Quoted: A puddle-deep musing:
<snip>
My question is this - isn't this what the Electoral College was supposed to avoid - having an entire presidential election basically come down to the candidates trying to win over just a handful of states to the near exclusion of most others?
|
No, this was never the Framers' intent. Their intent was to have the states AS STATES play the central role in the selection of the President. They instituted a federal republic, and the EC assures that our nation retains this type of government, rather than becoming a democracy. From the very beginning, candidates realized (including candidates like James Madison who helped frame the Constitution), that focusing on the few large states was USUALLY a good strategy. Just because it USUALLY works, does not mean the system is flawed.
As an example, ask Al Gore if ANY of the states he lost (including all those 3EV states) were not in hindsight "Battleground states." When elections are close, a candidate ignores a state, whether "safe" or "lost cause" at their own peril. People frequently forget that in a small state, a candidate can focus fewer resources to swing a small number of voters, which will in turn swing the state and its' EVs to that candidate.
Let me give you an example from this year. In South Dakota, Bush is up by 10% over Kerry. 316,000 people voted in the 200 election. 10% represents just 31,600 voters. For Kerry to take the state, he would need to swing over half this number. Lets call it 18,000 voters for argument sake. So, swinging 18,000 voters wins him 3 EV, or 6,000 voters per EV. Bush is currently up 2% in Florida. In 2000, just under 6 million people voted. To swing the state to Kerry would need to convince a little over 1 percent to change from Bush to him. that 1% represents 600,000 voters to gain Florida's 27 EVs, or 22,222 voters per EV. In other words, Kerry has to move 11 TIMES as many voters per EV by focusing his effort in a large state like Florida. Kerry could use similar efficiencies, needing to move a relatively small number of voters, in a handful of small state (SD, AR, WV, LA, MO and MS) which together have more EC votes than Florida (28 to 27). To swing these 5 states and their 28 ECVs requires that he change the minds of a total of about 175,000 voters, versus the 600,000 he needs to swing in Florida to pick up its 27.
This "battleground state" mentality is the accepted wisdom of our time. It may be dead wrong.