Bag The Electoral College

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

Obama supporters, the final national numbers coming in show that your candidate won re-election by more than 4 million votes. That wouldn\’t matter, though, if just under 150,000 votes in the swing states went the other way.

Mitt Romney would have collected more electoral college votes and he\’d be on the way to the White House — no matter how many popular votes Barack Obama received.


The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

3 thoughts on “Bag The Electoral College

  1. Huh

    Rick, your column (and the concept of the National Popular Vote) is pretty silly. No candidate would ever, ever come to Connecticut if the NPV was passed here. All candidates would simply focus their efforts on high population centers, and that’s it. Considering that Connecticut’s population is getting older and/or running to cheaper places to live, our influence would continue to wane.

    Also, about Kennedy’s stop, he was ending election night in Boston, and stopped here because the Chair of the National Party lived here. That’s it. If the Chair of the National Party were from Maine, Kennedy never would have stopped here.

    Finally, the biggest reason why candidates don’t spend any time here is because of all of the blue lemmings who vote Democrat without thinking once (let alone twice). If the state was in play (like other small states in 2012), they’d come here. Too bad the unions hold so much sway here.

    1. mvymvy

      Connecticut has no influence in presidential elections now.

      A survey of Connecticut voters showed 74% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked:

      “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”

      Support for a national popular vote, by political affiliation, was 80% among Democrats, 67% among Republicans, and 71% among others.

      By gender, support was 81% among women and 66% among men.

      By age, support was 82% among 18-29 year olds, 69% among 30-45 year olds, 75% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.

      With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal. Candidates would reallocate the money they raise to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

      With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
      The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

      Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

      If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

      A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

      The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

      With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

      Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

      In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

      Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

      There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

      With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

      Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

  2. ccbeachcomber

    Think we get it. Obama was re-elected! So we have a mandate for another 4 years of stagnation and terminal unemployment. Everyone needs to embrace and support that concept. Productivity? Booo. Growth? Bah. More jobs? Nah. C’mon people, get with the program.

Comments are closed.