QUOTE(Sleeper @ Feb 24 2006, 04:23 PM)
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 24 2006, 09:03 AM)
This way the voter in Wyoming will have the same say as the voter in New York or LA. As it stands now, Wyoming is ignored. In a close race, every single vote will be important, and so the campaign messages will need to appeal to as many people as possible, not just a few state populations.
Consider swing states on this issue. What if the notion of swing states becomes obsolete? I'd like to see that happen. Our president should be the person voted into office, not the one whose campaign works the system the best.
So you really think presidential hopefuls will care about states like Wyoming in a national election if it was entirely decided by popular vote?
Can you seriously tell me if you were advising somebody on their campaign strategy you would tell them to goto Wyoming over say Georgia(which has a population 17 times greater than Wyoming).
Well, look at the share of votes in the last two presidential elections. The margin of victory has been small (<10%) both times, less than 3% in 2000).
Unless you know something I don't - which is
entirely possible on this issue, and an absolute certainty generally - there's no reason to suppose that people will vote
very differently in a share-of-vote election versus a electoral college one (except maybe by turning out in greater numbers).
So, if it's credible that an election could come down to 3 to 5% of the vote making the difference between winning and losing, a candidate who missed out ANY of the 50 states in a share-of-vote election would risk losing unnecessarily. In an electoral college election, they'll just do what they've always done, and stick to the ones with lots of EC votes and/or lots of swing potential.
As things stand, the EC system just makes life easier for the candidates, as they only have to campaign hard in a handful of swing states plus a couple of big important ones with lots of college votes, rather than all 50.