Let’s not forget the millions of Americans who live in congressional districts that are so gerrymandered that the incumbent is virtually* guaranteed victory. In our system, elected officials are able to choose their voters.

* Exception that proves the rule: my home district of MI-11, where Thaddeus McCotter got bounced off the ballot thanks to crude cut-and-paste petitions submitted by his supporters. State lawmakers gave McCotter a gift: an ugly, misshapen district that he could have represented for ten more years had he not been so arrogant.

I live in Iowa myself. I don’t want to be a swing state.

Try watching local news here for polluted airwaves with political propaganda.

And I am sick of all of the personal visits by the candidates.

Considering the participation rate at about 50%, that knocks the Prez Pickers down to about 25M.

I was in Iowa last summer for a week. That was enough for me.

The smallest population states typically republican get 1 electoral vote for every 350,000 citizens, the top population states typically democratic around 600,000 to 650,0000. the ironic thing is the medium income in the red states is lower than blue states and the red states therefor need their social security and medical payments that much more.

Whenever I am asked what the #1 thing is we need to do to reform elections, I always answer “fix gerrymandering,” not campaign finance.

They’re always going to find ways to get money to politicians (though Citizens United undoubtedly made it much much worse). Unless you’re really competing for your seat each cycle and until people live in districts where their vote matters, we don’t have any systemic way to hold most members of Congress accountable for their actions. They aren’t even elections in the true sense of the word, just carved out tribalist rubber stamping.

I watched Viewpoint last night with Eliot Spitzer (excellent questioner). Of course I forgot the author (female Lawyer) but her book(forgot title too) on the Electoral College states the College actually suppresses votes in non-swing States because people know it’s fruitless. Of course that affects down ticket races. The author stated there’s an inter-state accord in process, that several states have already signed, where each participating State would guarantee their Electoral votes to the winner of the States popular vote. If such accord were in place in 2000, Gore would have been Pres.. I’m sure TPTB are working to stop additional States from signing up.

Did some forget 2000 in which the person with the fewer popular votes WAS made president?

In some 19C election, maybe 1820 or 1824, 25% of eligible voters actually voted, and the only eligibles at that point were RWMs.

The system is set up specifically to avoid total rule by the mob. .. remember we are a Republic.. that means its a democracy between the states (Senate), and weighted by population somewhat (Electorial College). You might not like it if you live in a populous state, but you can always move to somewhere like Wyoming and have more influence. Although for me, I’d prefer less influence somewhere good.

Even as a kid when teachers would tell me the electoral college made things equal but giving lesser populated states the same votes as more populated states and then say this is democracy I would just give them a blank look. It’s like arguing with a religious person…..logic and facts are irrelevant.

True, but we also need better candidates to challenge incumbents, so public funding and free advertising are essential.

When Brian Williams was last on the Daily Show, he said it actually comes down to 12 counties.

Imagine: all the electioneering is aimed at undecided voters in 12 counties.

Yes, but red states are very unlikely to sign that accord.

These eight swing states have a combined population of roughly 56.6 million

* Population doesn’t equal electorate
* 62% of the electorate voted in 2008 — it’ll probably be lower this time

no one should have to move somewhere else in order to have more or equal influence. The willingness of americans to put up with gerrymandering,hackable electronic systems,and under representation due to population size only leads to more of the same. it is my understanding that in germany votes are manually marked and counted.

Ditto. I live in Virginia. I haven’t even turned on the TV because I don’t want to deal with the ads. In addition, my state’s largesse is largely defense dollars(for all the blasting at federal spending Virginia is one of the biggest recipients of those federal dollars.) There is no sane way I’d endorse continuing to spend over 700 billion (more than 10 countries underneath us combined.)

Hello JC hope you are doing well. :)

C’mon out to California. I haven’t gotten one robo call, and hardly anyone visits us. I haven’t seen one yard sign or even a bumper sticker.
It’s veddy quiet here.
Jim!

Election watchers agree that the election appears to currently hinge on just eight swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin

This being the case, anyone living in one of the other 42 states could vote third party without thinking twice. There’s no reason not to vote one’s conscience.

Our system may be bad, but if we ever do institute instant runoff voting, we have to have ranked choice as a part of it or we end up with the situation French lefties found themselves in a decade ago when, because they thought Jospin had it safely in the bag, they frittered away their votes between a dozen-odd fringe parties and were then shocked when Jospin came in third behind the Nazi Le Pen and the conservative Chirac — and were thus forced to vote for Chirac to avoid Le Pen.

See here.

I know that there are so many people who are not visiting this thread right now, but if they were…you’d be taken down with hugs, and overwhelmed with Wonderful Emotions. “.”

Gorsh, that’s not very nice. Seems there’s yuck everywhere, don’t you think?

were then shocked when Jospin came in third behind the Nazi Le Pen and the conservative Chirac — and were thus forced to vote for Chirac to avoid Le Pen

Sounds like our system produces the same results. We’re told every election cycle that we have to vote for center-right in order to avoid getting stuck with far-right crazies.

:-)

That was a reference to non-stop political ads. Iowa was fine.

We don’t get a lot of political ads here. Everyone knows which way this state is going.

Turnout was about 25 percent in 1824, but was above 50 percent four years later.

The highest-ever turnout was in 1876, followed by 1860 and 1840. Over 80 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots in those elections.

Popeye and demi,
Been lurkin but miss yall.

Canadian federal elections also use paper ballots. There is only one office on the ballot: the local member of the House of Commons.

Which brings me to one of my pet peeves about American elections. Every two years, we’re confronted with a bedsheet ballot with federal, state, and local offices–plus the usual array of ballot proposals and tax levies to vote on. I’d like to see federal elections in even-numbered years and everything else in odd-numbered years.

I’ve been helping the SO to adjust to a 65 mile each way commute twice a week to college after a 15 mile rural commute the last two years.

How’s sonnyboy adjusting? The Cali. system seems a nightmare.

Alright, so this post seems to give my long time theory that the whole election process is not only corrupt, but is just a puppet show, an extremely costly one, to give the citizens of the United States of America the “illusion” of having a say in who becomes our president.
I’ve owned this belief for over a decade now.
Maybe that’s why I make so maybe comments on a personal level. I believe it’s all a sham and there’s a smallish group of people who make a lot of Very Important decisions.
And, I still can’t stay which kind of moron I am.

Either way you’ve got Swing Voters – who make up roughly the same population as cited in the post – so a smaller subset of the population will always decide elections compared to those who are reliable party voters as campaign dollars aren’t going to be wasted on preaching to the choir, unless it is for GOTV.

It Is a nightmare. The school is crushed. He has been on the waiting list for all 5 of the classes he wanted to take, and has gotten only one of them.
Thanks for asking. And, yes, it’s rough out there, pretty much for everyone these days. Okay, maybe 1% of the population is not hurting, but..
All best to the commuter. :)

The highest-ever turnout was in 1876, followed by 1860 and 1840. Over 80 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots in those elections.

80% of white males you mean.

Rahm Emmanuel as DCCC chair beat us (stacking the Democratic Party’s reps in the House in 2006 with Blue Dog DINOs so that the victory in 2008 was all-but-eliminated before it even happened) because he thought bigger than the results of one election.

If larger and larger numbers of people start voting a third party with candidates who really represent the people, the puppetmasters will take notice.

“Maybe that’s why I make so maybe comments on a personal level. I believe it’s all a sham and there’s a smallish group of people who make a lot of Very Important decisions.”

I’d say that’s true, but I attribute that mostly to partisanship. Many of the problems cited up above and elsewhere would take care of themselves if more people divested themselves of their Red/Blue allegiance. People get ignored by politicians and crappy politicians get into office because they’re loyal partisan voters where it doesn’t matter what their politician does to them because they have the right initial next to their name.

Sorry for all the typos, I’m heading out the door to buy Mom a birthday present. Dinner is tonight. Guess I’ll have to scratch “highly organized” off my resume.
Ta.
And, as always, a big Thank You to Jon and Jane for fabulous reportage.

I live in Iowa myself. I don’t want to be a swing state.

Me, too. They just descend like locusts, don’t they?
I live in Iowa, and I absolutely hate ethanol. Big oil is using our ground water and sucking up all the corn crop for profit. I have not put ethanol in my car for years. A tank of ethanol does not last as long as a tank of gas, anyway, so users don’t really save money, and using ethanol, IMO, is irresponsible.
My phone rings on an average of three times a night from both parties, because I’m not affiliated with either party. I told one Obama caller: “Oh, my dear. You don’t want to talk to me about Obama. Don’t even get me started on Obama.” As far as t.v. goes, I’ve made it a point not to be propagandized by network or cable news. I don’t tune in and we Tivo everything so we can skip through commercials.
Of course I’m voting third party. I don’t consider Obama or Romney to be an option.

I wonder how much influence the ethanol lobby would have if Iowa didn’t lead off the nomination process every four years.

“Rahm Emmanuel as DCCC chair beat us (stacking the Democratic Party’s reps in the House in 2006 with Blue Dog DINOs so that the victory in 2008 was all-but-eliminated before it even happened) because he thought bigger than the results of one election.”

BTW I absolutely love how partisan cheerleaders say to vote Democrat (even if it’s a “blue dog” type) to prevent X from happening, then when X happens anyway under a Democrat they try and act like the Blue Dogs don’t count as Democrats. It’s an excuse to get away with murder by trapping people.

This supposed democracy is nothing more than an illusion manufactured by the plutocracy to control the masses by letting them think their participation in Kabuki Theatre has relevance.

LOL

We are uniquely American. We have figured out how to get bad results without nearly as many options. Hooray for us!

Jim, Jim, Jim…..that was an anomaly. Odd combination of complex calculations and algorithyms, elecoral college, non-electoral colleges, the zodiac, something about Saturn being in Aquarius and poorly manufactured paper ballots.

Couldn’t happen again.

“This supposed democracy is nothing more than an illusion manufactured by the plutocracy to control the masses by letting them think their participation in Kabuki Theatre has relevance.”

The Democratic National Convention was a hoot with having prominent speakers “feel your pain” about the system being rigged and then they went out and rigged convention. At least the delegates weren’t tricked that their vote actually counted, but they’ll probably be too loyal to care and they’ll buy into those sympathetic-sounding speeches that go nowhere in practice.

I heard it wasa three farmers in Georgia and two couples who live in trailers in W. Virginia.

But you gotta admit, they’ve executed their plan VERRRRY WELL.

You are implying we are a dysfunctional socio-political nation but damned efficient?????

I can agree with that.

Vote Jill Stein. Vote Frog Party/Green Party

Ribbitt.

They even featured the nefarious corporatist cheerleader Bill “I Caused Your Pain” Clinton.

What not endorsing your man Willard?

Never understood this “electoral college” system. A parliamentary system where Congress elects the President would at least not have this population imbalance. One man one vote, hey?

You’re either confused, stupid, or both. ncg never stated any allegiance to the Republican Party.

Whenever I am asked what the #1 thing is we need to do to reform elections, I always answer “fix gerrymandering,” not campaign finance.

The best way to fix that, IMHO, is to make the House elected by a system of proportional representation, nationwide, with people voting for the party, not the person. All parties winning a threshold above, say, > 5 % of the vote, win the corresponding normalized percentage of seats, The parties would rank all candidates for the House from 1 to 435 and fill their proportions based on their normalized percentages.

Advantages:

a) parties police themselves better (no party wants a scandal to be running and dragging down the rest of their ticket). Also, possibly maybe more public participation in the parties in who gets ranked to the top?

b) Weakening the two-party duopoly: third parties now can win seats, all they have to do is to break the 5 % threshold. I would expect Greens and Libertarians would grab at least some seats and once you gain seats, then growth becomes a real possibility.

c) Money might be less of an influence, hard to say.

Disadvantages

a) House elections lose their local character, they become nationalized.

b) Threats of an “extreme” party gaining power? If so, it would be advantageous to keep Senate elections majoritarian (maybe even requiring a Senate candidate to win 50 % + in a seat, even if it requires a runoff). Hitler after all never got more than about 32 % of the vote in a free and fair election, his ‘negatives” were way too high.

And, while we’re at it, maybe some sort of ranked voting/instant runoff voting for President?

-stewartm

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

Of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states – NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) – got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. At most, 12 states will determine the election.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

When the National Popular Vote bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc