Montana should join a national movement to bypass the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the popular vote, a Darby senator told lawmakers Wednesday.
Republican Sen. Rick Laible and other supporters said the change would make Montana and other sparsely populated states more of a factor in presidential races and could increase voter turnout.
I'm not real sure Sen. Rick Laible is in touch with reality on this one. By giving all of Montana's Electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote would make my vote almost non-existent. This would allow the populous states to control the election and mean that the Presidential candidates would not need to concern themselves with the smaller states since by winning the popular vote in large states, they automatically win the small states.
This makes my vote unimportant and elevates the vote of a New Yorker or Californian to a large amount. How stupid is this? Very stupid if you ask me. The whole idea of the Electoral College was to give the least populous states a little bigger role in selecting the President so they would have representation. Lets not wreck it.
With stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain. Friedrich Schiller
Having not looked into this at all, I am probably missing some pieces. Just what hit my head when I read your post.
In my opinion, there is a misconception in the US that we live in a Democracy. My study of the situation leads me to understand we live in a Constitutional Republic that has Democratic Ideals, but it is not a Democracy. The Electoral College and 2 Senators per State prove that. This was done so the larger political units, States, could not dictate terms to the less populous political units.
Also, in my way of thinking, it makes no sense to give a States electoral votes to a Candidate that didn't win the State. If Candidate A wins the popular vote in the state, and Candidate B wins the popular vote nationwide, why should the votes go to B. It makes no sense.
If we are going to do this why don't we just get rid of the States. That is what this proposal is doing, diminishing the power of the States even further.
Like I always say, I am just a dumb cowboy but I don't see the sense in this one. It just diminishes my vote and would make it less likely for me to vote in Presidential elections.
Under the current system, states that are solidly blue or red are completely ignored by Presidential candidates, because it doesn't matter if you win with 51% or 75%. That means the only areas cadidates campaign to are the few "purplish" counties in the battleground states. The rest of the country is ignored.
You are ignored. Your vote doesn't really count, regardless of who you vote for. Why work for a candidate who's winning by a 10-point margin in the state? Why discuss the issues? What's the use?
On the other hand, if all the state give their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote, that means that every vote counts, even in lopsided states like Montnana or Idaho, California or Massachusetts. Suddenly, it matters what the margin of victory is here in Montana. Or in California. Candidates will be forced to address issues all over the country instead of in a few Ohio and Florida counties.
The Electoral College was designed to protect the interest of smaller states...but (a) it really disenfranchies 75% of all states, and (b) was designed at a time when there were significant cultural and political differences between the states. It's no longer relevant.
So this bill would make your vote count and cause Western issues to be considered in the election. What's the downside?
Personally, I shy away from positions that narrow the democratic process so that I can have my way politically.