Everyone should know how a popular vote election would be done. (Representatives, campaign)

[bobisinthehouse]

All the presidential candidates would spend most of the time, in states like

1. California
2. New York
3. Texas
4. Florida

Those are the States with the highest populations.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnKgpYCXBqE

[Biker53]

A national election by popular vote would essentially eliminate the very basis for States as sovereign entities under the Constitution.

[Robert137]

Originally Posted by Biker53

A national election by popular vote would essentially eliminate the very basis for States as sovereign entities under the Constitution.

You nailed it, my thoughts exactly. The real question shouldn't be the popular vote, but should we eliminate the states?

[jas75]

Media markets would matter a lot more than states in a popular vote system. For example, residents of Wilmington, DE in the heavily populated Philadelphia media market would likely see a lot of the candidates both in person and on their local networks. Remote areas of TX like San Angelo would not, regardless of Texas being a huge state and Delaware one of the smallest.

It is really just hypothetical at this point since the party that believes it would benefit from a popular vote system is out of power nationally and in most states. The party that has succeeded most recently under the current electoral vote system has no incentive to change the rules, and alter over two centuries of precedent.

[phma]

So the other states not being represented could and should withdraw from the union and form their own government.

The could operate their entire government on tolls paid by the other states the OP listed.

[ottomobeale]

Modify the EC to proportional +2 for the winner. or even half proportional + half for the winner.

I agree with the premise that people would only compete in certain mega markets, but as is, they only compete in a handful of purple states.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Biker53

A national election by popular vote would essentially eliminate the very basis for States as sovereign entities under the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Robert137

You nailed it, my thoughts exactly. The real question shouldn't be the popular vote, but should we eliminate the states?

No it wouldnt.


Right now, Candidates spend time in 12 or so States.

Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire.

All a popular vote does is shift which states you campaign in.

[chadgates]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

No it wouldnt.


Right now, Candidates spend time in 12 or so States.

Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire.

All a popular vote does is shift which states you campaign in.

Except a state can shift in its politics. So a solid red state may become solid blue over time or vice versa. States which are purple today were not so 20 or 30 years ago and other states which were purple 20 or 30 years ago have now become solid one way or the other.

Cal, NY, TX, FL & Illinois will almost certainly continue to be population centers.

[Domitian]

actually, i think states should simply scrap the way they allow individuals to vote for president. Individuals should still vote in their governor, state legislators and federal representatives. Then the state legislators should determine to whom the states electoral college electors are granted as well as appoint their State's senators.

No more "popular vote" (at least for POTUS and federal Senators) to worry about.

[DRob4JC]

Another issue with the popular election...

With Obama encouraging non-citizens to vote - it no longer is a valid election. It would basically be similar to a denial of service attack on the internet. You could flood the country with people from different countries to skew the voting results.