Mari Ness - Talk of abolishing the Electoral College again:

1. On a minor note, most agriculture in the U.S. is controlled by major farming corporations, not the little guys.

2. On a secondary note, the smallest electoral college states are the District of Columbia (purely urban) Alaska (energy, not agriculture), Wyoming (also energy, not agriculture), Montana (energy/mining, not agriculture), North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont (you have a point). A single vote from voters in these states (and DC) weighs more than a vote from voters in any other state. Energy and mining are activities funded by and run by large corporations, not "the little guys."

3. And while we're at it, New York and California do conduct a lot of agriculture.

4. On a larger note, the current electoral college system actually focuses on urban communities. The 11 largest electoral college states -- who can, on their own, determine the next president -- are:

California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey.

Now, let's see where the largest cities in the U.S. are:

1. New York City -- NY.
2. Los Angeles -- CA
3. Chicago -- IL
4. Houston, TX
5. Phoenix - AZ
6. Philadelphia -- PA
7. San Antonio - TX
8. San Diego - CA
9. Dallas - TX
10. San Jose - CA
11. Detroit - MI
12. Jacksonville - FL (sidenote, really? I was not expecting Jacksonville to be this high on this list, but then again it covers a huge land mass. Moving on!)
13. Indianapolis -- IN (this total is inflated since this includes non-city areas)
14. San Francisco - CA
15. Columbus - OH

With the exception of Phoenix (located in a desert state) and Indianopolis (which includes several other cities/suburbs in its total), you'll note that these cities are all located in the large electoral college states, and that with the exceptions of Georgia (which has one of the largest 50 cities) and North Carolina (which has one of the largest 30 cities.)

In any case, your argument ignores my main point, which is that under the electoral college system, people's votes are not equal, and many people do not bother to vote since they know their state is already going to one candidate or another. The Texas problem I discussed in my initial post happened in several elections, not just the last.

But I agree that we're terrible at choosing a proper leader.

Let me add that we've actually had three elections where the winner of the popular vote did not take the electoral college. But, as I noted in my post, the electoral college system by default screws up the popular vote. In states where people know that their state is going to one candidate or another, they don't vote -- voter turnout is much higher in the uncertain states. And that's a real problem. In your example of the 2004 election, voter turnout was low in several Democratic states because they knew their state was going for Kerry. And low in in states that were going to George W. Bush, like Texas. The turnout was high only in states where the outcome was uncertain or where other issues were on the ballot. This does screw, as you mention, the little people in those states.

What I meant to mention in my earlier comment is that the 11 major electoral college states all, with the possible exceptions of North Carolina and Georgia, contain large urban areas -- which means that candidates are already focused on policies that help large urban areas.

The states that really get screwed here are the states in the middle -- the ones that aren't large enough to be in that 11 large state group, and the smaller states where a voter's single vote is over represented (as in Alaska, where a single vote in Alaska weighs more than a single vote in Tennessee.) These includes some of the states I assume you were talking about -- Nebraska, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Minnesota -- solid "heartland" states, heavily focused on agriculture, but without as much power in the electoral college.

A three-comment response. I'm honored. :)

Okay, I might've laid the "little guy" layer too thick. But to get away from that verbiage:

Population concentrations and regional needs. I would like to see a leader of this nation have concern for all regions of the country, and not just where most of the populations are. Urban centers have needs that focus on that lifestyle and sometimes come in contradiction with the regional needs in less populated areas. However, in a straight popular vote system, these urban centers carry far, far more weight in a vote than other areas of the country.

So what, you say? Will of the people and all that. Equal votes. Wonderful. Except that, while the votes themselves may be equal, the voting blocks won't. People tend to think about what affects them directly. Gimme what I want/need. And politicking is all about giving the people who will get you in office what they want. So, in a general popular vote system, the candidates will tailor their campaigns to cater to these urban areas. It's the easiest way of getting elected. Grab the most votes from those regions. Those 15 cities you listed would become the gateway to the presidency.

You speak of places like Alaska where an individual vote technically weighs more than one in, say, Tennessee. However, in a popular vote system, the Alaskan vote, as well as votes in states of that ilk, will be worth less, because the candidates will have no real reason to care about them. Talk about voter disenfranchisement. What you describe as people not turning out to vote because "their state is already decided" grows to a national level, where people in rural areas don't vote because the "city boys" make all the decisions.

[On a side note, I don't approve of people who don't vote because they think their side will lose. Guys and gals, all not voting does is help insure that your prediction will be right. If you think your candidate won't win, go vote and see if you can be a part of changing that. If you don't, then I'm glad your guy/gal didn't get in.]

The "all-or-nothing" electorate system per state gives these voters actual power that they would never achieve in a popular vote. It forces national candidates to actually consider the needs of not just 15 cities, but other states as well. Maybe it provides some additional weight to those votes. [I wasn't ignoring this point before.] But I consider that to be the smaller crime. Better that than have our leaders cater to only one category of lifestyle.

Not that it really matters. A constitutional amendment would require 3/4 of those same small states to ratify it. I doubt that will happen anytime soon. But then, I did mention people make bad voting decisions.

As for Jacksonville: It's the largest city in land area in the US. It may actually hold that title for the hemisphere. [And, if not, it's almost certainly in the top 5.] And yet they can barely hold onto one professional sports franchise. Go figure.

So, the problem already exists. I admit that. And the idea is to make it worse? To what end? So a result that's happened 3 times in the country's history can never happen again? Even if the change sets it up so that some people can be more disenfranchised than they already were? So that 15 cities can determine the presidency instead of 11 states? I don't see what you're gaining from this course of action. What's the plan? To change which people get disenfranchised more?

If you want a better direction to point your verve, don't gun for the vote method, which does the best it can under the circumstances. Point it at the real problem: that we are not really given a choice for who is best to run the country. Our choice is more along the lines of, "who will screw things up the least?" This is the wonderful product of our two-candidate system and their respective primaries. Events that are handled through a combination of money-collecting, pandering to special interest groups and a selection process that is closer to a popular vote than even the general election. If anything, the noise over the election process is smoke to cover that underlying problem.

So don't bash the voting machine. Bash the political machine.

Does England run the same system as Canada? [Honestly don't know.] Reason I ask is that, if so, England effectively has a two-party system, with no significant sign of getting a strong third party. So I'm not convinced that any voting method supports or restricts the creation of a solid multi-party process. Besides, it's not like the American mindset remotely matches how people think anywhere outside our borders. :P

So, no post yet about Karl Rove resigning?

Didn't know about the liberal dems in England. Hmmph. And is Bloomberg independent? I thought if he ran it would be for the GOP nomination.

In any case, a fun discussion as always. :)

I think the deal with Jacksonville is that the city occupies the entire county that it's in. Jacksonville city limits start at the borders of the county.