• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Electoral College

Our agriculture policy would be a lot better if no one cared about Iowa. Talk about swamp draining.
 
Strickland33 said:
Who cares about Iowa and New Hampshire? Nobody who doesn't live in Iowa and New Hampshire. And why would they? IA has agriculture and important R&D housed in corporate and university environments, but not much else. Im not sure that a case could be made for NH.

Your premise is also flawed because swing states with large populations like OH, PA, NC, FL, VA, etc. still have a lot of people living in them. The same states would continue to get all of the attention. Clinton demolished Trump in NY and CA with little actual GOTV or campaigning effort. I can't imagine that changing.
Click to expand...

More predictions! Can't stop, won't stop! Uh uh uh uh !

 
DG3 said:
I'll admit that the EC is something I've never truly liked. That said, those are the rules of the game. You strategically campaign to a path to 270. If PV decided the outcome, the campaigns would have been vastly different. Funding and allocation of funds would have been vastly different. More people would likely get out and vote. It's asinine to harp on the PV at this point because it's not what wins the election and all parties knew that from day one. They strategized accordingly. It's somewhat akin to a Wake Forest football team having 400 yards of total offense and still losing 35-28 to a team with 300 total yards. You may have played better all game, but critical errors cost you when it counted.
Click to expand...

mic drop [video]http://popkey.co/m/b0b4q?ref=search_page[/video]
 
DG: I've never liked the EC. It's impossible to change it though, so you might as well love it!
 
Sandwiched by two scorching #hottakes from 80's deac

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
Strickland33 said:
Who cares about Iowa and New Hampshire? Nobody who doesn't live in Iowa and New Hampshire. And why would they? IA has agriculture and important R&D housed in corporate and university environments, but not much else. Im not sure that a case could be made for NH.

Your premise is also flawed because swing states with large populations like OH, PA, NC, FL, VA, etc. still have a lot of people living in them. The same states would continue to get all of the attention. Clinton demolished Trump in NY and CA with little actual GOTV or campaigning effort. I can't imagine that changing.
Click to expand...

You prove the point of the EC: no one would care about those states. The Framers didn't want to be that way--those so-called elitists couldn't hold a candle to you guys in that department. They correctly feared tyranny of the majority.
 
simosfrostyone said:
You prove the point of the EC: no one would care about those states. The Framers didn't want to be that way--those so-called elitists couldn't hold a candle to you guys in that department. They correctly feared tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

Did either candidate campaign in all 50 states? Did all 50 states have at least one campaign event?
 
simosfrostyone said:
You prove the point of the EC: no one would care about those states. The Framers didn't want to be that way--those so-called elitists couldn't hold a candle to you guys in that department. They correctly feared tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

this is so wrong
 
Iowa drove a bigger voting margin for pubs than did Florida or North Carolina. So I disagree that nobody would care about those states.

As it is right now, nobody cares about NY, CA or TX from a Presidential election perspective, which are three huge states both in population and economic significance. Dems have two locked up and Pubs have one (although not as solidly) so the concerns of the majority and minority voters in this state are meaningless from a Presidential race perspective. We essentially have tyranny of a select minority.

Popular vote elections would incentive candidates to visit areas with popularity to drive up margins and to visit areas of weakness to try to keep margins down. You would really have to run a 50 state campaign.
 
Last edited:
simosfrostyone said:
You prove the point of the EC: no one would care about those states. The Framers didn't want to be that way--those so-called elitists couldn't hold a candle to you guys in that department. They correctly feared tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

I don't buy this. Statewide elections go by popular vote and people campaign all over.
 
simosfrostyone said:
You prove the point of the EC: no one would care about those states. The Framers didn't want to be that way--those so-called elitists couldn't hold a candle to you guys in that department. They correctly feared tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

Why should anybody care about those states? You still haven't really answered this question. With the exception of agricultural R&D in IA (supported in corporate and university environments), I'm not really sure what either state really contributes and whether that contribution warrants weighting influence in the way that both the primary system and the EC system ultimately do for those states.

I'm also not sure how catering to states like OH, PA, NC, FL, VA, etc. is elitist either, another point that you have yet to acknowledge. You call it elitism, but I call it free market decisions about where people want to live. The most populace states should have more influence and there are a lot of populace states beyond CA and NY that do get an inordinate amount of attention on the campaign trail (see: OH, PA, NC, FL, VA, etc.). Even beyond that, your premise appears to be that states like CA and NY are uniform in their political leanings That also doesn't pass the smell test. Half of CA is rural/agricultural/military (not to mention the fact that Silicon Valley appears to lean libertarian on average) and NY is rust belt once you leave the NYC metro area. Cutting those parts of the country out of the democratic process because LA/SF/NYC vote blue is pretty stupid, too.

Furthermore (and please clarify if this is not the case) your premise appears to be that a vote in IA and NH is more valuable than a vote in CA And NY. I find that to be pretty undemocratic.

ChrisL68 said:
Iowa drove a bigger voting margin for pubs than did Florida or North Carolina. So I disagree that nobody would care about those states.

As it is right now, nobody cares about NY, CA or TX from a Presidential election perspective, which are three huge states both in population and economic significance. Dems have two locked up and Pubs have one (although not as solidly) so the concerns of the majority and minority voters in this state are meaningless from a Presidential race perspective. We essentially have tyranny of a select minority.

Popular vote elections would incentive candidates to visit areas with popularity to drive up margins and to visit areas of weakness to try to keep margins down. You would really have to run a 50 state campaign.
Click to expand...

ETA: I agree with this post, too. It makes me think that an effect of the EC system will be path dependent in the sense that states that (stupidly) matter under this system will continue to matter because they are some of the few states with institutionalized GOTV infrastructure. That is to say, voters in IA are accustomed to swinging elections and will continue to vote as if they still have this ability even if the EC were to be dissolved.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top