I’m directing my question at Bud and others who believe we should abandon the electoral college and choose the president directly, by popular vote.
I read this piece yesterday in The Slatest that tells of another movement to bring that about, or as Slate says in its headline with its usual sober impartiality and self-restraint, “U.S. Takes Small Step Toward Having System of Electing Its President That Actually Makes Sense:”
The best case for passing the law might be this map from the National Popular Vote group, which shows how many 2012 presidential campaign events were held in each state between the party conventions and the election:
National Popular Vote
You’ll notice that the majority of states never saw Romney or Obama at all, because their electoral votes were already foregone conclusions. And when a president can get elected by basically ignoring the specific needs and interests of most of the states in the country, that is, like, pretty messed up.
So here’s, like, my question: How would this make candidates want to spend more time in SC?
I mean, I get why Democrats would like it personally, because it means that their votes would actually count in the general election for the first time in a generation.
But would candidates actually be much more interested in coming here during those few weeks between the conventions and Election Day? When it’s all about the national total, wouldn’t they concentrate most on the heaviest concentrations of population — the Northeast, California, Florida?
Sure, every vote they got here would matter, would count toward the total, whereas now Democrats know there’s no point in trying to win here, and Republicans take us for granted. So time here wouldn’t be wasted from the candidates’ point of view, but would it really be the best use of their time? And wouldn’t they prefer to spend their extensive, but finite, media dollars in New York and Chicago than Columbia? (Or would they only buy national media? I’m not sure what would be more cost-effective for them.)
Maybe the answer is obvious, and my head’s just so full of antihistamines today that I’m not seeing it. So help me out.
23 thoughts on “OK, tell me again how direct, popular election of POTUS would make candidates more interested in SC”
Harry Harris
I’ll tell you if you’ll tell me why they SHOULD be more interested in SC.
Would it have made a difference to the segment of our working poor left out of Medicaid expansion by grandstanding GOP politicians and the Governor and thus ineligible for subsidies under the ACA? Would it make SC voter turnout important enough to national Democrats to help local and state candidates? Would it force local successful Democratic politicians to be more forthright and forceful about their positions on national issues? Aside from time spent by candidates in the state, would more resources spent here by the Presidential campaigns make a difference?
Doug Ross
How about starting with changing the primary system to rotate between different states rather than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, etc. always going early? The influence of those states is far greater than it should be. Why not Connecticut, Missouri, Colorado, Georgia, and Oregon to start?
Hey, under the current system, that’s the only time we get to affect the outcome of the election. Which is why we should be allowed to vote in both parties’ primaries. It’s outrageous for a voter to only get a say regarding one of the two viable candidates who will be on the ballot in November…
Doug Ross
Do you really want Republicans to have the ability to influence the outcome of Democrat primaries in this state? Alvin Greene would be a perennial candidate.
Pick one and if he doesn’t win the primary, you still have two choices.
Silence
No, you should not be able to vote in both parties’ primary elections. Pick the person you like and go vote for them, then get out of the way.
Also, we need to get rid of caucus states, the caucus process seems to give well organized fringe candidates too much attention.
Your position is based on a false assumption. You say, “Pick the person you like and go vote for them, then get out of the way.”
Why do you assume I only like one candidate? I mean, frequently I don’t like ANY candidate, and simply have to choose the least bad. But what about when I have a favorite running in each of the primaries?
That was the case for me in 2008. I had a strong preference for John McCain and Barack Obama over their opponents.
I lucked out that year, because they both made it to the November ballot, so I found myself with a rare can’t-lose proposition, from my point of view. But I should have been able to VOTE in favor of both of them being on the ballot.
What if you only like one candidate in the primary you choose to vote in (being forced to choose), and your second, third and fourth choices are all in the other primary? If the candidate I vote for in the primary loses the primary, then that party will be represented in November by someone I really, really don’t like. So my choice in the fall will be between that candidate I don’t like and someone else whom I had absolutely no voice in choosing for the ballot.
I don’t think that’s right. If my candidate loses in the first primary, I have a big stake in the other party choosing someone palatable.
I know that to partisans, and to people who, whether they’re partisans or not, accept this two-party state of affairs, what I’m saying sounds like babbling nonsense. That’s because they accept the idea that people will be committed to vote for the candidate of Party A whether that was their primary choice or not, and will never prefer the candidate of the other party — and therefore have no stake in who that candidate is.
What I’m proposing is to make it more likely that a voter will have a stake in the general election, rather than being faced with an “anyway you look at it you lose” scenario.
You might say it’s unfair because I’d be getting two votes. Well, so would everyone else. And besides, it’s really two separate elections — one a primary to decide the Democratic nominee and the other a primary to elect a Republican nominee. Why should I, as a voter, be barred from voting in any election? To me, it’s like telling me I can vote for sheriff, but not for county council; that I have to choose. I have just as much stake, as a voter, in who the sheriff is as I have in who represents me on the council. And I have just as much stake in who the Democratic nominee is as I have in who the Republican nominee is.
Some will say this is unfair to the parties and spoils the integrity of their selection process. I, after snorting in derision at the use of “party” and “integrity” in the same sentence, will use a very rude word in expressing what I think the parties can do with their prerogatives.
Elections, and their outcomes, should belong to the voters, not to parties. We are not their servants. We voters should be the ones deciding who will make it onto the general election ballot.
Doug Ross
First, you haven’t addressed the issue of partisans crossing over to vote for the worst candidate on the other side. Theoretically, you could end up with the Democrat candidate the Republicans think is the easiest to beat and vice versa. The opportunity for bad behavior is increased exponentially.
Second, you are in a tiny, tiny minority of people who want to vote in both primaries. You could probably hold a group meeting in a phone booth if they still existed.
The average voter doesn’t even know who he’s voting for in the first place beyond whatever name recognition exists or what his church’s voting advisory handout tells him to do. Then you have the informed voters who will never, ever vote for anyone from the other party. Then you have people like me who vote third party regularly. Then there’s you. Hoping for a chance to vote for anyone but Haley.
Do you really want Republicans to have the chance to vote for Vincent Sheheen’s opponent or (worse) to put someone up against him to force Sheheen to spend even more money to just get through the primary?
Kathryn Fenner
How about we just have nationwide voting? Instant runoff. Forget all the drama of serial primaries.
I like having a drawn-out discernment process. When it comes to making public policy, or choosing the people who will make public policy, I don’t like “instant” anything.
That’s why I’m against early voting, or online voting, or anything that increases the chances of a vote being a careless, snap decision. It’s also why I oppose lawmaking by referendum. As grubby as the deliberative process can be, I prefer it to a show of hands saying “yes” or “no” to an issue that needs more complex answers than that — which is pretty much any issue.
Harry Harris
Oh, so you’re in favor of tilting turnout toward those who find taking a part of a work day convenient and those who are most motivated. I think you’re probably also in denial about shortening voting hours being targeted against minorities and low income working people. I’d invite you to spend a few years in the shoes of some of your neighbors who didn’t cut their teeth on politics and have to take their best shot at voting well.
I speak of A and you speak of X. The two things have nothing to do with each other.
Whether someone is black, white, rich, poor or whatever, I want voting to be something they have to take some trouble to do. I don’t want it to be easy or impulsive, for you or me or anyone. Over the course of my life, one of the lessons I have learned is that important decisions are best made carefully, with some deliberation. Something as important as voting should not be done on the spur of the moment. That is my point, and that is what I said.
I’m not convinced that enough people would want to vote maliciously in one of the primaries for it to be a factor. Possibly because to me that’s such contemptible behavior that it’s hard to image anyone being that malicious. And I say malicious and contemptible NOT because it’s a dirty trick on the other party — I don’t care about that. Any bad thing that happens to parties is good in my book. It’s contemptible because a person who does that is deliberately trying to put a weak candidate on the general election ballot, thereby creating a strong possibility that that undesirable candidate will be elected. Anyone who would do THAT absolutely does not deserve the right to vote.
But will partisans do low, contemptible things? Oh, yes. That’s what they’re all about. The issue is whether enough people would do THIS low, contemptible thing for it to be a significant factor. As I say, I prefer to think not, but I just don’t know.
Of course, if a lot of people on both sides actually do what you suggest, maybe it will open the door to third-party candidates having a better chance, by making both parties’ candidate so unappealing. But of course, I really don’t want to see both candidates be weaker. What I’m trying to do is make both candidates stronger, from an independents’ point of view. Because one of them is going to get elected. And if the one I choose isn’t the one who wins, I want to increase the chances that the other person will at least be somewhat acceptable.
I feel like I’m walking in circles here. As I said, my mind’s a bit fuzzy today with the antihistamines and all…
Kathryn Fenner
Zyrtec is the only one that works for me with this. I was taking four doses total of three other ones on Saturday to no avail and switched to Zyrtec and boom! All better!
scout
Zyrtec works for me but it also makes me tireder than I have ever been in my life.
bud
The only reason for me to EVER vote in a presidential year is to vote for the GOP candidate most likely to be defeated in the general election. That’s not malicious it’s strategic. To me in most years all the GOP candidates are utterly contemptible and should not be anywhere near the White House. Last time around Jon Huntman was fairly reasonable but otherwise the choices were simply awful. In the general I do my duty and pointlessly vote but really I’m not sure why I bother. South Carolina’s electoral votes are going to the Republican as they have since 1980. So to me the electoral college is nothing but a vehicle for wasting millions of people’s time. And there is always the possibility of electing a truly bad candidate who is not the people’s choice. At least if the majority rules we can say that the people spoke, however unwisely. But now we simply have a crap shoot. There is exactly nothing good about the electoral college.
No, bud, it’s malicious. Because that person could be elected president of the United States. So to vote for that candidate is grossly irresponsible, and a terrible misuse of your right to vote.
Harry Harris
You’ve had a career in journalism in a stater that produced Harry Dent and Lee Atwater and you don’t think many people would vote maliciously? Wow!
bud
The simple answer is that it doesn’t matter whether the candidates are more interested in a particular area or not. What matter is that we have the people’s choice become POTUS. The ONLY reason you’d not want the people’s favorite to win is if a clearly better candidate someone would get elected with the current process. George W. Bush in 2000 CLEARLY and DECISIVELY refutes any notion that that argument has any merit.
Burl Burlingame
Every election is a choice between the a-hole and the d-bag.
I find myself quoting books I read during my senior year of high school — especially those read in Mrs. Burchard’s English class — more than other books. I guess because I was so impressionable at that age. I practically memorized those books…
Maybe I’d be smarter today if, instead of letting us choose those books to study (Cat’s Cradle, Catch-22, Stranger in a Strange Land) and had chosen better literature for us.
National Popular Vote
I’ll tell you if you’ll tell me why they SHOULD be more interested in SC.
Would it have made a difference to the segment of our working poor left out of Medicaid expansion by grandstanding GOP politicians and the Governor and thus ineligible for subsidies under the ACA? Would it make SC voter turnout important enough to national Democrats to help local and state candidates? Would it force local successful Democratic politicians to be more forthright and forceful about their positions on national issues? Aside from time spent by candidates in the state, would more resources spent here by the Presidential campaigns make a difference?
How about starting with changing the primary system to rotate between different states rather than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, etc. always going early? The influence of those states is far greater than it should be. Why not Connecticut, Missouri, Colorado, Georgia, and Oregon to start?
Hey, under the current system, that’s the only time we get to affect the outcome of the election. Which is why we should be allowed to vote in both parties’ primaries. It’s outrageous for a voter to only get a say regarding one of the two viable candidates who will be on the ballot in November…
Do you really want Republicans to have the ability to influence the outcome of Democrat primaries in this state? Alvin Greene would be a perennial candidate.
Pick one and if he doesn’t win the primary, you still have two choices.
No, you should not be able to vote in both parties’ primary elections. Pick the person you like and go vote for them, then get out of the way.
Also, we need to get rid of caucus states, the caucus process seems to give well organized fringe candidates too much attention.
Your position is based on a false assumption. You say, “Pick the person you like and go vote for them, then get out of the way.”
Why do you assume I only like one candidate? I mean, frequently I don’t like ANY candidate, and simply have to choose the least bad. But what about when I have a favorite running in each of the primaries?
That was the case for me in 2008. I had a strong preference for John McCain and Barack Obama over their opponents.
I lucked out that year, because they both made it to the November ballot, so I found myself with a rare can’t-lose proposition, from my point of view. But I should have been able to VOTE in favor of both of them being on the ballot.
What if you only like one candidate in the primary you choose to vote in (being forced to choose), and your second, third and fourth choices are all in the other primary? If the candidate I vote for in the primary loses the primary, then that party will be represented in November by someone I really, really don’t like. So my choice in the fall will be between that candidate I don’t like and someone else whom I had absolutely no voice in choosing for the ballot.
I don’t think that’s right. If my candidate loses in the first primary, I have a big stake in the other party choosing someone palatable.
I know that to partisans, and to people who, whether they’re partisans or not, accept this two-party state of affairs, what I’m saying sounds like babbling nonsense. That’s because they accept the idea that people will be committed to vote for the candidate of Party A whether that was their primary choice or not, and will never prefer the candidate of the other party — and therefore have no stake in who that candidate is.
What I’m proposing is to make it more likely that a voter will have a stake in the general election, rather than being faced with an “anyway you look at it you lose” scenario.
You might say it’s unfair because I’d be getting two votes. Well, so would everyone else. And besides, it’s really two separate elections — one a primary to decide the Democratic nominee and the other a primary to elect a Republican nominee. Why should I, as a voter, be barred from voting in any election? To me, it’s like telling me I can vote for sheriff, but not for county council; that I have to choose. I have just as much stake, as a voter, in who the sheriff is as I have in who represents me on the council. And I have just as much stake in who the Democratic nominee is as I have in who the Republican nominee is.
Some will say this is unfair to the parties and spoils the integrity of their selection process. I, after snorting in derision at the use of “party” and “integrity” in the same sentence, will use a very rude word in expressing what I think the parties can do with their prerogatives.
Elections, and their outcomes, should belong to the voters, not to parties. We are not their servants. We voters should be the ones deciding who will make it onto the general election ballot.
First, you haven’t addressed the issue of partisans crossing over to vote for the worst candidate on the other side. Theoretically, you could end up with the Democrat candidate the Republicans think is the easiest to beat and vice versa. The opportunity for bad behavior is increased exponentially.
Second, you are in a tiny, tiny minority of people who want to vote in both primaries. You could probably hold a group meeting in a phone booth if they still existed.
The average voter doesn’t even know who he’s voting for in the first place beyond whatever name recognition exists or what his church’s voting advisory handout tells him to do. Then you have the informed voters who will never, ever vote for anyone from the other party. Then you have people like me who vote third party regularly. Then there’s you. Hoping for a chance to vote for anyone but Haley.
Do you really want Republicans to have the chance to vote for Vincent Sheheen’s opponent or (worse) to put someone up against him to force Sheheen to spend even more money to just get through the primary?
How about we just have nationwide voting? Instant runoff. Forget all the drama of serial primaries.
I like having a drawn-out discernment process. When it comes to making public policy, or choosing the people who will make public policy, I don’t like “instant” anything.
That’s why I’m against early voting, or online voting, or anything that increases the chances of a vote being a careless, snap decision. It’s also why I oppose lawmaking by referendum. As grubby as the deliberative process can be, I prefer it to a show of hands saying “yes” or “no” to an issue that needs more complex answers than that — which is pretty much any issue.
Oh, so you’re in favor of tilting turnout toward those who find taking a part of a work day convenient and those who are most motivated. I think you’re probably also in denial about shortening voting hours being targeted against minorities and low income working people. I’d invite you to spend a few years in the shoes of some of your neighbors who didn’t cut their teeth on politics and have to take their best shot at voting well.
I speak of A and you speak of X. The two things have nothing to do with each other.
Whether someone is black, white, rich, poor or whatever, I want voting to be something they have to take some trouble to do. I don’t want it to be easy or impulsive, for you or me or anyone. Over the course of my life, one of the lessons I have learned is that important decisions are best made carefully, with some deliberation. Something as important as voting should not be done on the spur of the moment. That is my point, and that is what I said.
I’m not convinced that enough people would want to vote maliciously in one of the primaries for it to be a factor. Possibly because to me that’s such contemptible behavior that it’s hard to image anyone being that malicious. And I say malicious and contemptible NOT because it’s a dirty trick on the other party — I don’t care about that. Any bad thing that happens to parties is good in my book. It’s contemptible because a person who does that is deliberately trying to put a weak candidate on the general election ballot, thereby creating a strong possibility that that undesirable candidate will be elected. Anyone who would do THAT absolutely does not deserve the right to vote.
But will partisans do low, contemptible things? Oh, yes. That’s what they’re all about. The issue is whether enough people would do THIS low, contemptible thing for it to be a significant factor. As I say, I prefer to think not, but I just don’t know.
Of course, if a lot of people on both sides actually do what you suggest, maybe it will open the door to third-party candidates having a better chance, by making both parties’ candidate so unappealing. But of course, I really don’t want to see both candidates be weaker. What I’m trying to do is make both candidates stronger, from an independents’ point of view. Because one of them is going to get elected. And if the one I choose isn’t the one who wins, I want to increase the chances that the other person will at least be somewhat acceptable.
I feel like I’m walking in circles here. As I said, my mind’s a bit fuzzy today with the antihistamines and all…
Zyrtec is the only one that works for me with this. I was taking four doses total of three other ones on Saturday to no avail and switched to Zyrtec and boom! All better!
Zyrtec works for me but it also makes me tireder than I have ever been in my life.
The only reason for me to EVER vote in a presidential year is to vote for the GOP candidate most likely to be defeated in the general election. That’s not malicious it’s strategic. To me in most years all the GOP candidates are utterly contemptible and should not be anywhere near the White House. Last time around Jon Huntman was fairly reasonable but otherwise the choices were simply awful. In the general I do my duty and pointlessly vote but really I’m not sure why I bother. South Carolina’s electoral votes are going to the Republican as they have since 1980. So to me the electoral college is nothing but a vehicle for wasting millions of people’s time. And there is always the possibility of electing a truly bad candidate who is not the people’s choice. At least if the majority rules we can say that the people spoke, however unwisely. But now we simply have a crap shoot. There is exactly nothing good about the electoral college.
I’ll just leave this here.
No, bud, it’s malicious. Because that person could be elected president of the United States. So to vote for that candidate is grossly irresponsible, and a terrible misuse of your right to vote.
You’ve had a career in journalism in a stater that produced Harry Dent and Lee Atwater and you don’t think many people would vote maliciously? Wow!
The simple answer is that it doesn’t matter whether the candidates are more interested in a particular area or not. What matter is that we have the people’s choice become POTUS. The ONLY reason you’d not want the people’s favorite to win is if a clearly better candidate someone would get elected with the current process. George W. Bush in 2000 CLEARLY and DECISIVELY refutes any notion that that argument has any merit.
Every election is a choice between the a-hole and the d-bag.
http://i.imgur.com/i5gksRQ.jpg
And that makes it even more critically important to make the right choice. I’ll quote Jubal Harshaw for the second time this week:
When the choice is between bad and worse, a voter’s obligation is greater than ever to vote with careful discernment, picking the lesser of two evils.
I find myself quoting books I read during my senior year of high school — especially those read in Mrs. Burchard’s English class — more than other books. I guess because I was so impressionable at that age. I practically memorized those books…
Maybe I’d be smarter today if, instead of letting us choose those books to study (Cat’s Cradle, Catch-22, Stranger in a Strange Land) and had chosen better literature for us.
She did have us read Wuthering Heights…