You're simply wrong. If a candidate could win just with the popular vote, they would concentrate only on their narrow base, and hit a few key issues to build up the biggest block they could. They would focus on high population density areas to the exclusion of smaller less densely populated States. We would also become inundated with third, fourth, fifth party candidates keyed into small issue bases, and further diluting the vote. eventually we'd have candidates who could campaign solely in big cities (for example), and win an election with 20% of the vote while everyone else split the rest.

Someone could now win the EC with 20% of the vote. So no different that the current system, even with your worst case scenario. In fact even in a two party election someone just needs 23% of the popular vote to win the EC. So really, you are once again showing a good argument against the EC.
quote]

Maybe someone "could" theoretically win with 20% now (pretty tough to get 270 EC votes with only 20% of popular vote, but hey, maybe it's possible), but they don't, because the EC system helps us keep 13 extra candidates from seriously getting any traction, because they know they can't get anywhere near where they need to win. So we always end up with a small number of candidates, allowing 2 major candidates to mostly split the vote.



This simply isn't true, and we know it's not, because we see how it works in other countries. Purely going by popular vote results in a much larger swatch of parties/candidates, and they split the vote up into much smaller segments with narrower focus.

Appealing to the largest number of voters you can get, when you're splitting amongst 10 candidates, isn't getting you closer to mass agreement on a winner.

Candidates under the current system DO NOT just have to appeal to swing State voters. Stop repeating this nonsense. The swing States are just the undecided States, where candidates have to try to convince marginal voters. A liberal candidate already appeals to voters in mostly blue States, and likewise for a conservative candidate in a red State. It's not that they don't have to appeal to those voters; it's that they already DO appeal to those voters, and don't have to take extraordinary measures to do so.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Someone could now win the EC with 20% of the vote. So no different that the current system, even with your worst case scenario. In fact even in a two party election someone just needs 23% of the popular vote to win the EC. So really, you are once again showing a good argument against the EC.

The actual way popular vote would work is the candidates would be forced to get appeal to the largest amount of voters. Which is better than now where they just need to appeal to a subset of swing state voters.

Yes, someone winning the EC with 23% of the popular vote is unlikely, but it is not anymore likely than someone winning a popular vote election with 20% of the vote AND wouldn't happen with a run off as I previously proposed.

So you agree a popular vote with a run off would be better than the EC? It would prevent someone winning with 23% of the vote, which you admit would be a bad thing.

Can you finally answer my question, how did trump moderate? Seriously, how are you saying that the EC causes candidates to moderate or appeal to the most voters, when trump won?

I'm on the fence about the EC because I live in a state that has never in my voting history gone republican. My vote never counts. I lean towards keeping it because the arguments and reasons for it make sense to me.

One question, if Hillary had won in 2016 would everyone still be calling for change? It just feels like loser talk to me.

I agree with you on one thing, Trump did not moderate at all. He doesn't need to and wont' be doing it in 2020 either.

Even after he gets impeached he will be tweeting like a madman and insulting anyone he deems necessary.

Problem for the left is he will win re-election. USA today poll has him beating all the current Dem Challengers. It will be hard for many to comprehend that even knowing what Trump is and what he does, he is still a preferred President to the Dem nominees for around 50% of the country and with the help of the EC, a winning candidate.

Problem for the left is he will win re-election. USA today poll has him beating all the current Dem Challengers.

I'm on the fence about the EC because I live in a state that has never in my voting history gone republican. My vote never counts. I lean towards keeping it because the arguments and reasons for it make sense to me.

One question, if Hillary had won in 2016 would everyone still be calling for change? It just feels like loser talk to me.

Yes, someone winning the EC with 23% of the popular vote is unlikely, but it is not anymore likely than someone winning a popular vote election with 20% of the vote AND wouldn't happen with a run off as I previously proposed.

So you agree a popular vote with a run off would be better than the EC?

Can you finally answer my question, how did trump moderate? Seriously, how are you saying that the EC causes candidates to moderate or appeal to the most voters, when trump won?