04-03-2019, 07:48 PM
(04-03-2019, 04:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Under our current system, 68% of 2016 general election campaign events were in 6 states. Those states account for 21% of our population.
94% where in just 12 states (an additional 7%).
Iowa had 21 campaign events for their 3 million voters. New Hampshire's 1.3m voters got 21 events too.
So 94% of campaigning under the EC is done where 28% of the nation lives. 28% of the nation (25 states total) had no visits. The other 44% (13 states) got 24 total visits (6%). LOL, 144 million Americans had 3 more campaign visits than New Hampshire's 1.3 million. 92 million Americans had none.
So what you're suggesting will happen if we have a popular vote already happens to an extreme degree because of the EC.
Is it a surprise that Florida, which had the most visits (71), had more total voters than Texas (1 visit), even though Florida has 3/4ths the population? Yea, obviously New Hampshire may not get any visits now, but do they need 21 visits at the expense of 25 other states getting none?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Lxw0vc4YBUwQ8cZouyewZvOGg6PyzS2mArWNe3iJcY/edit#gid=0
I appreciate the detail and the source. It doesn't change my point though. Eliminating the EC would merely shift the focus from those battleground states to large population centers. This doesn't solve the problem, it merely shifts it to somewhere else. At least under the current system a candidate must be cognizant of the lower population states. Under a popular vote system there is zero reason to give them even a moments though.
