ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824878 wrote:Face it.. 200 years ago an Electoral College was needed b/c a majority were either ignorant due to poor/no information relayed to them or they just couldn't read or write. In 2016 someone in rural Idaho has the same exposure as someone in NYC. Everyone who wants it has access to newspapers, internet, and television. When it was still a system where states truly ruled, I can see you point. But now when the federal government has so much say in our lives and more power over the states than ever before, your argument holds no weight. Everyone should be equal b/c everyone will be heavily represented by the federal government.
I didn't mean to suggest that people are more or less ignorant. I only meant to suggest that the less populous states would get less attention, or no attention at all, purely as a result of the fact that there are fewer people there. The things that matter to them won't be relevant in a pure popular vote, because it will make more sense to appeal to the needs and concerns of the people in densely populated areas.
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824879 wrote:and LOL@ you that want to get smug and claim "you don't know how EC works".. you, apparently, don't see how our government has changed from its inception.
I didn't mean to indicate that, either. My apologies if it came across that way.
sleeper;1824941 wrote:Candidates don't campaign in Wyoming now. They also don't campaign in LA county for different reasons.
You're not wrong. They don't campaign hard toward the LA County people because you can't win an election under the current format by just appealing to the most densely-populated areas.
However, if we went with a popular vote, you could, and essentially every region that isn't densely populated enough would essentially get ignored, because elections wouldn't be won by appealing to places with low population densities.
sleeper;1824941 wrote:They build their campaign on the selection of issues that affect 'swing states'; ignoring entirely building a platform that represents all Americans since every vote counts.
The problem is, there is no one-size-fits-all campaign. The current format requires candidates to take on issues that appeal to a larger number of demographics.
As for appealing strictly to swing states, you're right that it's a strategy. It's not the only effective one, though, as this election demonstrated. The Clinton campaign focused primarily on appealing to swing states, which ended up close, but as a result, part of the 'safe' base was lost. The latter effect played a large role in the election and demonstrated that only appealing to swing states is not a universally effective strategy for campaigning. The Clinton campaign didn't appeal to a wide enough selection of the demographics in the US.
