We Should Elect A President Of The United States, Not A President Of The Midwest

For most of my life I have not been too concerned about the electoral college deciding US elections because it seemed like the electoral college always mirrored the popular vote. That changed in 2000, when the electoral college and the popular vote produced contradictory results. I felt at the time that discrepancy was a misfortune for the country. In 2004 the winning candidate won a solid victory in the popular vote but only a narrow victory in the electoral vote., more evidence of disconnect between the electoral college and the popular vote.

Now we have a situation in which once the major party nominations are secured, virtually the whole election is fought out in less than a dozen "battleground" or "swing" states. The concentration on those states is so intense that there is no longer even that much national TV advertising in the campaign. I don't think this is good for America. Many people are expecting today's election to produce different winners in the popular and electoral votes. The truth is the votes of the people in most states, including my own, matter a lot less than the votes of the people in the battleground states.

Call or e-mail your congressmen and ask them to support a constitutional amendment for electing the president by popular vote.
conceptualclarity conceptualclarity
51-55, M
2 Responses Nov 6, 2012

Ever been to Idaho or an extremely right wing state? There's a reason a beautiful place like Idaho has such a small population. Yikes. They deserve less total votes! The system works: like it or hate it. Just remember where budgets and laws are set..... And, it isn't in the White House. Yeah, ratified there but politics and the nature of the constitution govern the actions of the executive branch..... All is well!

No... Just people dumb enough to vote against their best interest. Take the roads, schools, and fires departments that exist there. Constitutional limitations have nothing to do with the conditions in Idaho or this subject.

Ever been to NYC or LA? Too many votes in those cities' states. They deserve less votes. Get your head out of the sand, ignorant liberal.

Yeah right. Since I live next to Idaho, I've heard that talking point a million times: Idaho: property tax, income tax, sales tax, tab fee based upon some made up value..... So, their doing a fine job thinking for themselves about lower taxes..... Ever drive on thier crap roads or the most deadly stretch of road in the country... All in Idaho from those peopl who think for themselves. Good job with that small government lie.

Ignorant.... The states you sited do not feed from the federal government ***.... Idaho does. In fact, most all "Republican State" do! Name calling does not work with me. Have a nice day.

Well, I thought Europe was not part of the US.... Maybe that's just me. That system could never be in the US unless the two parties come together to solve our problems. The Republicans got their ***** handed to them for a reason. I'm sure you recognize that the talking points on Fox, Rush and the rest are flawed. The tax rate for those making over 32K was 55% after WWII to pay down the cost of the war. Think about that. Bush lowered rates and Obama renewed those rates (like a moron that he is for listening to the conservatives within his own party). This is the first time in US history were we have passed the cost of a war and infrastructure to the next two generations. If anything, the Republican Party is anti-American for advocating this. Bush didn't even have the war and his spending on the books! How can any Republican defend such dishonesty with it's constituents?

2 More Responses

how did the electoral college even get its start?