The Obama-Romney battlefield: Electoral college ensures it's weird

[edcantor]

There are 50 states on The Times’ cool, new "predict a winner" interactive map. But only about 10 of those states really matter for this presidential election, thanks to the electoral college. In a sea of blue and red, these states are gray — and that means up for grabs.

It is one of the oddest features of American democracy. Presidential candidates need only win 270 electoral votes — not the popular vote — to become the leader of the free world.

Electoral votes are awarded state by state, based on congressional representation. So a series of narrow wins in enough states beats huge losses in the others.

INTERACTIVE: Predict a winner

Map and more at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-electoral-college-10-states-matter-20120525,0,90732.story

[DonCoquixote]

1. The electoral college must go

It was meant to ensure that a candidate would have to speak to everyone, but now, it has become a means to ensure that only a few states matter; I say this as someone in Florida, a state that has suffered because the GOP have made sure to send in lawyers, guns and money to keep us locked down.

[phleshdef]

2. At the least, they could distribute the electoral votes proportionally, according to each states...

...popular vote. But I'm all for just scrapping it. Its definately unnecessary.

[The Magistrate]

3. Actually, Sir, it Was Meant To Keep Selecting The President Out Of The Hands Of The Mob

As gentlemen in those days referred to all who were not....

[edcantor]

4. I can't really see any rationale for it either

Of course, I can live with it, and really would prefer an auditable paper based system of voting, where no-one can tamper with the machines, where people can vote anytime in the first 7 days of November, and where people are fined .1% extra in income taxes for not having voted. A corporation would be limited to giving only the same amount that a human being can give to a candidate, and the same amount to any one PAC.

[Retrograde]

5. Spare a moment for us Californians

A.K.A. the Democratic party's ATM. We're expected to vote for Obama in November, so the only attention we get is being asked for $$$. Obama swooped in and out for his 3rd fundraising trip to my neighborhood last week (betcha you didn't hear about it - no press allowed): 2 $35K+ dinners and a less pricey event where tickets started at $250. Now, there's no way I'm going to vote for a Republican come November, but it would be nice if candidates did occasionally spare some time for the country's most populous state.

But as long as the constitution requires 3/4 of the states to support any changes we're stuck with a system that favors the less populated states.

[dinopipie]

6. The EC needs to go however

with that being said, a Democrat can win a national election without winning a single southern state, crunch the EC numbers by state, yet a Pub cannot win without winning a whole bunch of Blue States.

IMHO the Democratic Party needs to stop wasting their time and resources on lost causes and bolster their strongholds.

[TBF]

7. They actually do that -

and I have to believe the other side does as well. Certain battleground states will garner much more attention (money and volunteer activity) than others.