Utah has the lowest voter turnout

[Frank Ryan]

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700240767,00.html

I'm shocked. I would have guessed it would have been on the higher side.

I'm guessing not having a viable second party has hurt turnout

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Frank Ryan

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700240767,00.html

I'm shocked. I would have guessed it would have been on the higher side.

I'm guessing not having a viable second party has hurt turnout

This is the reason I hate the electoral college. It gives disproportionate power to voters in battleground states.

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

This is the reason I hate the electoral college. It gives disproportionate power to voters in battleground states.

It sure does. If McCain spends time here it isn't to court voters it's just to raise cash.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

This is the reason I hate the electoral college. It gives disproportionate power to voters in battleground states.

However, if it were strictly popular vote, all the campaigning would be done in big cities. There would be no need to offer a platform amenable to a broad spectrum.

The EC isn't perfect, but I prefer it to the alternative.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Brian

However, if it were strictly popular vote, all the campaigning would be done in big cities. There would be no need to offer a platform amenable to a broad spectrum.

The EC isn't perfect, but I prefer it to the alternative.

Agree. No one would bother at all with Utah for example. Just win California, Florida and New York and you're pretty much there. You can ignore the rest of the country.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Agree. No one would bother at all with Utah for example. Just win California, Florida and New York and you're pretty much there. You can ignore the rest of the country.

they don't bother with Utah now. The 5 electoral votes are a done deal in the R column as it is. There may be valid arguments for keeping it the way it is, but this is not one of them, IMO. As it is now, all they do is figure out which states will be close and only campaign there. I understand why they set up the electoral college in the first place, but at the same time, it's somewhat annoying to me that my vote really doesn't count because I live in a state where there is never a question where those electoral votes will go. Don't forget, the writers of the Constitution did not have political parties in mind, so I doubt they envisioned it working like this either.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BlueK

they don't bother with Utah now. The 5 electoral votes are a done deal in the R column as it is. There may be valid arguments for keeping it the way it is, but this is not one of them, IMO. As it is now, all they do is figure out which states will be close and only campaign there. I understand why they set up the electoral college in the first place, but at the same time, it's somewhat annoying to me that my vote really doesn't count because I live in a state where there is never a question where those electoral votes will go. Don't forget, the writers of the Constitution did not have political parties in mind, so I doubt they envisioned it working like this either.

this year may be different.

I see what, hundreds of Obama yard-signs. I havent' seen a single McCain sign.

At this point, I would definitely predict Obama to win my neighborhood, and it wouldn't surprise me if Texas were in play.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

this year may be different.

I see what, hundreds of Obama yard-signs. I havent' seen a single McCain sign.

At this point, I would definitely predict Obama to win my neighborhood, and it wouldn't surprise me if Texas were in play.

Texas would only be in play for Obama if men couldn't vote. Among women it's very close. Among men, McCain leads by 20+ points in Texas.

End women's suffrage!!!!!

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Agree. No one would bother at all with Utah for example. Just win California, Florida and New York and you're pretty much there. You can ignore the rest of the country.

If someone wins CA, FL, and NY, they're winning in a landslide in the EC. They could win all three of those (by small margins) and still lose with the popular vote.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Brian

However, if it were strictly popular vote, all the campaigning would be done in big cities. There would be no need to offer a platform amenable to a broad spectrum.

The EC isn't perfect, but I prefer it to the alternative.

I don't necessarily have a problem with most of the campaigning being done in big cities--that's where more of the citizens are. Now it's often focused on bizarre places.

Similarly, the platform is currently targeted towards special interests in battleground states. Consistently Republican or Democratic states are essentially ignored.

The biggest argument for the popular system is exactly what started this thread--voter turnout. I'm going to the polls only out of obligation. My vote will not count, and to tell you the truth, if I have any sort of conflict, I probably won't vote. If I knew my vote were counting, the impetus to vote would be stronger.