I'm coming around to strongly supporting the Electoral Collegelec

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

This ignores quite a bit of American history, though. Even simple and seemingly trivial things like the shift from the United States being a plural noun to being a singular noun.

 

As a fan of descriptive grammar, this appeals to me.

[NowThis 931]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

As a fan of descriptive grammar, this appeals to me.

shows the sense of nationhood spiking about WW1 when the country fought in a global conflict. When i was a kid, some WW1 vets were still alive, should have gone to their meetings and hugged them. 

[Huckleberry 32702]

Yeah, the common belief is the Civil War led directly to the change. In reality it looks like there was a small shift during the Civil War, then a steady pace of change through Reconstruction, then another spike some time around the Panic of 1893 through the McKinley assassination.

Then the pace of the shift actually decelerated around and after McKinley's assassination through Teddy's administration. Then for some reason electing a fat guy really spiked the shift which continued through WWI and eventually stabilized somewhere around the usage seen at the end of that war with fluctuations now and again.

Of course all of that is eyeballing it, I wish there were a chart available showing those proportions against each other instead of just out of a larger population of phrases.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Huckleberry

[formermav43 4599]

I’d say the shift begins during the Civil War and Reconstruction though, which isn’t surprising (and fits the common perception). There’s essentially no use of the singular until the 1860s.

Edited March 27, 2019 by formermav43

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

29 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I actually think that such an institution, at a time of deep polarization, is especially valuable.

Whether or not they agree with one side or another politically, changing the election to a pure popular vote removes any semblance of an idea that the voters in small states will have a voice in the election of the President.  That's a bad look that drives us further into polarization.

The polarization will continue to get worse if we keep things the same.  We have the proof. Look at what the GOP has become over the last 30-40 years. Look who's sitting in the Oval Office. 

I'd appreciate to hear your rationale for the second paragraph. Why would either party ignore the small states with a popular vote? I especially don't understand this argument when the current system allows politicians to ignore the voters in the most populous states.  With the EC only 5-10 states even matter. 

 

 

 

 

[Fozzz 152]

See if you don't dilute the voting power of minorities and magnify the voting power of whites you end up with what I like to call "mobocracy."  

[Dropout 355]

This is simple to me. One person one vote or stop calling America a democracy. 

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Dropout said:

This is simple to me. One person one vote or stop calling America a democracy. 

Democracy is actually bad numbnuts.  

[Huckleberry 32702]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The polarization will continue to get worse if we keep things the same.  We have the proof. Look at what the GOP has become over the last 30-40 years. Look who's sitting in the Oval Office. 

I'd appreciate to hear your rationale for the second paragraph. Why would either party ignore the small states with a popular vote? I especially don't understand this argument when the current system allows politicians to ignore the voters in the most populous states.  With the EC only 5-10 states even matter. 

 

 

 

 

Why would I go to Wyoming or spend any money there when there are ten times as many registered voters in Harris County? In a popular vote, it's absolutely certain that I can change more votes by campaigning in Houston than all of Wyoming.

To put it another way, there are more registered voters in the orange area than in the purple area:

Why would I spend money traveling around all that purple area?

4 minutes ago, Dropout said:

This is simple to me. One person one vote or stop calling America a democracy. 

It's not a democracy, so...

[Dropout 355]

 

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's not a democracy, so...

I know it’s not. Let’s be sure the rest of the country does too. 

[lemonlime 5503]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Why would I go to Wyoming or spend any money there when there are ten times as many registered voters in Harris County? In a popular vote, it's absolutely certain that I can change more votes by campaigning in Houston than all of Wyoming.

To put it another way, there are more registered voters in the orange area than in the purple area:

Why would I spend money traveling around all that purple area?

It's not a democracy, so...

But right now, they're not spending any money traveling around the orange area that has more voters, with the possible exception of Pennsylvania.  The vast majority  of the voters in the orange area are ignored.  Why should the (minority of) voters in the purple area get special attention?

[Huckleberry 32702]

So your solution is to go from one broken system to another? How is that a solution other than the other ox gets gored for a while?
 

[Guest Lobo]

We should be more like Europe.  Most of those Prime Ministers are elected directly by the people with one person, one vote in a pure popular vote contest.  Right?  Isn't that how they do it in the place we should emulate the most?  Why don't we do it like that?  

[Dropout 355]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So your solution is to go from one broken system to another? How is that a solution other than the other ox gets gored for a while?
 

If I have a vote and you have a vote that are of equal value in a national election who’s getting gored?

[Huckleberry 32702]

3 minutes ago, Dropout said:

If I have a vote and you have a vote that are of equal value in a national election who’s getting gored?

The one who lives near fewer other votes and therefore is invisible to the campaigns.

The States elect the President, not the People. Lots of people want to change that, which is fine, but nobody is willing to sacrifice to change it. Want to have campaigners pay more attention in your State? Have your State legislature vote to change apportionment of its electors from winner-take-all to something else.

[Fozzz 152]

Practically speaking, I think the wealthy as a class and not people living in Wyoming would have the most to lose from such a change.  

[Guest Lobo]

Yep, it's easier to shift a few counties in a few swing states than it is to swing 30 major population centers.  

 

Serious question---what other countries in the Democratized West, elect their Heads of Government (not State), via direct popular vote?  Who exactly are we supposed to be emulating?  

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

 Who exactly are we supposed to be emulating?  

We emulate no one. 

[Dropout 355]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The one who lives near fewer other votes and therefore is invisible to the campaigns.

The States elect the President, not the People. Lots of people want to change that, which is fine, but nobody is willing to sacrifice to change it. Want to have campaigners pay more attention in your State? Have your State legislature vote to change apportionment of its electors from winner-take-all to something else.

You’re assuming they’d be invisible to campaigns. Even if your assumption is correct it’s their campaign. They can run it how they like. The voters can vote accordingly. I would also rather be invisible to a campaign than have my vote mean absolutely nothing. My vote for president has never mattered.

Give me a break states elect people. I mean I get it that’s the law it’s the way it was set up but states aren’t living things. This is like corporations are people. People elect people. I can’t take the statement “States elect the President” seriously. It just doesn’t make sense to me. One person one vote perfect sense. The EC and everything in between is overthought bs.

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Serious question---what other countries in the Democratized West, elect their Heads of Government (not State), via direct popular vote?  Who exactly are we supposed to be emulating?  

Who cares? I don’t support positions to emulate someone or something. I support positions that make sense to me.

[Guest Lobo]

Right, but there's got to be an example of how best to restructure our election system.  Surely there's a model out there you prefer?  

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

18 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Why would I go to Wyoming or spend any money there when there are ten times as many registered voters in Harris County? In a popular vote, it's absolutely certain that I can change more votes by campaigning in Houston than all of Wyoming.

To put it another way, there are more registered voters in the orange area than in the purple area:

Why would I spend money traveling around all that purple area?

It's not a democracy, so...

Do you think both parties would ignore those smaller states?  Each vote matters. Would Ds or Rs risk the emergence of a 3rd party that would pay attention to the rural areas? 

If Republicans try to attract voters in NY and CA, do you think they stick with anti-immigrant, anti-LGBQT, anti-minority, evangelical bullshit policy they have now?

If Dems try to attract voters in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho do you think they'll promote policies that will ignore rural areas and leave them behind?

 

[wildcat09 29256]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

I actually think that such an institution, at a time of deep polarization, is especially valuable.

Whether or not they agree with one side or another politically, changing the election to a pure popular vote removes any semblance of an idea that the voters in small states will have a voice in the election of the President.  That's a bad look that drives us further into polarization.

I think this is 100% wrong. The voters in most of the small states don't matter now. The only voters that matter now are in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Florida, and what else, possibly Colorado and Virginia?  Right now the marginal states matter, not the marginal voters, and the marginal states aren't the smallest states. I'm not seeing how that changes any time in the foreseeable future.

[Dropout 355]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Right, but there's got to be an example of how best to restructure our election system.  Surely there's a model out there you prefer?  

Why surely? What’s the point of your line of questioning? I seem to be missing it. IMO I’m a person you’re a person we each have a vote. 

[Huckleberry 32702]

4 minutes ago, Dropout said:

You’re assuming they’d be invisible to campaigns. Even if your assumption is correct it’s their campaign. They can run it how they like. The voters can vote accordingly. I would also rather be invisible to a campaign than have my vote mean absolutely nothing. My vote for president has never mattered.

Give me a break states elect people. I mean I get it that’s the law it’s the way it was set up but states aren’t living things. This is like corporations are people. People elect people. I can’t take the statement “States elect the President” seriously. It just doesn’t make sense to me. One person one vote perfect sense. The EC and everything in between is overthought bs.

This just confuses me. You claim to understand it but then act like it's confusing. It shouldn't be confusing at all, and it's not BS. The election for the office of POTUS is an election of the States, not of the People. Every State gets to decide how they want to apportion their electors. Your "one person, one vote" logic is perfect for democratic elections. The Presidential Election is not a democratic election. However, the "one person, one vote" idea is perfectly valid within your State as it determines its electors.

You know what else used to be an election of the States and not the People? Senatorial elections. The 17th Amendment changed that. Another one would be required here. Good luck with that. More likely is an agreement between States to all apportion their electors differently. But, again, none of them will agree to that because they're scared of lowering their ruling party's impact on the election.

[Huckleberry 32702]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Do you think both parties would ignore those smaller states?  Each vote matters. Would Ds or Rs risk the emergence of a 3rd party that would pay attention to the rural areas? 

If Republicans try to attract voters in NY and CA, do you think they stick with anti-immigrant, anti-LGBQT, anti-minority, evangelical bullshit policy they have now?

If Dems try to attract voters in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho do you think they'll promote policies that will ignore rural areas and leave them behind?

 

Yes, they will be ignored. Why would I appeal to 10,000 independent voters whose vote might be swayed in Cheyenne and Casper at a big event in Wyoming, then take a bus for two hours to Laramie to target another 4,000 voters when I can hit 100,000 in a single shot in Houston, then take a bus for two hours and hit another 40,000 in Austin?

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed (I'm too lazy to go back thru 5 pages) but recounts would be a disaster. 

Think about the recounts done in Palm Beach Country for the 2000 election. Now multiply that by 3007.

[Fozzz 152]

Huckleberry, is it your understanding then that the federal government was formed through a compact between the sovereign states?  

[formermav43 4599]

On 3/26/2019 at 1:39 PM, lemonlime said:

They also thought slaves were 3/5 of a person and Senators should be appointed by the state legislatures.

They were right about the Senators.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

I actually think that such an institution, at a time of deep polarization, is especially valuable.

Whether or not they agree with one side or another politically, changing the election to a pure popular vote removes any semblance of an idea that the voters in small states will have a voice in the election of the President.  That's a bad look that drives us further into polarization.

With a popular vote, voters in small states would have the same say in the election as any other voter.  The idea that American citizens are electing the national executive to represent their individual state is a bad one in the first place.  You elect your Senators to represent your state.  You elect your Representative to represent your community.  You elect the President to represent the nation.  Your Senators can and do insure your rights in the government.  Having the President elected in the same way allows for the tyrannical enforcement of small state will, and allows them to not only maintain their rights but to force punitive actions against large states through 3 branches of government.  Gerrymandering in the House is just gravy on top.

Part of the issue is the vast expansion of executive power.  Reel that in and the problem wouldn't be so apparent.  But instead we have a situation where the parents of a TX soldier have less of a say than a Wyoming resident in electing the man that can send their son into harms way.  And if I have less of a say, then I'm not letting my kids join "your" military.  And it is "yours" more than "mine" because your vote counts more than mine everywhere that military decisions are made.

We aren't gonna last much longer as a nation in our current state.  Wyoming is gonna have a much tougher go at going it alone, but if they want to keep the status quo, that's where they are gonna end up.

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[Huckleberry 32702]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Huckleberry, is it your understanding then that the federal government was formed through a compact between the sovereign states?  

That's a totally irrelevant question. Whether you subscribe to compact theory or believe it was a contract from the People it doesn't change what the Constitution says about electing the President. Whether it was the States forming a compact and agreeing to that method or the People choosing that method and delegating the election to the States the end result is the same.

[Huckleberry 32702]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

With a popular vote, voters in small states would have the same say in the election as any other voter.  The idea that American citizens are electing the national executive to represent their individual state is a bad one in the first place.  You elect your Senators to represent your state.  You elect your Representative to represent your community.  You elect the President to represent the nation.  Your Senators can and do insure your rights in the government.  Having the President elected in the same way allows for the tyrannical enforcement of small state will, and allows them to not only maintain their rights but to force punitive actions against large states through 3 branches of government.  Gerrymandering in the House is just gravy on top.

Part of the issue is the vast expansion of executive power.  Reel that in and the problem wouldn't be so apparent.  But instead we have a situation where the parents of a TX soldier have less of a say than a Wyoming resident in electing the man that can send their son into harms way.  And if I have less of a say, then I'm not letting my kids join "your" military.  And it is "yours" more than "mine" because your vote counts more than mine everywhere that military decisions are made.

We aren't gonna last much longer as a nation in our current state.  Wyoming is gonna have a much tougher go at going it alone, but if they want to keep the status quo, that's where they are gonna end up.

 

The bolded portion is absolutely true. The problem for your side of this debate is that switching the Presidential election to a direct popular vote will only accelerate that expansion of executive power.

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, they will be ignored. Why would I appeal to 10,000 independent voters whose vote might be swayed in Cheyenne and Casper at a big event in Wyoming, then take a bus for two hours to Laramie to target another 4,000 voters when I can hit 100,000 in a single shot in Houston, then take a bus for two hours and hit another 40,000 in Austin?

If both parties ignore the small states, then all of a sudden all of those rural voters are there for the taking. Do you think they still vote Republican if no one is talking to or caring about them, especially if the GOP policy is crafted towards the urban areas?. 

I believe a national popular vote would create a 50 state strategy. And better, more inclusive policy would be the result. 

 

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

That's a totally irrelevant question. Whether you subscribe to compact theory or believe it was a contract from the People it doesn't change what the Constitution says about electing the President. Whether it was the States forming a compact and agreeing to that method or the People choosing that method and delegating the election to the States the end result is the same.

The federal government arising directly from the people with the states not being a party to its formation is irrelevant to the normative question of why some voters should arbitrary have more power than others?  lol. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

The bolded portion is absolutely true. The problem for your side of this debate is that switching the Presidential election to a direct popular vote will only accelerate that expansion of executive power.

It doesn't have to.  The Senate, controlled by small states, always has the power to reel it in if they want to.  The problem we have is that both the Senate and the President are small state owned, so the Senate gives him a rubber stamp rather than reels him in.  And with Trump specifically, its because they desire all the backwards things he is doing, they just don't want the optics of being on the hook for doing them themselves.

[wildcat09 29256]

20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, they will be ignored. Why would I appeal to 10,000 independent voters whose vote might be swayed in Cheyenne and Casper at a big event in Wyoming, then take a bus for two hours to Laramie to target another 4,000 voters when I can hit 100,000 in a single shot in Houston, then take a bus for two hours and hit another 40,000 in Austin?

But that presupposes that the only way to target those voters is to personally visit them. Sure those help drive turnout, but it's not the only way to do it. In a popular vote system, the Republican turnout in California, New York, Oregon, etc. and the Democratic turnout in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. (assuming no vote suppression) would increase substantially regardless of whether or how often the candidates personally visited them because their votes would suddenly matter, and the candidates would be forced to tailor their campaigns and policies to appeal to them. 

[Huckleberry 32702]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

But that presupposes that the only way to target those voters is to personally visit them. Sure those help drive turnout, but it's not the only way to do it. In a popular vote system, the Republican turnout in California, New York, Oregon, etc. and the Democratic turnout in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. (assuming no vote suppression) would increase substantially regardless of whether or how often the candidates personally visited them because their votes would suddenly matter, and the candidates would be forced to tailor their campaigns and policies to appeal to them. 

No they wouldn't. Tailoring your campaign to court Republican voters if you're a Democrat loses you Democrat voters. And vice versa.

That part of y'all's theory is more hopeful than anything else. Both of the two major party bases despise any candidate who has their letter next to their name and doesn't preach the party gospel. You will lose more voters from your base than you gain in independent voters by "tailoring your message" which will very quickly be translated into "selling out."

[elfenix 34171]

32 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, they will be ignored. Why would I appeal to 10,000 independent voters whose vote might be swayed in Cheyenne and Casper at a big event in Wyoming, then take a bus for two hours to Laramie to target another 4,000 voters when I can hit 100,000 in a single shot in Houston, then take a bus for two hours and hit another 40,000 in Austin?

people who show up to your rallies are already voting for you.  and no one campaigns in wyoming right now anyway - wyoming isn't losing anything from that standpoint.  did you miss the previous page?

 

ad buys are waaaaaaaaay cheaper in south dakota than houston.

Edited March 27, 2019 by elfenix

[Huckleberry 32702]

10 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

If both parties ignore the small states, then all of a sudden all of those rural voters are there for the taking. Do you think they still vote Republican if no one is talking to or caring about them, especially if the GOP policy is crafted towards the urban areas?. 

I believe a national popular vote would create a 50 state strategy. And better, more inclusive policy would be the result. 

 

"All of those rural voters"? Boy howdy, I bet the party machines are going to duke it out over those 36,000 unaffiliated voters in Wyoming.

[Huckleberry 32702]

12 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

The federal government arising directly from the people with the states not being a party to its formation is irrelevant to the normative question of why some voters should arbitrary have more power than others?  lol. 

Yes, it is. I mean you can ignore the actual specifics of my post if it makes things easier for you, but it doesn't matter if the States created a compact or if the People signed a contract when the bottom line is what the document says. The document says the POTUS is elected in this manner.

[Huckleberry 32702]

12 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It doesn't have to.  The Senate, controlled by small states, always has the power to reel it in if they want to.  The problem we have is that both the Senate and the President are small state owned, so the Senate gives him a rubber stamp rather than reels him in.  And with Trump specifically, its because they desire all the backwards things he is doing, they just don't want the optics of being on the hook for doing them themselves.

You think executive power expands because the Senate and Presidency are small-state owned? So when executive power continued ballooning under Obama and a blue Congress that was because of small states?

If and when the POTUS election changes to a direct popular vote, executive power will expand more rapidly than it ever has before. Congress will bend the knee to the President even more than they do now as the executive claims MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE!!! just like they do now except then it will be accurate.

[Huckleberry 32702]

6 minutes ago, elfenix said:

people who show up to your rallies are already voting for you.  and no one campaigns in wyoming right now anyway - wyoming isn't losing anything from that standpoint.  did you miss the previous page?

 

 

ad buys are waaaaaaaaay cheaper in south dakota than houston.

No, I didn't miss anything, I already addressed that most of y'all are just wanting to trade one broken system for another. But, purely as a matter of coincidence of course, the new broken system will favor your preferred candidate more often than the current broken system.

Also, Jesus H. Christ I should have gone for the multi-quote. My apologies, I hadn't reloaded the page when I started responding.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Huckleberry

[elfenix 34171]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, it is. I mean you can ignore the actual specifics of my post if it makes things easier for you, but it doesn't matter if the States created a compact or if the People signed a contract when the bottom line is what the document says. The document says the POTUS is elected in this manner.

yes, we know.  we're saying facts on the ground have changed so much in the intervening 230-odd years that the thing should be reconsidered.  and we keep having to play whackamole against factually deficient arguments like 'wyoming will be ignored' when wyoming is already ignored. 

i mean, when they started this thing the names of the electors appeared on the ballot, not the guys running for the office.  you were voting for a bizarro parliament that had 1 job, choosing a president.  if you were voting at all, because in several states the legislature picked the bizarro parliament.  by 1832 everyone but south carolina had gotten rid of that.  probably should have gotten rid of the electoral college at that point.

[tantric superman 4667]

19 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

With a popular vote, voters in small states would have the same say in the election as any other voter.

Sure they would, there just wouldn't be a need to campaign to them like their would in states with larger population centers.

As to wildcat's observation that you don't have to personally visit, that's true.

But look at Beto's Senate campaign.  It was built entirely on how he was willing to personally go to your location.  As in all things, it's perception.  There is simply no way to get around the perception that this is a "fuck you small communities" message. 

I absolutely like the idea of states electing Presidents, and each state determining their own method for measuring how they vote for those Presidents.  As stated, we could solve the concerns by each of us going to each of our states and asking the electoral college votes to be made in a way that reflects the proportion of our state that went to a candidate, rather than a winner take all.

[elfenix 34171]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

No, I didn't miss anything, I already addressed that most of y'all are just wanting to trade one broken system for another. But, purely as a matter of coincidence of course, the new broken system will favor your preferred candidate more often than the current broken system.

"broken." it doesn't exist, but you already claim it to be broken.

[elfenix 34171]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

There is simply no way to get around the perception that this is a "fuck you small communities" message.  

maybe we can stop disingenously claiming that the electoral college is good at getting attention for small communities. the facts bear out that it's not.

Edited March 27, 2019 by elfenix

[Huckleberry 32702]

Just now, elfenix said:

maybe we can stop disingenously claiming that the electoral college is good at getting attention for small communities. the facts bear out that it's not.

Nobody says that it's good for getting attention for small communities. You definitely slew that straw man, though.

The attention that is paid to how good it is for small communities comes from your side of the argument when they complain that the votes of citizens in smaller states have a disproportionately large say in who becomes POTUS.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

maybe we can stop disingenously claiming that the electoral college is good at getting attention for small communities. the facts bear out that it's not.

Ah!  So I guess that means you agree with me that it's a perception?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

You think executive power expands because the Senate and Presidency are small-state owned? So when executive power continued ballooning under Obama and a blue Congress that was because of small states?

If and when the POTUS election changes to a direct popular vote, executive power will expand more rapidly than it ever has before. Congress will bend the knee to the President even more than they do now as the executive claims MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE!!! just like they do now except then it will be accurate.

I would argue that when the majority and the Senate align, there is actually a mandate.  However, the Senate should play its part properly rather than quietly.  The same would be true with a popularly elected GOP President.  

Really, I don't think a nation that elects a person like Trump as an executive with a minority of voters is going to last very much longer.  2022 will tell us where the GOP goes next.  

[Huckleberry 32702]

5 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Ah!  So I guess that means you agree with me that it's a perception?

Somehow it's terrible for the vast majority of people but that doesn't mean it's unfairly good for a small minority of people, I guess.

The argument is that it's unfair to population centers and it's unequal. That of course logically requires that it would therefore be unfairly good for rural areas and the inequality is tilted in their direction. But elfenx's argument appears to be that somehow it's terrible and unfair for population centers but also not good for rural areas.

In truth the issue it that there are several different arguments for what's wrong with the Electoral College. He appears to be taking the "swing states deciding everything is bad" approach, which is fine. It's just difficult to argue against 8 positions at once on a message board.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Huckleberry

[elfenix 34171]

On 3/24/2019 at 7:20 AM, tantric superman said:

1)Part of the smaller states' willingness to be in the union was based on the fact that their concerns wouldn't be swallowed up by the larger population sites.  Doing away with the EC exacerbates the rural/city divide (which will become less of a cultural divide as technology and demographic changes in and of themselves lessen the cultural divide.)

2)Plans like the Nebraska and Maine plans lessen the winner take all approach of most of the other states without changing the general overlay of the electoral college.  That would be a decent compromise between those who favor a purely democratic approach and those who think the EC fits in better with the state/federal relationship.

3)It won't happen.

4)Both parties are in a far better place actually trying to understand and convince middle america of the wisdom of their policies than focus on issues like this and court modifications which tinker with the balance between the three branches.

Interesting issue.  In the short term, making it an issue in this election hurts the Dems.

Has anyone done the research to be able to list the Dem candidates who are pushing this issue down into the lower priority sections of their platforms?

 

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Nobody says that it's good for getting attention for small communities. You definitely slew that straw man, though.

The attention that is paid to how good it is for small communities comes from your side of the argument when they complain that the votes of citizens in smaller states have a disproportionately large say in who becomes POTUS.

such a straw man it's just the very first part of the first paragraph of the OP.  and i'm not the one that posted this image.

 

 

10 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Ah!  So I guess that means you agree with me that it's a perception?

of course it's perception. it's beaten into you from elementary school along with a bunch of other nonsense.