Mini-editorial: The Divided States of America

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Hillary Rodham Clinton and every member of the soon-to-be crowded field of Republican contenders will claim that they'll compete for the vote of each and every American, but that's just not true.

Each vote cast in the 2016 presidential election will count, but only a fraction of those votes will have any actual significance because of the electoral college setup.

No matter how you analyze it, only a small percentage of voters will cast meaningful votes, and that's why you won't see Hillary making campaign swings through Texas or Oklahoma and why you won't see any of the GOP hopefuls making many, if any, campaign stops in New York or California, although those states have many millions of voters.

As everyone should know, the popular vote means nothing in presidential elections. The only thing that counts is the number of electoral votes, and a significant majority of such votes are locked up before the process even begins.

Is there any doubt that New York and California will wind up in the Democratic camp or that the electoral votes of Texas and South Carolina will go the GOP's way?

Indeed, four of the five largest populated states can already be safely "counted" as secure for one party or the other. And those states contain 26 percent of the nation's residents, all of whom will have no real say in the presidential outcome.

By the same token, in 12 of the 20 largest states, there is no doubt as to which way their combined 236 electoral votes (or 44.1 percent) will go.

Campaign appearances in California or Texas will be virtually non-existent, whereas the candidates will swarm to "swing states" such as Ohio, Florida and Colorado.

Even stretching the possibilities -- because there may not even be that many -- only 14 states potentially fall into the "swing state" category, meaning that just 30.5 percent of the popular vote has any true meaning or value.

Breaking it down still further, even most of the "swing state" electorate will have their minds made up, leaving only a relatively small percentage of undecided and independents to determine which way the state goes.

Yes, every vote counts, but if you live in any of 36 states, your presidential vote will have no relevance whatsoever. And was that foreseen when the electoral college system was established? Not likely.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Yeah, it's pretty screwed up. Yet I'm not sold on popular vote either. If you go by popular vote, nobody outside of major metro areas matter. There has to be some balance.

Electoral votes are all or nothing, except in a couple states I believe. Why not allot electoral votes based on percentages? If a state has 3 electoral votes (the current min), then it takes 66.7% for a candidate to get all 3, otherwise it's split 2 and 1. If a state gets 55 votes (current max), then every 1.82% of the popular vote gets you 1 electoral vote.

Seems this would at least give the "minority" in each state a little more voice in the outcome (and incentive to cast a vote in the first place) without completely eliminating all importance of votes from states like Montana, Wyoming, and both Dakotas.
 
Last edited:

Robadat

Member
I've always said that the electoral votes should be divied up like they're allotted. Each Congressional district gets one electoral vote, and each State gets two electoral votes. The candidate that wins in each Congressional district should get that vote, and the candidate that wins the State overall vote should get the 2 State votes...
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
I've always said that the electoral votes should be divied up like they're allotted. Each Congressional district gets one electoral vote, and each State gets two electoral votes. The candidate that wins in each Congressional district should get that vote, and the candidate that wins the State overall vote should get the 2 State votes...
My only problem with this is Gerrymandering...
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
A case could be made that no possible voting system would be totally fair, but the current situation (as outlined in my original post) seems not to be working too well in recent years.
 

Robadat

Member
My only problem with this is Gerrymandering...
That's a whole different problem.:Devilish:
At least under my system, It isn't a "winner take all" proposition within each State. States that have different areas with different political leanings would have more people represented in selecting the President. The bigger States will be divied up between the candidates ie; CA, TX, NY and FL. They all have districts that can go either way...many urban areas in those states would go Dem while many rural areas would go Repub, splitting that States votes between the candidates.
At a minimum, it would force the candidates to go to many more areas of the country instead of just the usual "Swing States" to campaign.
 
Top