Doesn’t the Electoral College encourage candidates to campaign in more parts of the country, including both large and small states?
No. Anyone who lived outside of a battleground state in 2004 or 2008 could tell you how much they and their neighbors mattered in the 2004 presidential race. As FairVote’s Who Picks the President report shows, the candidates and their backers completely ignored a majority of states and a majority of people. The 2004 election concentrated almost exclusively on a dozen states that were home to less than 28% of the electorate and relatively concentrated in the Midwest. The 2008 general election saw a similar focus, with more than 98% of campaign spending and events after Labor Day focused on 15 states representing barely a third of the nation – a sharp contrast to the Democratic presidential primary contest that took place everywhere that year due to different rules making it valuable for the candidates to contest every state. While the current Electoral College system keeps candidates from attempting to maximize vote totals in their strongest areas, it also eliminates any incentive that
Related Questions
- How can a sample of 1,000 be representative of a nation with 50 million people? Don you need more for a large country than a small country?
- Doesn’t attending a midweek large church service and attending a Small Group meeting essentially provide the same combined benefits?
- Doesn’t the Electoral College encourage candidates to campaign in more parts of the country, including both large and small states?
