Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 2/22 (373 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, with a national popular vote, (0+ / 0-)

    millions would be spent in NYC, LA, and Chicago, and zilch in New Hampshire AND Idaho.

    •  Um, no, that doesn't logically follow at all (6+ / 0-)

      If you think Obama would have spent no money in Idaho's college towns, you aren't undertsanding the basics of modern politics.

      Money will be spent where it makes the biggest impact.  For instance, you get a big bang for the buck in ND media markets compared to major cities.

      Candidates from both parties would campaign in areas of all states.  Dems in Laramie and Austin and Athens and Lawrence, Reps in Orange County, eastern WA and OR, upstate NY, etc etc.

      One thing is certain: a pure polular vote election will lead to money being spent in far, far more places than currently.

      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

      by tommypaine on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 01:47:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not really (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skaje, MichaelNY

      Lots of money would be spent in NYC, LA, and Chicago. Some money, but less, would be spent in Idaho and New Hampshire. Money would be spent more or less in proportion to the number of voters in an area. That is how campaigns compete within states for electoral votes, after all, and how gubernatorial and senate candidates compete for statewide office.

      What you're asking for is for voters in sparsely populated areas to have more say than voters in densely populated areas. Why?

      You don't fight the fights you can win. You fight the fights that need fighting. -President Andrew Sheppard (D-Wisconsin)

      by Gpack3 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 01:51:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, this is increasingly not how campaigns work (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, gabjoh

        Take microtargeting for instance. Did Obama only contest the big cities in Ohio? No, they microtargeted every single voter they thought worth pursuing even if they were in the middle of nowhere. People in rural areas or small states would still be impacted because having a popular vote would liberate us from thinking of voters geographically except for broadcast TV ads which would become increasingly less important.

        •  Microtargeting still requires a lot of resources (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          In 2008, for example, the Obama campaign had about 15 full time staff on the ground in my battleground state congressional district. If there were NPV, you'd see this in every CD, but while the NYC CDs cover a few blocks, Montana and Alaska's are huge in geographic extent.

          You don't fight the fights you can win. You fight the fights that need fighting. -President Andrew Sheppard (D-Wisconsin)

          by Gpack3 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:01:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sacman701, MichaelNY

        Governor and Senate elections do not focus entirely on the cities, ignoring the rural areas of the states.  There is indeed more focus on the cities, because that is where more people live, but it is often cheap to advertise in the rural areas, and the margins still matter.

        That is the most pertinent question...why must presidential elections be run so differently from governor and senate elections?  We don't need state electoral colleges to ensure that their statewide elections have "wide appeal".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site