Tim Walz at Fundraiser: The ‘Electoral College Needs to Go’
“We need, we need national popular vote, but that’s not the world we live in.”
But I thought former President Donald Trump is the one true threat to our republic!!
Democrat VP candidate Tim Walz is up on that list. From CNN:
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said the Electoral College “needs to go,” while acknowledging “that’s not the world we live in,” during a campaign fundraiser in California on Tuesday, according to a pool report.
“I think all of us know the Electoral College needs to go. We need, we need national popular vote, but that’s not the world we live in. So we need to win Beaver County, Pennsylvania. We need to be able to go into York, Pennsylvania, win. We need to be in western Wisconsin and win. We need to be in Reno, Nevada, and win,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee told supporters gathered at Gov. Gavin Newsom’s private residence in Sacramento, according to the pool report.
VP Kamala Harris’s campaign immediately tried to explain Walz’s thoughts:
Walz’s call for eliminating the Electoral College is not an official campaign position, a Harris campaign official told CNN.
“Governor Walz believes that every vote matters in the Electoral College and he is honored to be traveling the country and battleground states working to earn support for the Harris-Walz ticket. He was commenting to a crowd of strong supporters about how the campaign is built to win 270 electoral votes. And, he was thanking them for their support that is helping fund those efforts,” a campaign spokesperson said in a statement.
These people want to ban guns. They want to destroy the First Amendment. They want to pack the court.
They want to end the Electoral College.
Who poses the greater risk to our republic? Gee, I’ll have to get back to you on that.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Is there anything he says that isn’t uninformed and/or ignorant?
Stop thinking this way. He’s not ignorant at all about how our country functions, otherwise he wouldn’t be saying this (among other things.)
These people are F-ing tyrants and want to get rid of all checks against power.
I’m kind of surprised he advocates for something that will make the state he is governor of irrelevant
It’s a good thing we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy or we would all be ruled by the cranks destroying California and New York
He obviously understands the purpose of the Electoral College. Immediately after denigrating it, he explains why it exists – it forces national candidates to campaign in and win in places they otherwise might ignore.
No, that’s not why it exists, and it doesn’t do that. On the contrary, the current system means that candidates don’t have to campaign in most of the country. No one bothers to campaign in CA, NY, TX, FL, or IL even though they’re five of the six most populous states, and make up 37% of the population and 30% of the electors.
If one of these states actually wanted the campaigns to concentrate on them they could easily do it by assigning their electors proportionately to their state’s vote; if the 1/3 of the CA vote that Trump got in 2020 meant that he would get 18 of its 54 electors, you can bet he would spend a lot of time campaigning there rather than ignoring it as a lost cause. But CA will never do that, because the Dem-controlled legislature would have to be crazy to deliberately give away electors that it doesn’t have to.
No, the Electoral College’s purpose is to limit the impact any state can have to its proportion of the total population. No matter how high CA can pump up its turnout, whether honestly or by fraud (and you know which it would choose), it will still have the same 10% of the electors, so there’s no point.
Harris will get 54 electors from CA, no less and no more, whether they cheat or not; so there’s no point in cheating. I doubt there is much fraud in CA in presidential or senatorial elections; the fraud there would be concentrated on close house races, on local elections, and on D primaries.
But go to a national vote and the higher CA can pump its turnout the more of a say it gets, so we would see 99% turnout, and as much fraud as the Dems could manage. That’s what the EC is there to stop.
Then amend the Constitution, you fucknugget. Do the difficult work of convincing most of the states to give up their power so that the Democrats can have eternal power. Convince Congress to make the presidency just another popularity contest where only the cities matter. I mean, there is a procedure in place for that if you’re really motivated. Think about it, Timmy, you won’t have to pay any more attention to those rural peasants in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
Every time I think I can’t possibly have more contempt for Democrats they manage to wring another few drops out of me.
With the Harris nomination, Democrats are continuing to learn just how far they can go in ignoring the process in place so as to get what they want without changing anything on paper. Give them time, and they’ll figure out the root password to the Electoral College, too.
Who needs checks and balances when a blank check is what they want? The Electoral College, two senators per state, The Bill of Rights…. all those hindrances to utopia.
They already neutered the 2 Senators protection by changing their selection to a popular vote. This absolutely destroyed any chance of selecting well respected, local men of gravitas who put their State’s interest first.
All of the teen amendments need review and possible repeal.
A single word to describe 2 senators per state….. equity. How could they NOT want that?????
They want to add new states to acquire new senators. Compare that to the push to make eastern Oregon part of Idaho, which would have little to no effect in the House, and zero effect in the Senate. They’re not interested in fair representation, just in increasing their power.
That’s nonsense. A state is its people, not its legislature; that’s why the framers of the US constitution insisted that it be ratified by each state’s people, not by its legislature, and why it starts “We, the people of the united states”, as opposed to the legislatures of the united states.
So having them elect their senators directly rather than through their legislature makes it more likely that they’ll elect someone they actually support, someone they respect, someone who’ll put their state’s interest first.
What on earth could make anyone think that when state legislators elected the senators the men they elected had more gravitas, were more respected by the people, or were more dedicated to the interest of the state’s people rather than that of the legislators?
On the contrary, the legislature’s power to elect senators turned legislative elections into referendums on the senator to be chosen, and not about what laws people wanted for the state!
“Walz’s call for eliminating the Electoral College is not an official campaign position, a Harris campaign official told CNN.” Yet.
I will agree with him providing voting is limited to white males over 21 who pay more in taxes than they collect in benefits.
And paychecks or grants from government funded institutions count as ‘benefits’ for the purposes of that determination.
Talk to me.
Waltz is such a putz! He can’t be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. We already have a putz in there.
We can only handle one retarded putz at a time.
OK, sure, eliminate the Electoral College. By doing so you will have broken the fundamental compact of the union and any state that wishes to do so will leave at that time. Try to stop them and you’ll learn the hard way what the 2nd Amendment is truly about.
I agree. However, that would probably begin the “Second War of Northern Agression”.
There will not be a civil war. The events that led the secession to go kinetic were unique to the time, and even then fighting would not have occurred except for the Confederacy’s attack on Fr. Sumter. Prior to that, there was no will for war in the North.
When States again start removing themselves from the Union, there will be no overarching casus belli. Indeed, the removal of conservative States from the Union will give the Left proportionally more power in what remains of the United States, and they will say “good riddance” to those States that secede.
Yep, right up until they realize we’re keeping the missile solos and military bases/equipment therein. Then, things will light off so to speak.
This is example number 4,392 (just this year) for providing criminal charges against politicos who aggressively and egregiously advocate anti-constitutional actions in defiance to their oath of office.
We either hold these tyrants accountable, or it’s all still *clownworld*
In at least one Trump impeachment, the Dems established that violation of an oath of office is an impeachable offense. I agree. I have long believed that an oath of office is useless if it’s not enforceable. The argument that a violation can be remedied at the polls in the next election is weak sauce – obviously a bad performer can be removed from office in the next election, this does not require the necessity of an oath to hold the office. If there’s bad behavior to be found in an elected official or judge, it’s a violation of an oath of office.
It’s an impeachable offense, but it’s not a criminal offense.
The oath of office does not prohibit an officer from advocating amendments to the constitution.
In any case, breaking a promise is not a crime. The old tort of “breach of promise” was actually a euphemism for “ruining” a woman by taking her virginity. It was abolished because watching such trials had become a form of salacious entertainment, and it made a mockery of the courts.
Perjury means swearing falsely. Making a factual statement under oath, about something material to the case, while knowing it to be false. It does not cover making a promise about future behavior, and then changing ones mind and not doing as one promised.
Why is it that the party that supposedly champions minority rights is the same group that is trying the hardest to eliminate the measures in The Constitution that were specifically enacted to protect the representation rights of the minority.
Different minority.
Good luck getting three-quarters of the states to ratify that, Timmy.
No need for a constitutional amendment when the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is marching toward approval:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Watch the Dim progs crap their pants when the ‘flyover states’ begin to secede. You cannot fundamentally alter the structure of the compact without consequences. But then again, Dim progs are always too blazingly stupid to understand the concept of unintended consequences.
Consider an oblique swath of states from Idaho to Florida encircling the Muslim Midwest, and separating the coasts (East and West Wokestan) with no-fly and no transiting privileges. Add Alberta and Yukon Territory.
Why these aggressions? Just leave. The benefits of separation will accrue to both those conservative States that secede and those liberal States that remain in the Union. Both sides will be glad to be rid of the other. Lincoln fomented the Civil War by his refusal to negotiate with the Confederacy over insular possessions of the United States within the newly-formed CSA. The direct result of this passive-aggressive posture was the CSA’s attack on Ft. Sumter, an act of war. Why repeat history?
`. 1. Bob at present the US owes $34 + trillion. In a secession who is going to repay that debt. Consider that both Japan and the UK own $1= trillion of that debt. Your plan is to stiff both those countries while laughing raucously?
2. In your scheme, who gets the US Navy, the only force that is keeping Red China from invading.
3. Of the millions in the red breakaway states, a substantial fraction are retired and rely on Medicare. What are they supposed to do for medical care?
These are just three consequences of your hypodermic fantasy that you never thought about, let alone even considered.
Ther NPV is interesting because of what they want.
They don’t want to abolish the electoral college
They want the electors assigned in a different way.
They want them assigned based on whoever wins the popular vote count.
So let’s say California goes full on for Kamala/Walz, k?
But Trump manages to eke out a PV win.
Under the compact, all California’s electors would go to Trump.
Even if the state went to Kamala/Walz.
They want the electoral college–they just want to use it as a weapon.
And that will only happen if Trump would win even without those electors. Then they’ll let the Republican slate be chosen and vote for Trump, and show how committed they are to this new compact.
But if Trump’s victory is narrow enough that it’s the electors from the Dem states that put him over 269, they’ll welsh on the deal.
“Marching towards” is very different from getting there. So long as there is no majority for it, it costs a state legislature nothing to signal its virtue by passing it. But the closer it gets to a majority the more state legislatures are going to pull out.
Even supposing it does get a majority and come into effect, what do you think will happen the first time a Republican wins the popular vote, but not by enough to win the electoral college without the electors of the large Democrat states, where he will have lost? Faced with the prospect of putting the Republican over the line, those states’ electors will rebel — or their state legislators will pull out of the compact and choose the Democrat electors anyway.
what makes you think
THAT RULE WONT BE “OVERLOOKED”
It can’t be. If there’s not 38 states ratifying, the amendment simply doesn’t happen.
It only took one conversation with a public high school teenager to see the sorry state of civics education in this country. She was barely able to communicate without her smart phone, but I digress. Her argument consisted of, “Like, I don’t see why ‘they’ just don’t pass a law banning the Electoral College and make the popular vote thing real!” When I told her about the constitutional requirement of amending the provisions of election, she looked at me and said she didn’t know anything about “all that”. Her teacher must be a moron.
In a couple of years, she’ll negate your vote. Think about that.
And her parents.
Unless my information is incorrect, this Walz fellow was a HS teacher; a proud graduate of some “teachers college”. This should explain this young lady’s lack of useful knowledge.
When she told you the NPVIC would take care of the EC, what did you say to her?
After looking NPVIC up on your smartphone, of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
That will ‘take care’ of sparking a wave of secessions and perhaps a second civil war. Do the Dim progs think they can just enforce their delusional, Marxist-utopian will upon a well armed populace? If they do, they’re even dumber than I think they are, and that is really fu*king dumb.
Paul: “Do the Dim progs think they can just enforce their delusional, Marxist-utopian will upon a well armed populace? ”
Bring on the drone strikes and see how long the ‘well-armed’ populace lasts.
The notion that a ‘well armed populace’ is a defense against tyranny is a ludicrous romantic fantasy. Don’t believe me? Ask the American citizens on the Pacific Coast who were forced to abandon their property, and were forced into concentration camps, to bipartisan applause, in 1942, just because their ancestry had Japanese genes.
“Bring on the drone strikes and see how long the drone pilots’ families last.”
FIFY.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the history of guerilla warfare, and specifically the track record of ‘superpowers’ against it in the past 100 years.
Are you under the delusion that drones are some invincible miracle weapon? Drones are hilariously easy to weaponize.
The well-armed populace is the reason the Japanese didn’t invade.
And the well-armed populace supported the exclusion of their fellow-Americans with Japanese ancestry from their states, and would have brought their arms to bear in enforcing the exclusion had the victims resisted.
How about a counter offer? We can have a National Popular vote on a County by County basis to decide this question. The Counties that reject the EC and thus the basic Constitutional framework go their own way while those that vote to keep the EC and thus the Constitution remain as part of the USA.
I suspect the leftists would reject that offer b/c it frustrates their ultimate goal of forcing everyone else to obey their wokiesta demands just like the neighborhood HOA Karen. They won’t be content at running their own lives, nope they want to run ours as well.
exactly
thats their whole purpose
they are miserable people and they only feel good/better when they force others to be ( more) miserable then they
Given that a) the NPVIC needs to be approved by enough states whose electoral votes add to 270 and b) the NPVIC has already been approved by states with 209 EVs, why on earth should they be interested in your offer? Next you misunderstand the NPVIC. It doesn’t abolish the College, it merely chooses the electors in a different way. States have that right under a) the compact clause of the Constitution (Article I section 3, Clause 3) and 10A. It would be the counties that would be rejecting the Constitution’s scheme.
The NPVIC ain’t happening, not anytime soon and even then I think you will find a significant % opposed to it. Some of whom will believe (correctly or incorrectly and act upon the belief) that the Constitution is no longer binding. Call them names all you want but don’t minimize the impact they could achieve. See OKC as one example of how a very few determined folks can cause great devastation. That’s the point of the counter offer; it provides an offramp from potential conflict.
Predictably you reject it b/c at root you want to impose a direct democracy to replace our Federalist system and republican form of govt. Whatever else the NPVIC is, one thing it isn’t is consistent with the principles of Federalism. Equivocation re methods is just that.
How about this compromise…keep the 2 EC votes at State level awarded based on statewide vote but award the EC vote of each CD based on the vote within the CD? Of course that would also require each CD to have a roughly equal # of US Citizens within a given State to ensure no dilution and an end to discriminatory ‘minority majority’ CD. Fix the corrupt gerrymandering and may that could work.
I think you mean Article 1, section 10, clause 3. And that’s a funny thing for you to cite, since it says the opposite of what you claim. It explicitly says states can’t make compacts without Congress’s permission.
Fortunately for the states involved in this, the Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean only those compacts that enhance the states’ power at Congress’s expense. That makes it Congress’s business, so they need its permission. If states want to make a private compact that doesn’t affect Congress, SCOTUS says that’s none of Congress’s business so they don’t need to ask.
So yes, if this compact were to come into effect it would be constitutional. But it would not be enforceable, and it would collapse the first time it would change an election’s result. Certainly if it would change the result from Democrat to Republican, but probably in the opposite direction too.
Timmy, the reason the Founders put the Electoral College in the constitution is to protect us from people like you.
Not really. It was to protect the people in the small states, such as Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, from being massively outvoted by the people in the large ones, such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. It gave them a bit of an edge.
There’s one ultimate reason for their desire to eliminate the electoral college: Making the USA into one giant country where the states are mere satrapies or administrative divisions of said country.
Why is this so important to them? Aside from centralizing power, it also preps the people for the USA to become merely a satrapy of the world government.
It aligns with the open border in that. Because globalism is one of the pillars of Progressivism. Only if you control everyone can you make your Brave New World come to be.
I’ve often thought that we are moving toward a combination of Brave New World and 1984.
.
I’ve never understood the appeal t so many conservatives of the notion that “states are bulwarks against tyranny.”
You think California isn’t just as malevolent to ward citizen rights as the feds are? How about MN and “Let the Somalis burn down your stores.”? Or New York and “We’re going to ban your gas stoves or water heaters.”? etc.
Next you’ll give a convincing explanation about why the Electoral College is a surefire way to prevent majority tyranny than popular vote counting would be—and then explain why not a single state elects its statewide officials by an EC style vote, but uses popular vote counting.
a consolidated federal tyranny
you are correct as each state can and does form its own ways
BUTTTT cannot violate the federal constitution w/o redress
so thats the basis of the thought that you have “never understood”
“I’ve never understood the appeal t so many conservatives of the notion that “states are bulwarks against tyranny.”
You think California isn’t just as malevolent to ward citizen rights as the feds are?”
But that’s exactly the point. California can be as malevolent to their citizens as the voters there will tolerate, but can’t dictate those behaviors to Texas, Tennessee or Mississippi.
And if you live in California and don’t like the way the place is being run, you can move to one of those other places.
The individual States are Sovereign. They posses ‘police power’ and thus ‘compelling interests’ that the Federal govt lacks.
Federalism also functions as a release valve. If a number of folks want X policy they can vote for that and X will become the policy in State A… others who couldn’t muster the votes in another State(s) can then move to State A to enjoy that policy just as folks who in State A who don’t support that policy can move somewhere it doesn’t exist.
oh look! a ‘new’ troll.
Nah, he’s been here before.
“…then explain why not a single state elects its statewide officials by an EC style vote, but uses popular vote counting.”
Wow. You need several books’ worth of learning before you’d even be able to comprehend a response to that challenge.
But the short answer is that the “United States” is a confederacy of nominally-sovereign states. Each union-member State is an equal of every other union-member State as a geopolitical entity. Because purely democratic (i.e., popular) voting would allow more populous States to control the less populous States, a system of “checks and balances” had to be built into the rules for the election of candidates to national offices. Therefore the House is popularly elected, Senators were appointed by the States, and the election of the Union’s chief executive (aka the president) is a hybrid system (the Electoral College) that accounts for both population and each State’s status as a nominally-sovereign geopolitical entity.
You could start with “Math Against Tyranny”:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~mcguire/hively.html
Ummmm, no, I wouldn’t do that. Because that’s not part of this discussion.
However, since you brought it up….
There are a couple of problems here, that I regularly identify.
First is that he Constitution doesn’t protect ANYTHING. It’s like a contract. But if the people who are part of the contract have simply moved on from its provisions and neither side actually requires the re-imposition of the terms of the contract…? This is the state we are in. California can run roughshod over its people because the national gov’t isn’t interested in enforcing Article 4, Section 4. And, more importantly, the people aren’t interested in forcing the federal gov’t to enforce that provision.
Second, even the states have not guarded their sovereignty for a long time now. And, again, that is the fault of the people in each state. Texas and Florida have started pushing back, finally. But, why didn’t they? Because all of the responsibility (and the responsibility for taking money out of people’s wallets) goes somewhere else, and what gov’t apparatchik doesn’t like someone else to have responsibility? And, blue areas are worse, of course.
Third, Progressive influence in education over the last 100 years has eroded the state identity for the citizens thereof. It has (partly because it’s coordinated at a national level) worked to make American identity both more and less as we “progressed.” More important than state identity, and less strong and forceful as an identity. Culture has also had a play in this, with entertainment being made more uniform and more connected entirely to the Blue coastal enclaves and their culture.
Yes, states are a bulwark against tyranny (BTW, the reason conservatives might use that phrase is because we’re conservative and that sort of phrase was used by the Founders) as long as they jealously guard their rights and privileges as sovereign entities. This is where “…if you can keep it” comes in.
You misunderstand the notion. The states are a bulwark against a specific kind of tyranny. CA may itself be a tyranny, but it still defends its own interests against those of the central government that is dominated by the other states that constitute the other 90% of the USA. Even if they were all tyrannies, their jealousy of their own bailiwicks will prevent the central government from becoming a tyranny that swallows them all. Then each state’s citizens can fight the local tyrants.
The ultimate bulwark against tyranny, though, both state and federal, is the second amendment.
Abolish electoral college. Abolish the filibuster. Stack the court. Single party rule under dem super majority forever.
Conservatives will become controlled opposition, allowed to exist to maintain the appearance of democracy, but never allowed to win.
“Will become”?
It’s what the GOP elites prefer. You can trash your Democrat “opponents,” and then go to cocktail parties with them. Life’s easier when you never have to actually do anything.
I’m just questioning the optimism of that statement. I think they have already become, in many instances.
Walz and Harris are cretins. But they are dangerous cretins.
As a fan of Crete and its people, I think you’re insulting cretins with that comparison.
(But it’s a good use of the word.)
“Cretin” has nothing to do with Crete. Its origin is uncertain, but it likely derives, somehow, from “Christian”.
the lefty has never ever loved the capitalist checks and balances system
they are a direct threat to freedom
Abolish the electoral college and everybody but the coasts secedes.
the left is obsessed with “popularity”
b/c of their inner fears of life itself they try and make up the life should be as long as it conforms to their being in charge
and that is why the agenda is now and has alwaysssss been ( forget the lies the schools have taught) government over the people
the left by their very nature has
daddy issues
so they install the welfare state to be the step dad
we risk the loss of this whole idea/country with our docile/tacit approval of their ways
trump has shown and proven that being called a racist/misogynist doesnt make it so
capitulation to the left is not an option
“We need, we need national popular vote, but that’s not the world we live in. So we need to win Beaver County, Pennsylvania. We need to be able to go into York, Pennsylvania, win. We need to be in western Wisconsin and win. We need to be in Reno, Nevada, and win,”
Wow…that’s one of the most eloquent defenses of the Electoral College I’ve ever seen.
He’s defined exactly why it exists…because without it, they wouldn’t have to “be in” all those places and win, they’d only have to “be in” and win a few large population centers and to hell with what all those rubes in flyover country think is important.
There is a reason that Tampon Tim is not known for his intellect.
The Lefts biggest weapon in all of this???
THEY WILL ATTACH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TO SLAVERY
so while the real intent was to not allow a “too strong” federal government ( my words)
THATS NOT how lefty will frame this and it will become another slavery vs america issue
lefty will settle for nothing less than uncivil war
The EC wasn’t really just about a “too strong” national government. It was about not letting big states run roughshod over smaller states. (Which means the slavery issue was part of it, but not the whole thing.)
Especially since Virginia was one of the big states.
this electoral college rampage is probably the biggest issue we are going to face and that includes reparations
the dems altered the filibuster ( this critical “thinking” from cnn no less)
Reid, in short, opened Pandora’s box when it came to the filibuster. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash two years ago, Reid expressed no remorse for the impact of his 2013 decision.
“The rule had to be changed,” he told Bash. “We had many Cabinet officers and sub-Cabinet officers simply we couldn’t get a vote on. And the judges, more than 100 vacancies there, waiting to be filled, that we’d already had the names. So I have no doubt that I did the right thing.”
Right or wrong is a worthy debate when it comes to Reid’s move. But what can’t be debated is that his move ushered in an era in which the filibuster appears to be teetering on the edge of irrelevance.
even many on the left WHILE LIKING the results it gave the dems KNEW the gop would have their way with it too
and as many states and dc “Do away” with the electoral college with their own remedies :
“award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3][4]”
to
rank choice voting ( no more one person one vote…ALREADY IN PLAY!)
this is a huge issue
it is a /the singular biggest attack on voter disenfranchisement
that lefty wont admit to
That is nonsense. “Ranked choice voting” is just the latest term for what is properly known as STV, the Single transferable vote. Emphasis on “single”. One person, one vote, which he gets to keep even if his first choice can’t win. No more need to vote for the lesser of two evils lest the greater win. No more worrying about “wasting your vote” by supporting the candidate you actually like. That is fair and just, and the exact opposite of what you claim.
It is an interesting thought experiment to consider what our national elections would be like if presidential elections were determined by popular votes rather than by a majority of electoral votes.
I think we would see a focus on the large and populous states such as California. Party nominees would not come from places like Delaware (Biden), Virginia (Kaine), Arizona (McCain), Utah (Romney), Alaska (Palin), Massachusetts (Dukakis, Kerry), Colorado (Cheney), Georgia (Carter), Minnesota (Mondale), Arkansas (Clinton), Tennessee (Gore), Connecticut (Lieberman), Kansas (Dole), Maine (G. H. W. Bush), Indiana (Quayle, Pense). Instead the parties would strategize to nominate people from large cities such as NYC, LA, Chicago, Huston, Phoenix, or states such as California, Texas, Florida, or New York,
A popular elections campaigns could focus on the cities and states where the people are and ignore the rural areas and less populous states. In short they would not need to run a campaign for all Americans.
The electoral college system forces a distribution of popularity across the states essentially requiring the party nominees to address a wider set of issues.
While there certainly are oddities with the Electoral system, its resulting bias towards a distribution of popular support has served us well in the past.
No, that is not the case at all. Going to a national popular vote would take states out of the equation altogether. There would be no campaigning in particular states; campaigns would go after all voters everywhere, and concentrate their budges on wherever there is a large concentrated population without regard for state boundaries. So yes, they’d concentrate on the large cities, but not on states at all. Metropolitan areas that slop over several states would be just as valuable as those in a single state. And candidates would come from anywhere, because there’s no such thing as “home-boy loyalty”; people in a large city are not more likely to vote for someone just because he happens to come from that city.
Cities, yes. States, no. And how is that worse than the current system, where they certainly don’t need to campaign for all Americans, and don’t? Currently campaigns completely ignore most of the population, because they’re not in swing states.
here will be the trade-off
Lefty: look,, we will stop importing great numbers of people ( to vote for us and make our case stronger)
if you will weaken/ do away with the EC
gop: will you throw in some more invites to your parties?
I was totally against the electoral college. I was 11 years old.. and then I grew up.
What happened to Tim?