"Because the candidates don't visit us"
I live in a swing state. I can tell ya - it's not all it's cracked up to be.
Of course no one likes all the ads. The point is that people feel like the candidates' could care less about California and Texas.
Guess what: it's not the candidates' job to fight over you. It's not their job to court you. It's their job to represent you. They aren't visiting you because they already represent you pretty well. That's the whole point.
It's better that our candidates make their case to a truly divided community than it is to spend their resources making sure more and more liberal Californians or conservative Texans get to the polls on Tuesday.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
To make that clearer: if there were no electoral college the campaigns would be more focused on getting their base to vote in larger numbers than they are now, and that's probably not as useful for picking a president as fighting over people who aren't sure who is best.
ReplyDeleteIf you can make the case to your base, you've only proven that you've got a base of support. Big deal.
If you can make your case to Ohio and Virginia and Florida and Pennsylvania, it means you have a program people can get behind.
"They aren't visiting you because they already represent you pretty well."
ReplyDeleteI disagree.
The main problem with elections in cities or states where the primary is the only thing that matters is that this lack of competition is ultimately quite bad for the voter. Was Detroit well served by the political process that elected Kwame Kilpatrick? Was the "Solid South" served well during the years in which it was served almost exclusively by the Democratic party?
So things like "the primary is the only thing that matters" are a result of the two party system and the institutions that foster that. I guess you could indirectly blame that on the electoral college, but that has more to do with other things.
DeleteEither way, as you said, it's the primaries that are competitive. That doesn't mean it has to be machine politics and I don't see how that's the cause of machine politics. There are all kinds of solid blue or red jurisdictions that don't have that sort of thing.
Most primary races where you have an incumbent are unopposed actually (90% or so); particularly in federal elections.
DeleteBoth the Democratic and Republican political parties are giant "machines"; that's partly explains their overall success. And no I did not write that the primaries are competitive.
And frankly your comment ignores the real problems associated with gerrymandering, etc. that exist in so-called "solid" states and districts. The sorts of political units that people vote in are hardly neutral in character; they are still largely based on the "spoils system."
ReplyDeleteDude - gerrymandering has absolutely zero to do with the electoral college. State borders weren't gerrymandered (or put it this way - the last time you could claim they were gerrymandered was maybe 150 years ago).
DeleteAnd my comments were about elections generally, not just the electoral college, because your comments also apply generally.
DeleteStill, if one did get rid of the electoral college I don't think it would necessarily make things any better; voting is a pretty deeply flawed institution for trying to get what you want no matter what system you use. Each has its benefits and flaws, but none is flawless - which is a pretty good argument against majoritarianism.
ReplyDeleteYou contradict yourself Daniel. Indeed, without the electoral college, candidates would focus more on their base and they would not run as close to the middle. But that contradicts your above assertion that Californians and Texans are already represented pretty well. Maybe the electoral college is better, but the base does suffer from it.
ReplyDeletemoo
ReplyDelete