here here!

the EC showed by removed, way past its time of usefullness.

I would say without the electoral college a lot of the small market states would just get ignored as All the campaigns would be hitting the big Media markets, as biggest bang for the $.

I think there's some truth to this, but WITH the electoral college, it's probably the same number of states that are being targeted, except they're not even the states with the most people.

I think with or without the electoral college, we're probably talking about 8-10 states being the main targets each election (obviously with some presence in other states), but ultimately, I'd rather see the candidates catering to the larger population areas than 8-10 states that are only significant because they're about 40% left-leaning, 40% right-leaning, and 20% down the middle (or some such ratio).

With the polls the way they are, I thought this was a perfect time to bring this up:

According to realclearpolitics.com, which averages a bunch of different national polls, Romney leads Obama by the slimmest of margins right now, 47.4 to 47.3.

However, if you click their "no toss ups" electoral map, which takes the current polling information and declares a winner, Obama/Biden win by a margin of 294-244 (not substantial in the big picture, but enough that Romney/Ryan most likely need to swing THREE of the contested states to win--two states is possible if they swing the right two, like Ohio and Wisconsin).

what always amazed me is how bad weather keeps the city folk that only have to go a block or two to vote from showing-up, but those in rural America who have to go a few miles still go and show.
Just like the problems with Voter ID laws and so forth are the ones who live where there are buses to get them there if they aren't within a 1/4 mile in the first place, can't seem to go get an ID but those who live miles away have no problem.

But some people in cities dont even have to go outside to go to work and home and groceries so why would they endure such harsh conditions? You have to think about the lifestyle! Be considerate

Despite being liberal, I'm actually all for Voter ID laws, but I think there need to be accommodations to try to make sure it's not a form of voter suppression (which, don't be fooled, is the reason the at least some Republicans push for them).

Parties should just be eliminated completely. People should vote for the man or woman based on what they believe, and what they say they will do, and have the capability to do.

In one sense it's a good idea, but unless we switched our system to one with a run-off election if no one gets 50%, then it'd lead to similar candidates splitting the votes of their constituencies and letting some "lesser" candidate in.

Of course, one time this worked out for the U.S.'s benefit was 1860, when Lincoln was elected with, iirc, just shy of 40% of the popular vote. But I do think switching to a series of elections could potentially make it easier for third party candidates to gain traction, since people could vote for them and switch to a more viable candidate in a run-off (say, voting for Perot in 1992 and switching to--most likely--George H.W. Bush when Perot doesn't get the votes he needs, or Nader/Kerry in 2004)

yeah

what america needs is, ano?

problem with that is then you get candidate 1: 47 % candidate 2: 32% candidate 3: 21% but of course he an independent closer politically to candidate 2. so virtually all of his now go to candidate 2. and we have a winner that not even 1/3 of the people actually wanted.

I'll stick to the system where we get the guy 47% wanted