Popular Vote vs Electoral College

AZPaul3 writes: Why would Illinois or Michigan be a "battleground state" in a population wins election? Your talking about maybe flipping one elector proportionately. And you still have the undemocratic 2 Senators per state regardless of their population. So you still have Wyoming getting more power per voter than California. So now you modify the EC by removing the Senators and have to put up with the howling from the sparse states - and you'd need 3/4 of the states to go along? You would still see campaigning on the heavily populated states because there you can maybe get more than one elector to flip per dollar spent at each event. Getting the money out by making it illegal would give all those electrons bouncing around in our emails pleading us to send "just another $7" a well-deserved rest. And my delete finger over each of those emails. An Avogadro's Number over the whole nation! yes...but I can dream, can't I?
Advertising sucks. It reveals how stupid we all are.The League of Women Voters could put up the objective hard evidence in a weekly list of all voting and positions held by the candidates. What candidates actually DO is more important than what they SAY.Seems fair.

AZPaul3 writes: There seems to have been a concern that the popular vote could lead to a looney getting elected, after the slave states were brought in.If the setup created a Democratic Republic through an Electoral College of representative electors, then why did it Fail so Totally in preventing an established looney from getting elected via the very thing that was installed to prevent a looney from winning over the Popular vote winner in 2016???hmmm? answer me that.

of course.
so why is anyone defending the EC?to give voice to the interior states, my ass.Again, AZPaul3's proportional EC is a vast improvement, but then which states would become "swing states", which sort of implies vaguely still thinking in a "Winner-Take-All" rule state of mind. And Wyoming still has 4 times as much power per voter as California.I've been thinking (Danger, Wil Robinson!) and a Proportional EC might also increase the chance of a tie, or, more likely, neither side getting a majority, with 3rd & 4th parties getting an Elector or 2. Then, according to the Constitution, it devolves to the states to vote, 1 vote per state and, once again, effectively this means that Land gets to vote.so i repeat: if the EC was to prevent an emotional public from electing a loon, why did it so abysmally fail in 2016 (and also in 2000)?it effectively installed a loon over the Popular much saner vote, exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to do.

AZPaul3 writes: I'd imagine it would be close polling, too close to call, 50-50. In the Winner-Take-All scheme you would campaign there to push your polling from 50-50 to 51-49 or even a bigger margin, but careful not to overspend once you are at 51-49 solid.In a Proportional EC a swing state night still be a 50-50. Or it might be 55%-45% in a 5 elector state and you would push for 75%-25% to get 4 electors out of the 5. or some such margin. In a 55 elector state that is polling 60%-40%, then you would push for 62%-38% to increase your electors from 33-22 up to 34-21 or more.So everywhere you would be pushing to get at least one more elector in each state you are spending money in. In the bigger states you could get more than 1 more, but not so much in the smaller states.It would take more a few years to work out how to allocate your campaign spending.

AZPaul3 writes: Really? Wow, i guess my schooling was wrong about that. Thanks.I seem to remember reading that the Electors would be selected from trustworthy men (no women then) who would not let their passion take over their voting. And, in rare cases, to override a rabid public if the public had chosen an obvious loon.Of course the main reason was to convince the small states to join up.