- Jun 2014
But nobody wins by carrying just a few swing states. In addition, there are traditional red and traditional blue that each party almost always carries. The remaining states, few that they are currently, are the swing states. Today's swing states may not be tomorrow's and vice versa. Here's a novel idea: how about the traditional, predictable states not be so? Just like people I know who always pull the party lever, every single every election so they tend to be taken for granted by their candidates because their vote is ensured, regardless. The swing states have made themselves valuable because their voters tend to consider the candidates each election cycle, not the party. And they are rewarded so to speak.I don't believe a straight popular vote would be any better than the current system. You would still have red, blue and battleground states and bigger states (rather than smaller ones) can still sway the election. I believe the system which would be best would be to assign electors based on the percentage of votes each candidate gets in a given state. An example of winner take all's effect is the 2016 election. Subtract 0.6% of the votes from the winner in Florida and the electoral outcome is reversed. The election was so close in Pennsylvania too, where only 0.3% of the voters needed to swap their votes to reverse the outcome. Make those two tiny changes and Hilary is POTUS. In 2016, there were 18 states that received no campaign visits from either candidate and another dozen that had only token visits. Changing the system to percentage vs. winner take all would mean that neither candidate would have a lock on any state's total electoral vote count and they would have to fight for every one. Guess what - you won't be able to win by carrying just a few swing states plus your "safe" states - because the safe states ain't so safe any more.