Why does Iowa want less representation?

[zahc]

Why does Iowa want less representation than they already have? A move like this might make sense for Kali or something, but I don't get it. They want to send all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, thus bypassing the electoral college's intended purpose. I think.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/39445212.html

[MicroBalrog]

The notion has been bandied about a bit already. THe notion is that such laws are usually conditional on the controlling majority of states hving accepted them. In that way they can bypass the electoral college.

[makattak]

Why does Iowa want less representation than they already have? A move like this might make sense for Kali or something, but I don't get it. They want to send all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, thus bypassing the electoral college's intended purpose. I think.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/39445212.html

...

Because half of all eligible voters are below average intelligence?

Because far more than half do not take the time to look deeply into an issue and go with what sounds good?

[K Frame]

That's the endemic problem of the electoral college; most people, even politicians, don't understand why it is to their benefit, especially if they come from a smaller state.

If this actually goes into effect, there will be only a few states that control presidential in the United States: California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and one or two others. The 11 most populous states control 271 electoral college votes, and six of them are traditional liberal strongholds.

Candidates won't even have to pay lip service of campaigning in states like Indiana, New Hampshire, etc.

[Manedwolf]

Candidates won't even have to pay lip service of campaigning in states like Indiana, New Hampshire, etc.

Ignore a state with lots of political junkies in it in the age of blogs, it's gonna bite you in the ass.

[charby]

Ignore a state with lots of political junkies in it in the age of blogs, it's gonna bite you in the ass.

Iowa only has 7 electorial votes. We can be ignored if the electorial is forced to vote for the person who won the national popular vote.

If the electorial goes away what Mike wrote will happen.

NY, IL, TX and CA will be where the canidiates will spend most of their time.

[K Frame]

"Ignore a state with lots of political junkies in it in the age of blogs, it's gonna bite you in the ass."

People are going to blog for their particular candidate no matter what. If it comes down to a simple national popularity contest, which is the more intelligent action to take?

Stump for votes in a state that has 1.5 million voters, or stump for votes in a state that has 15 million voters?

We're talking politicians, but even they're generally intelligent enough to recognize when the decimal point moves to the right.

Right now the electoral college ensures that the voting group in each state is as an individual unit. That helps preserve power and parity -- a candidate can't afford to ignore a state no matter what its population.