Had the electoral college been set up by county instead of state, McCain would have won. Bush’s election last cycle would have been even greater. Counties are closer to the people. Problem is that big liberal cities like New York City suck up all the political power from the rest of New York State, for example.
And. . . had those with a high school degree or higher been excluded from voting he would have won as well, but they weren’t so he didn’t.
I don’t know what you mean by “counties are closer to the people” either; the President isn’t elected as a county councilor. He’s elected to lead the nation in domestic and international affairs.
Are you giving each county one electoral vote? LA County gets one vote, and Cowpoke County, Wyoming gets one vote?
Fortunately Obama ran for President of the United States, not President of the United Counties.
What’s up with Kentucky, Alabama and Tennessee? They’ve got a million tiny counties.
No, they would get votes according to their population. The founding fathers chose the electoral system over the popular vote because they wanted the vote to be more representative of the popoulation. Back then, there were no huge megacities, so it worked fine in principle. Today, New York City and Los Angelos are so big, they need to be a state all of their own practicably speaking. These population center dilutes the vote of the whole rest of the state, which states are huge, creating distortions.
It’s just looking at theory.
It seems the election is decided by four huge states. But the population centers in those states, which are small in land area, decide the vote for the whole huge state area.
In effect, the vote of conservatives in the rest of New York State, some of whom live quite far from the city, goes to Democrats because of NYC, which is unfair to them. Their voice is lost.
Well the closest you can get to the population is the popular vote and Obama won that easily.
I’ve been thinking about that as well – electing a president on the basis of land mass. That also appeals to my basic instincts.
Well, I can’t say I’m glad Obama won. But I can say I’m glad McCain lost.
In that case, you might be interested in these maps, which seem more telling to me.
Here’s the map we’ve all seen of who won by state.
Here’s the same thing, but with all of the states rescaled in proportion to their population.
Here’s the map you gave us, showing results by county (regardless of population).
And here the counties are rescaled in proportion to their population.
Not as red as you thought, is it?
This one is more nuanced, in that it includes red, blue and purple, depending on percentages of voters.
And this may be the most accurate of all, based on the above but rescaled according to population.
Here’s where they all came from:
www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
Interesting, but people are still closer to ‘the people’, and Obama won the popular vote by, what, 8, 9, or 10 million votes. All of which indicates that the Republicans enjoy greater support in rural areas… which we knew.
I suppose you could organize a Republic of the Counties, but if it weren’t merely a collection of rotten borough, the result would be the same. Still, redistricting is coming: I’m sure the parties will be looking at your map. Too bad the Dems will be in charge, eh?
What’s up with the East Coast, they got so many little states: Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc. But really, even if those counties were combined into three would be okay. The main thing is to separate NYC from the rest of NY State and give some of those outlying counties a voice.
The map you are showing us does not follow the principle of representation weighed according to population density. It simply shows each county and then marks it red where there were more votes for republicans and blue where there were more votes for democrats. On that map, LA County and Cowpoke County both get one vote.
That map was designed for shock value, hoping that it would provoke an emotional rise in people who cannot think straight. (Designed by republicans for republicans, no doubt.)
Actually, it’s possibly looking better for Republicans on that front according to the next census. When it comes to the census, it doesn’t matter which party is in charge. You’re talking about state gerrymandering, which doesn’t apply to national elections. This from Rove:
History Favors Republicans in 2010
Interesting, but people are still closer to ‘the people’, and Obama won the popular vote by, what, 8, 9, or 10 million votes. All of which indicates that the Republicans enjoy greater support in rural areas… which we knew.[/quote]
But when you look at it from representational point of view, cities are being represented over states. In other words, New York City has become, in effect, New York State. New York City and it’s influence has become as large as New York State proper.
[quote=“jotham”]
But when you look at it from representational point of view, cities are being represented over states. In other words, New York City has become, in effect, New York State. New York City and it’s influence has become as large as New York State proper.[/quote]
That’s silly. NYC has over 2/5 of the state’s population, the same amount of people would have proportionate influence in any state. Also conservative republicans often do well in state and even city elections.
I’d prefer to see an electoral college composed of all the nation’s voters, each person having one vote 
This strikes me as a modern version of the ‘how many angels will fit on the head of a pin’ debate.
It’s like a question of “which artificial way of stepping away from a popular vote” is going to lead to a better result. If one county gets one vote, then that would tend to encourage states to massively subdivide into tiny counties just to ensure a disproportionate power in selecting the president. The electoral college sucks enough as it is, so why add the extra headache of candidates making desperate pitches to the “important swing county of ______”.
This is one of the most amazing discussions I have ever seen. What’s with all this “rescaled in proportion to population” stuff? Why don’t you just do what they in loads of other countries and declare the winner to be the candidate who got the largest number of votes? Wouldn’t that be “closer to the people”?
So tell me all you geographers, who won if do it that way? Or do you need to have a PhD in math to understand this? No wonder the USA is so *****ed up.
Shit, yeah – about time we went to a popular vote. People move around and don’t have the same state allegiances they once had. It’s not like that “Outlaw Josey Wales” movie where the old biddy has particular views on pretty much every damn state anymore. Oooooo… if you’re a Jayhawker, I’m afraid I’ll just have to face the other way. No, anything but a Hoosier!