I always enjoy new ways to come together and vote and/or bet on the Presidential election. Now the Economist, surely the world’s best-written newsweekly, has gotten into this sordid business. They’ve created a Global Electoral College. Everyone votes for their candidate on line…but they identify their nationality first. Then the Economist, treating each country as if it were a state, and allocating votes to countries based on their overall portion of the world’s population, will determine who’d win this race if everyone could vote. In this race, I’m betting on Obama!
Economist Creates A Global Electoral College
Posted by
2
2
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state or country-by-country, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes– 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
For Mvymvy, I'd like to reply. Your idea is horrible. If we didn't have the electoral college, all it would take is Obama to appeal to NYC, Chicago, LA, Boston, San Fransisco, and a couple of other cities on the periphery. "Vote for me, and I'll stick everyone in the middle of the country with all the bill."
What could Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, etc do? How about Wyoming? What happens if Obama said, "I'll take all of Wyomings oil and give it to New York City for free if I'm elected?" Plain economic rape by the big cities.
The electoral college is a GOOD thing. Direct Democracy is an absolute disaster, having failed everywhere it was tried.
Plus, all the Obama camp would have to do is cheat in NYC instead of the entire country to add his millions of graveyard votes. Game over for the rest of the country.
Sorry, I don't want to live in a country where even more than now it is run by big city liberals who have no problems at all taking money from me and sending it to the big cities for welfare, etc.