That's exactly why the electoral college is a stupid, broken system.

States are assigned "value" based on their population. But considering that the majority of the population doesn't even vote, the correlation between these values and voters is pretty much nonexistant.

A contingency of right-wingers, left-wingers or whatever else in any given state can completely sway an election, although it doesn't truly reflect the majority opinion of every person that votes.

Basically, it invalidates the opinions of people that live in less-influential electoral states. Just like Mikey has said five times in this thread already. Just because someone lives in a state with a large population doesn't mean that their opinion is more valuable than people anywhere else.

It's like how slaves and ethnic minorities votes only counted for a percentage of a white man's vote back in the day.

That's horseshit. Comparing the 3/5ths Compromise to campaign focus is just plain retarded. The fact of the matter is that regardless of the way the system is set up, campaigns will go to where the people and the money is. That happens to be in states like California and New York. An equal amount of money spent is going to reach a much larger amount of people in California than it would in South Dakota.

Opinions have no value, it's all about votes, and some jerk in Montana will never have the same value as somebody from Texas. It'd be nice if candidates would give equal screentime and pander to the buttfuck issues of all 50 states, but it'd also be nice if we all had unicorns and rainbows dropped skittles.

Practically it just isn't realistic, and in the long term you know why the system will always be broken from a populist democratic perspective? Because states are supposed to determine the voting laws. If the election of the president became popularized nationally who do you think would run it? The Fed. This might not seem like much of a danger to you, but if Florida is suspected of having a rigged election, imagine what could happen if actors sought to skew a national system? What would happen if all states had to use electronic voting machines? It doesn't matter how dangerous they are, since voters don't directly control the actions of the Fed, and they can easily extort state compliance.

You can gripe about how broken the system is in regard to the democratic principles of our democracy-spreadin' democratic democracy constitutional republic but it's a safe system. One not easily tampered with. With that in mind, the danger of a president being elected by a minor margin by a minority of popular votes is insignificant compared to our complete disenfranchisement.

I know. It was designed to be that way. It doesn't mean in any way that it is broken, just that you don't like it. It has worked effectively for the entire existence of this country and as of yet, I have seen absolutely ZERO reason as to why it has to be changed other than you don't like it.

So there's a difference between interest groups attempting to garner more votes nationwide versus just trying to garner more votes in states with high electoral payout? I don't see what you're trying to say, Brady. It all looks the same to me. People are still going to campaign the heavily populated areas because there are the most voters there, in theory.

But when you take mid-population state like, for instance, Florida or Ohio, and the votes there are very close, the winner-take-all system of awarding these electoral votes is just dumb.

People in this country should be rewarded for voting. In my opinion, that means that every vote should have the same weight. If people forget to vote, or don't want to vote, then that's too bad. I think it's a crime that it's possible for a President to be elected through a cockneyed system of awarding points based on population when those populations don't even vote in a number proportionate to the points they're assigned. And all this without even maintaining the popular vote throughout the country.

If we're so hung up over giving people these electoral points, then get rid of the winner-take-all scenario and reward the candidates a proportional amount of the electoral votes from each state. That way everyone's vote is weighed equally and everyone in the country has a say who becomes President.

And yes, I think it would be a good thing if the voting system was standardized across the nation. It would avoid hanging chads.

Despite all the dangers of vote manipulation that I've just outlined for you?

I'll take my chances with conspiracy theories versus being told my vote ultimately doesn't matter.

Each California elector has to represent about 4.5 times as many people as a Wyoming elector. Each California elector also represents about 10-11 times as much GDP as a Wyoming elector.

I guess my problem isn't with the electoral college so much as the proportion of electors given to each state. I think that the extra two that they give out is a little silly. I mean, we say that population matters, which is why California has 55 and Wyoming has 3, but we're not saying that it matters too much, by value of the ratio above. I'm fine with states getting to decide how their electors vote (it doesn't have to be a winner take all, and the people of Colorado shot that idea down).

But when you consider how many more people are in California and how much more important their economy (among other things) is...Wyoming sure has a lot of weight in the presidential election.

Additional Spam:
Your vote matters more than all of ours, though. You vote in the first primaries. :P

(Which is more absurd.)

Well, I wasn't really griping about me, myself, and I. I realize that my political clout is better than most because of the caucuses here. And believe me, I think there is plenty wrong with the primaries and caucuses as well.

Additional Spam:
The only thing good about the caucus in Iowa is that it actually brings the candidates here. I fear they wouldn't even bother if it weren't for that fact. I do enjoy being able to go to an event and see what they're talking about, and hear about the issues pertinent to the region in which I live. In a country this big, that is definitely a luxury.

noot zo. Again it comes down to campaign finances. Focusing the primaries on Iowa and New Hampshire allows candidates with very small finances to focus their money and time on a few states so that their candidacy has the potential to snowball. Imagine what it would be like if all states had their primaries at the same time. Grassroots candidates wouldn't have a chance.

Tom Harkin took 76% of the Iowa democratic caucus vote in 1992. Bill Clinton only took 2%, but he still became the President.

It's better than nothing.

Why? The men who put together the Constitution obviously didn't think so.

They also thought black people sucked.

The men who put together the Constitution also didn't have a problem with slavery or sexism. If the electoral college is not supposed to represent (albeit not exactly) the people, what entity's will does it represent? The states don't have opinions, only citizens living there that do.

Basically, to your why: why not?

The Electoral College isn't supposed to represent people, it's supposed to represent states. State delegates only represent the people in states where votes are split up proportionally. In winner-take-all states, the voters determine which candidate represents their state, not themselves.

Wouldn't a person in New Hampshire be more likely to sway the balance of their state's voting turnout than a person in California? So a single vote in NH ought to have more weight than one in CA (even more so with BM's comparison of the number of people each electoral college person has to represent in CA versus WY).

There's a few states that have set up their electoral colleges that way.

Personally, I have no problem with the electoral college system, but I would prefer more states move away from the winner-takes-all format and closer to a proportionality.

Nonsense. States with larger populations pay more taxes, which gives the politicians the capital with which to do what they do that keeps them in power. That fact alone makes their opinion more valuable.

It sucks, yes, but that's just the harsh reality of the situation.

Theoretically, yes. But they have a lot of influence over what is ultimately less influence (being the electoral votes coming out of New Hampshire). So what's worse: having little influence over a lot of power, or having a lot of influence over little power?

Consider that there are some states that have closely split voting percentages and a relatively high number of electoral votes. That's more the issue I have with the winner-take-all situation.

Then it's not the electoral college you dislike, but the way that states handle it. =\/

(Also I'd rather be in the small state with more power for our size than we should have.)

I'd rather be in the state that has higher proportional representation since it gives my vote more weight. =\/

Of course, I also wish we had enough members of the House for every 50,000 people each. Talk about a headache.