to win the election in just those two states... yeah, really meaningless.

Let's see... which would either party take... CA/IL or Mississippi... tough choice... only for you.

[Sava]

Any EC vote not in a swing state is meaningless. Seriously, Illinois and California have about as much influence on the election as Mississippi.

I disagree. Every state matters. Don't buy into the 24/7 cable news media valuation of things. The so called battleground states are just more competitive. The most meaningful states by EC standards are the ones with the most EC votes. You don't get less EC votes just because a state is likely to go for a particular party.

[DinoDoc]

Let's see... which would either party take... CA/IL or Mississippi...

Neither one of those States are competitive, Ming. So your question is stupid and you should feel bad for asking it.

[Sava]

So your question is stupid and you should feel bad for asking it.