re: .

quote:

---

If we went popular instead of EC, campaigns would be completely different. Voter turnout would be completely different. So you can't play hypotheticals like that.

In fact, that's my point. A huge % of Americans are sitting on the sidelines.

---

This is what a lot of people seem to overlook.

I also think there is a problem in that your assumption is that more people's voting motivations are based on the desire for pork over political philosophy. I would suggest the geographic pork of a potential president, is generally not all that significant.

Think of the purpose of the EC being to facilitate the election of the president by the states, not the individual voters, and it will make more sense to you. We aren’t subjects of a nation, we are citizens of individual, but United, States.

quote:

---

the electoral college render many Americans’ votes worthless,

---

Don't you realize that removing it would do the same thing, even worse? Without the EC large cities, particularly NYC, LA, and DC would choose every president. That is why we are a Republic and not a Democracy.

Dont change your policies or ideas...just demand the rules change till you win

quote:

---

You keep focusing on coastal cities. What about Texas? Donald trump talks more about the Midwest than Texas. You don’t see the bias there?

---

Who cares about individual states? You are being vague (purposefully) on specific examples. Give us an example of Trump's unfairness.

Also, explain why this is only a problem during a Trump presidency, and not when a Democrat (Obama) is POTUS? Do you not remember the West Coasts golden ticket in green energy which nearly all failed? Nah, that's inconvenient to you.

In short, we aren't changing our voting system because you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. We don't make policies due to lunacy of the minority. Sorry.

But what if you live in St George, and want to elect the BR mayor?


Same concept

Without the Electoral College system states with high population like New York, California, etc. would decide elections. The Electoral College system was genius.

quote:

---

However, if we go back and look at who won the popular vote in the past, it is often not the same candidate who won those areas. So you are wrong.

---

Do that. Go back and look at the elections for the past 30 years and who won which areas.

Because of our system, it changes. Reagan won those areas. Bush won some. Clinton won those areas. Bush didn't. Obama did. Trump didn't. Your "point" is failing badly by your own examples.

quote:

---

If you are a blue voter in a red state or a red voter in a blue state, you are essentially useless in the eyes of a presidential candidate. It’s all about the swing states.

---

That would be true with a national popular vote, as well, except instead of swing states, it would be swing cities.

quote:

---

But it doesn’t end there. Since campaigns are laser focused on swing states, so are campaign promises. And those same promises come to fruition long after they are elected.

---

Do you have examples of Trump or Hillary (for example) promising something during their campaigns that only applied to swing states? Trump, for example, had a very clear agenda and list of promises that he made at nearly all of his campaign speeches throughout the country. He's been going down the list and fulfilling them, one after another, and they haven't been specific to the ones for swing states that I can tell.

quote:

---

So not only does the electoral college render many Americans’ votes worthless,

---

First of all, swing states tend to change from election to election as voter demographics change over time. Secondly, the only reason swing states get the attention that they get is because the votes in the other states matter. The deep red and deep blue states matter a lot to those respective candidates which is why they rely on them to do their thing so the candidates can focus their limited time and resources on the battleground (swing) states. If Texas starts turning purple, you can be assured that both candidates would be campaigning there heavily.

quote:

---

it also creates constant bias towards catering to the needs of Americans in swing states. It basically biases the presidency towards policies that influence swing states ALL THE TIME.

---

Again, where is the evidence of this? I haven't identified any "swing states-only" promises from either candidate, and even if there were some, who cares so long as they are consistent with the rest of the platform that the candidates are running on?

Here's the bottom line: whether we have the electoral college or a national popular vote, it doesn't change the simple fact that all candidates are limited by time, money (resources), and distance. They can only visit so many places throughout the campaign so they will always target the places where they will get the most bang for their buck. With the EC, that would be the swing states. With the NPV, that would be the swing cities with dense populations.

In the NPV, if the big cities decided every election, the rural voters would likely feel like their votes don't count and stop voting and we would have the same situation as we have now with Democrats in deep red states and Republicans in deep blue states. Nothing really changes except that we remove the power of the states to decide the President through representative electors.