VA Gov. Bob McDonnell will oppose the electoral college change

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by VAg8r1

Who knows, without the EC the votes of Democrats in Texas and Republicans in New York and California could actually mean something is presidential elections.

Conversely, it'd mean taking away the political power of voters (Democratic or Republican) in states like Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Iowa, South Dakota, etc.

After all, why bother with the small states when campaigning in larger states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois will land you a bigger return?

Winning 60% of the vote in a state like California or Florida will be greater to or equal to 100% of the vote in states like South Dakota or Rhode Island.

Not sure that's a better trade-off in the end.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Conversely, it'd mean taking away the political power of voters (Democratic or Republican) in states like Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Iowa, South Dakota, etc.

After all, why bother with the small states when campaigning in larger states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois will land you a bigger return?

Winning 60% of the vote in a state like California or Florida will be greater to or equal to 100% of the vote in states like South Dakota or Rhode Island.

Not sure that's a better trade-off in the end.

This post displays a fundamental misunderstanding for how marketing in such a system would work compared to how it works now.

Let's use your example of Rhode Island. As of now, Rhode Island receives absolutely no attention at a Presidential level, as it is labeled by both parties as "Safe Democratic" and is conceded by Republicans and assumed by Democrats. A popular vote system would actually increase the importance of Rhode Island, as there would now be just under 1 Million potential voters (population is over 1 Million, so I figure that there would be 700-900K potential voters).

Media purchasing would go to a system more like we see in the private sector, in which it would be targeted at persuadable voters (persuadable consumers in the private sector). So while convincing the whole of California to vote for you would be a huge deal, it would require the purchase of many expensive advertisements in many different media markets. Meanwhile, the state of Rhode Island is basically 1 media market with 1 million people in it, so it would be much cheaper to run advertisements there than over the entire state of California.

So the decision becomes based on where the most persuadable voters would be located rather than locating advertisements in closely divided areas only and ignoring all other areas' concerns.

From a raw power standpoint, this would likely mean an increase in power for more moderate states (and that doesn't necessarily mean swing states as states like Wisconsin that are very sharply divided between two non-persuadable groups would not gain power). The states most likely to lose power are those that are smaller and sharply divided. Smaller states with persuadable voters would gain far more power.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

This post displays a fundamental misunderstanding for how marketing in such a system would work compared to how it works now.

Let's use your example of Rhode Island. As of now, Rhode Island receives absolutely no attention at a Presidential level, as it is labeled by both parties as "Safe Democratic" and is conceded by Republicans and assumed by Democrats. A popular vote system would actually increase the importance of Rhode Island, as there would now be just under 1 Million potential voters (population is over 1 Million, so I figure that there would be 700-900K potential voters).

You start off by saying I'm wrong--but then go about proving how I'm right.

I readily admit: buying up ads in smaller states would be cheaper. Economics of scale will work that way.

But yet--even assuming 700-900K voters in Rhode Island--that's what? 1/10th of the potential voters in a state like Texas? Where would one focus tv ads: Texas--or Rhode Island? Where would a +/-3% swing matter more: Texas or Rhode Island?

If a presidential candidate focused on winning 60% of the vote in the top 5 states by population (California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois), they'd win the presidency an overwhelming percentage of the time.

At best, it'd mean a result not much different than today. At worst, it'd mean presidential candidates focusing only on the biggest states by population and ignoring the smaller states.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

You start off by saying I'm wrong--but then go about proving how I'm right.

I readily admit: buying up ads in smaller states would be cheaper. Economics of scale will work that way.

But yet--even assuming 700-900K voters in Rhode Island--that's what? 1/10th of the potential voters in a state like Texas? Where would one focus tv ads: Texas--or Rhode Island? Where would a +/-3% swing matter more: Texas or Rhode Island?

If a presidential candidate focused on winning 60% of the vote in the top 5 states by population (California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois), they'd win the presidency an overwhelming percentage of the time.

At best, it'd mean a result not much different than today. At worst, it'd mean presidential candidates focusing only on the biggest states by population and ignoring the smaller states.

I don't know where I would focus the ads. Say your 1/10th number is correct. That would mean it would also cost 10x as much to convert 3% of the state, assuming a constant cost of advertising and equal convertibility of the populace from voting the other way or not voting to voting for you.

Your strategy would require a candidate capable of winning 60% of the vote in each of those five states. Who would that person be, even in the best case scenario of putting all advertising dollars into those states? And in this case, they would likely lose the rest of the country by enough to lose the Presidency, since they would have no advertising spending in major metro areas like Atlanta, Charlotte, Denver, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis, Seattle, Portland, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, etc.

Basically, you are implicitly arguing that there is no difference in the cost of converting 3% of Texas compared to 3% of Rhode Island. That is absurd. If the cost is the same per person, which is much closer to being true than your implicit theory, then you would simply advertise to the most convertible people. If the people of Texas are not easily converted from one party to the other, then the money would go to Rhode Island more heavily.