Thanks Ezra, now I have a URL to send to people when they ask why I don't vote. This, despite the fact that my FWB said she would never sleep with me again if I didn't vote.

It's amazing, really, that the EC system is still in place when you consider that you could have predicted that about 2/3 of the states would not have mattered on November 4, 2008 back in November 2004. You also could have made a pretty good guess as to which 1/3 of the states would matter. Also the primary system, with its focus on IA and NH, is a farce.

Back in December 2003 I sent an email to my friends saying that OH would decide the election, and that if OH wasn't decisive, no one's vote would really matter because the election wouldn't be close. I said the country would be better off if the powers that be decided that only OH would vote in the presidential election. They called me crazy, until after election day, when they told me I was right.

I'll stop calling our vote-nullifying winner-take-all, archaic electoral college, absurd primary tradition of a voting system of a disgrace when it ceases to be one. Until then, I'm with the large portion of American adults who view voting as a waste of a good 10 minutes.

That's funny. You think this analysis of the tiny probabilities of (your vote matters) should make people want to support National Popular Vote, but if we had National Popular Vote, the probability of (your vote matters) will go down for everyone. We'll all be equally insignificant--I guess that has some appeal. Though, practically speaking, all of our individual votes are quite insignificant now.

Me, I never saw national popular vote as particularly meaningful or just. The Electoral College vote has always seemed like a fun game to me.

Actually, as I understand the National Popular Vote idea, as few as 11 'states' would be sufficient:

California
Texas
Florida
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Illinois
New Jersey
North Carolina
Georgia

Those states total 271 electoral votes. If those (or some other combination requiring 12 or 13 states) agreed to give their EVs to the candidate winning the popular vote nationwide, then it's done.

bleh,

Your theory is only applicable to the specific Presidential race. You have far more influence in smaller elections, which incidentally hold bigger sway over your day to day life. Your votes for Congress, State Houses, Mayor, City Council, and school board are all more influential. And then there are bond initiatives and propositions.

But that would only be important if you cared about things like the property tax rate you pay, the streets you drive on, garbage pick up, highway construction, school construction, alcohol restrictions. Oh and then the fact that Congress gets to decide which part of the Presidents agenda actually moves forward and how.

But if you're too stupid to recognize this go ahead and stay home. I'm sure you have a game of halo 3 to finish.

I've still never heard a cogent argument for why the EC is bad. Furthermore, even if we just assert that it is bad, why is it more important than other things that are broken?
The most common criticism of the EC is that it doesn't reflect the popular vote. That's like saying that the problem with automobiles is that they don't float when driven into the water. It's not what it's designed for -- in fact with the EC, it's designed to dilute the effect of a localized surge in popular sentiment.
Second, it's simply a mis-prioritization to say that the EC is absolutely the most important thing to address. In terms of more important things, how about:
1. Voting machines and the vote counting process.
2. Corporate money in political campaigns.
3. Two party strangle-hold.
4. Govt sponsored voter registration.
The list goes on and on. EC is nowhere near the top, but it's a nice distraction from real issues.

If you've never heard a cogent argument for why the EC is bad, you're either shoving your fingers in your ears while repeating "I'm not listening," or you're unwilling or unable to follow a simple, logical argument. I can't speak for you, but given your gibberish assertions about what the EC is designed to do, I lean towards the latter.

Or, wait -- have you enjoyed the last eight years of W. Bush misrule? Try to remember, Gore won the 2000 election by a half-million votes. Bush (let's be charitable and not rehash what actually happened in FL2K) "won" thanks to the EC.

Facts and logic. Try them sometime.

wcw, you're way out of line. If you disagree with anything I said, try expressing yourself like an adult. Ad hominem is the refuge of the weak-minded.
Even if I simply concede the point (that the EC is flawed), you have yet to explain why this is a more important issue than the others I mentioned.
Good day.

What is most broken about the Electoral College system was never part of the design of the system ... winner take all just happened early on as various big states in the early US jostled for influence (looks like VA is finally going to pull out a win on that one, take THAT NY!)

But getting ride of winner-take-all can be done on a smaller scale. All it takes is a group of blue and red and swing states to agree to proportional allocation for any candidate receiving (say) more than 15% of the vote.

For example, the Great Lakes States and Ohio River Basin states, OH, WV, KY, IN, IL, WI, MI.

Even the reddest or bluest state in the country has the opportunity to be a "swing state" under proportional allocation, and the larger states will always be swing states.

On rereading my response, I agree. I was way out of line: I should have been funnier and more insulting. "I have never heard a cogent argument for why [subject matter] is [value judgment]" is flamebait. Flamebait deserves to be ignored, or to be laughed out of the room. I apologize for not rising to the occasion.

Winner-take-all is the real problem, as Bruce notes. Would California and New York be better off dumping the purported advantage of winner-take-all? Perhaps. Neither state will ever have as many Senators per capita as Alaska, but if the road to the White House runs through big states instead of swing states, things might end up just a little more fair.

Would California and New York be better off dumping the purported advantage of winner-take-all? Perhaps.

Since winner take all emerged from an "arms race" situation, fixing it involves a cease fire.

Fixes at the Federal level would seem to require, according to my limited understanding, a Constitutional amendment, just as direct election of Senators required an amendment ... while there is substantial leeway to implement, for instance, second preference instant-runoff for House and Senate seats, the election of electors is a State prerogative (as selection of Senators once was).

However, unlike the state-based popular vote fix, there is no need to get 270 electoral votes together to adopt proportional allocation. You just need a group of red and blue states that figure that the overall electoral impact is roughly neutral, and each participant benefits from the added incentive to campaign in that state.

@Bruce:
Agreed. Winner take all wasn't the only part that wasn't considered. In fact, the Framers didn't even anticipate that the electoral college decision would result in a win -- rather, it was up to Congress to ultimately pick a president. Really arms length selection -- about as far from a popular vote as you can get. Of course, national parties and winner-take-all combined to change the dynamics entirely. I'd rather minimize the influence of both of those, if I had the choice.

@wcw:
You're going to lecture me on flamebait, with a closer like "Facts and logic. Try them sometime." ??????
But thanks for making my original point for me, n00b.