Bush wants Draft

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by m.ar.d

lol its amerikkkan so its dum - just like Bush lol!

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Sandsnake

The electoral college helps this along but doesn't quite do the job. However, popular election would be a dire mistake in a nation of this size. The needs and concerns of the people are as wildly varied as they are in various European countries.

I don't see how it would be regarded as a mistake to merely add all the votes together and see who has the most - that person could then be regarded as the guy with the most support. After all, I thought that's what democracy was all about.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Radical Edward


I don't see how it would be regarded as a mistake to merely add all the votes together and see who has the most - that person could then be regarded as the guy with the most support. After all, I thought that's what democracy was all about.

America isnt a democracy.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by WarFalcon


The electorates are broken up by population. Each state has as many electorates as they have house members. The reason why a President can be elected without the popular vote is because of the 'winner take all' aspect of the electorates. If you have three districts of 10,000 people you need 5001 to take the electorate. Imagine that candidate A gets 10000 in one district and 4999 in the other two. He gets 19998 of the vote while candidate B only gets 10002 votes. This can cut both ways though, so its still a fair playing field. I really don't see what the whining is about...

In this case you would need americans who can add up.

After the last election I can't really bring myself to believe that they are in abundance*.



* okay, blame the chads. It was only meant to be a mildly amusing comment

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Nodrog
America isnt a democracy.

maybe we should invade and install one.

after all it does look rather suspicious that the current incumbent's father previously had the job, and voting irregularities occured in a state in which his brother had control.

[queball]

Election Selection

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Radical Edward


maybe we should invade and install one.

"We're fighting for freedom and democracy!" is a more catchy slogan than "We're fighting for freedom and the right to maintain a representive Republic and elect our president through the Electoral Courts, whose duty will be to serve the people within the limits of the Constitution through executing laws which have passed through Congress while having their constitutionality checked by the Supreme Court!"

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Radical Edward


maybe we should invade and install one.

after all it does look rather suspicious that the current incumbent's father previously had the job, and voting irregularities occured in a state in which his brother had control.

What about the voting fraud in St. Louis Missouri? What about all the illegal aliens voting in the southwest? What about the dead people and the dogs who vote in various other states? What about the Unions who take old and retarded people to the polls to 'help' them cast ballots? If you want fraud you need to look left

Originally posted by WarFalcon


The electorates are broken up by population. Each state has as many electorates as they have house members. The reason why a President can be elected without the popular vote is because of the 'winner take all' aspect of the electorates. If you have three districts of 10,000 people you need 5001 to take the electorate. Imagine that candidate A gets 10000 in one district and 4999 in the other two. He gets 19998 of the vote while candidate B only gets 10002 votes. This can cut both ways though, so its still a fair playing field. I really don't see what the whining is about...

aha
very good example

how about candidate a taking all 10000votes in 1 disticr and 4999 in the other 2????

means candidate b wins with only 10002 votes out of 30000.he barely got 1/3 of the votes and still wins.

just to show you how ridicilous the electoral vote system is. and this grave injustice is only in 3 districts. imagine having an electoral system election in 50 districts. (oh wait ...)

[Nodrog]

m.ar.d - stop trying to contrust ridiculously contrived examples of extreme situations where the system fails. You know as well as I do that an election race like that would not happen in real life ever. No matter what the system, you can find some unrealistic examples where it doesnt work - assuming you have full control over what numbers you put into it. However, it proves nothing of any significance.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by WarFalcon

What about the voting fraud in St. Louis Missouri? What about all the illegal aliens voting in the southwest? What about the dead people and the dogs who vote in various other states? What about the Unions who take old and retarded people to the polls to 'help' them cast ballots? If you want fraud you need to look left

it was a "joke"

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Nodrog

No matter what the system, you can find some unrealistic examples where it doesnt work

how about just adding up all the votes. barring irregularities, miscounting and fraud It seems pretty infallible to me.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Radical Edward


how about just adding up all the votes. barring irregularities, miscounting and fraud It seems pretty infallible to me.

I think the American voting system is absolutely horrible. It doesnt make mard's situations any less stupid though.

Why is a straight vote count better than the Electoral College system? Its just 'different' - I dont see why one is superior.

[Makain]

Its a lot easier to bribe 50 electives in a borderline state and win the presidency then it is to bribe all the organisations in that state to get the most votes possible so you can win the presidency. They won't change it to popular vote because A) The current President got in without the popular vote B) It costs less to win an election not based on popular vote.

Now I wouldn't want issues that go before congress to stand to popular vote, thats where the representive part of the government comes in. We elect the intellectuals who agree with us to debate for us over issues important to us (hopefully important). Otherwise, there would never be a tax raise (which is necessary many times). The government clamors about defending our freedom and democracy, but the fact is until the change elections of all officials to popular vote then we will see more elections in the future like the Bush-Gore one. The GOP has more cash so they won it, even though the Democrats had the most support of the country. You don't see governor races done by electoral vote, thats done by popular, and a Governor is in essence a president of a state that belongs to the United Nations (Federal Government).

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Miasma


or just realise that almost all (wo)men who desire power are unsuitable to wield it......this applies doubly so to politicians.

Which is why you have a Constitution which should be strictly adhered to in order to prevent them from excersising power which they are unsuitable to weild.

[*Cooper*]

as a perspective from England's view
we are getting dragged into too many of America's battles
Ok,... we are your best allies, and you are ours, but we cannot fight on the same scale as you! Iraq will see the UK as an easy target if the US attack them! We stand no chance, our home defence is poor compared to yours.
So think twice before you sacrifice your men, our men, and our country ok?

Originally posted by Nodrog
I think the American voting system is absolutely horrible. It doesnt make mard's situations any less stupid though.

Why is a straight vote count better than the Electoral College system? Its just 'different' - I dont see why one is superior.

because as proved above, and in the 2000 elections, the candidate who hasnt got the most votes can win the elections.its as simple as that.

theoretically gore could have won 100 percent in all the states where he won the electoral vote(like california and new york) and had millions of votes more than bush in the popular voteand still he would have lost the presidency.
if this fact alone doesnt convince you that that straight vote count is better than the Electoral College , than i dont know what would!!

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Cyanide
as a perspective from England's view
we are getting dragged into too many of America's battles
Ok,... we are your best allies, and you are ours, but we cannot fight on the same scale as you! Iraq will see the UK as an easy target if the US attack them! We stand no chance, our home defence is poor compared to yours.
So think twice before you sacrifice your men, our men, and our country ok?

1) American cant 'sacrifice' Britains men. If Britain chooses to follow america into war, then that is their own stupidity/decision, and blaming America for it is a tremendous deflection of responsibility.

2) Iraq are highly unlikely to attack Britain. It would make no logical sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by Nodrog
m.ar.d - stop trying to contrust ridiculously contrived examples of extreme situations where the system fails. You know as well as I do that an election race like that would not happen in real life ever. No matter what the system, you can find some unrealistic examples where it doesnt work - assuming you have full control over what numbers you put into it. However, it proves nothing of any significance.

didnt gore have 300000 votes more than bush?? i just took it to the extreme to show you how undemocratic the system is.a system that even theoretically allows such a ridicilous outcome is undemocratic.

[*Cooper*]

Originally posted by Nodrog

1) American cant 'sacrifice' Britains men. If Britain chooses to follow america into war, then that is their own stupidity/decision, and blaming America for it is a tremendous deflection of responsibility.

2) Iraq are highly unlikely to attack Britain. It would make no logical sense whatsoever.

It would make perfect sense! We are weak compared to US and an easier target.
Basically, I will fight for my country, but only if we are attacked first.
I wudnt mind kicking sum Iraqi butt!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog


2) Iraq are highly unlikely to attack Britain. It would make no logical sense whatsoever.

Sadaam Hussein, king of logical thinking. I see your point nod.








PS I ordered those two books today, Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged!

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by m.ar.d

theoretically

Yes. It wouldnt happen in practice however, so it is irrelevant

Originally posted by m.ar.d

if this fact alone doesnt convince you that that straight vote count is better than the Electoral College , than i dont know what would!!

Your logic is broken.

All you are saying is that the Electoral College system means that the person with the highest vote count wont always win. Youre mistake is that you arent taking into account that that is exactly what it was designed to do

You cant say that the Electoral College is broken because it is succesfully performing the task which is was invented to fufill. Thats just stupid. You have to show why a president being elected by popular vote is better than one being elected by the EC system - not just give examples of the EC working and pretend that it somehow supports your supposition.

[JonnyBGood]

Let's elect people based on whoever can best manipulate the largest social groups at a particular time every four years! We can pretend it's fair and nobody will ever know the difference.

[*Cooper*]

well dont forget Iraq has a damn huge army!
4th biggest in the world or sumat
Attacking them would be a BIG mistake

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Let's elect people based on whoever can best manipulate the largest social groups at a particular time every four years! We can pretend it's fair and nobody will ever know the difference.

Or we could just draw up a Constitution and actually stick to it. Theres a wacky idea!

Originally posted by Nodrog

Yes. It wouldnt happen in practice however, so it is irrelevant


Your logic is broken.

All you are saying is that the Electoral College system means that the person with the highest vote count wont always win. Youre mistake is that you arent taking into account that that is exactly what it was designed to do

You cant say that the Electoral College is broken because it is succesfully performing the task which is was invented to fufill. Thats just stupid. You have to show why a president being elected by popular vote is better than one being elected by the EC system - not just give examples of the EC working and pretend that it somehow supports your supposition.

lol just lost interest in this discussion.
your points are obviously way too high for me.
I cant grasp anything you say.
you won, sorry for waisting you time, goodbye and have a good day

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Or we could just draw up a Constitution and actually stick to it. Theres a wacky idea!

Yeah, but knowing humanity we'd let the biggest idiots we could find draw it up and then let the most corrupt man in history lead it. We could call that socialist democracy!

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by m.ar.d


lol just lost interest in this discussion.
your points are obviously way too high for me.
I cant grasp anything you say.
you won, sorry for waisting you time, goodbye and have a good day

Im asking why its better to have a president elected by popular vote. Youre saying the Electoral College is useless because it lets someone win even though they have less votes. Im asking why this is a bad thing.

Originally posted by m.ar.d
theoretically gore could have won 100 percent in all the states where he won the electoral vote(like california and new york) and had millions of votes more than bush in the popular voteand still he would have lost the presidency.
if this fact alone doesnt convince you that that straight vote count is better than the Electoral College , than i dont know what would!!

I think the idea is to represent the whole country, rather than just the built up urban areas. (sic)

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Sadaam Hussein, king of logical thinking. I see your point nod.

Yup, thanks to his stupidity he is being bombed into submission as we speak.


















Oh.

[JonnyBGood]

Did you know the only way that all the anti-British rule forces were united in Ireland was when the British tried to introduce conscription during 1917. People will never fight for a cause they don't believe on or for morals they don't have.

Originally posted by Nodrog
Im asking why its better to have a president elected by popular vote. Youre saying the Electoral College is useless because it lets someone win even though they have less votes. Im asking why this is a bad thing.

sandsnake said that the popular vote would be worse because it would not represent the whole country . i was trying to prove him wrong..

I dont see how your question has anything to do it.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by m.ar.d

sandsnake said that the popular vote would be worse because it would not represent the whole country . i was trying to prove him wrong..

I dont see how your question has anything to do it.

m.ar.d, you're a ****ing moron. (there, I fired back)

now, first you hae YET to prove ANYTHING I said wrong. The US is a representative republic which IS a form of democracy, but not pure democracy.


Here, let me break it down using your extreme cases and bring it a little closer to home. In a popular election, the president only needs bother with majorities. What YOU would want, theoretically, he could ignore minorities and just give white people what they want...white people are happy, majority wins.

I never said the electoral college was great, I simply said that popular election wasn't any better.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
didnt gore have 300000 votes more than bush?? i just took it to the extreme to show you how undemocratic the system is.a system that even theoretically allows such a ridicilous outcome is undemocratic.

Direct elections work best when you have only two candidates; but with more than two candidates, you can end up with a President that only got, say, 35% of the vote (see Yeltsin, Boris in the 1996 Russian Presidential election). Is that (more) democratic? You can then have run-off elections, but you're gaining consensus only by limiting voters' choices. Is that (more) democratic?

Once you accept the premise of representative democracy then you also have to accept the fact that some people's votes are going to be dropped on the floor. At that point, you're no longer talking about (pure) democracy.

The strength of the US Electoral College is that it almost always produces a winner. It sacrifices some "representativeness" in the process, but for the office of national chief executive I don't think that's a bad trade-off.

[Makain]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Let's elect people based on whoever can best manipulate the largest social groups at a particular time every four years! We can pretend it's fair and nobody will ever know the difference.

And lets elect people based on whoever has the most relatives governing the contriversial states and is with the party that can bribe the most judges to support him in the legal battles that ensue. We could talk about it for a month and then refer back to it every 2 years when elections are held, like we do now!

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
The electorates are broken up by population. Each state has as many electorates as they have house members.

Correction: each state has as many electors as they have House and Senate members.

[Makain]

Originally posted by Tactitus

Direct elections work best when you have only two candidates; but with more than two candidates, you can end up with a President that only got, say, 35% of the vote (see Yeltsin, Boris in the 1996 Russian Presidential election). Is that (more) democratic? You can then have run-off elections, but you're gaining consensus only by limiting voters' choices. Is that (more) democratic?

Once you accept the premise of representative democracy then you also have to accept the fact that some people's votes are going to be dropped on the floor. At that point, you're no longer talking about (pure) democracy.

The strength of the US Electoral College is that it almost always produces a winner. It sacrifices some "representativeness" in the process, but for the office of national chief executive I don't think that's a bad trade-off.

Governor races are held by popular vote, so why not Presidential. I personally don't see whats wrong with run-off elections. Isn't that what the primaries are anyway? Vote for your favorite democratic canidate and if they dont make it to the final election vote for the one who did? Run-offs are good in the way that they allow people whose canidate got third of fourth to vote for which of the final two canidates they want to be elected. Just like in the French Election, the socialist canidate got third (I think he was socialist), but instead of the first election being final, those who were socialist had a chance to say I would rather have Chirac instead of Le Pen (whatever his name was). True Chirac would of won even if the first election had been the final one, but only by 2%. What would of happened if Le Pen gained 2 or 3 more percentage points in that first election and he was elected President, even though the vast majority would rather have Chirac, but since they voted for the socialist canidate their votes wouldn't have counted. This is why run-offs are good, and should be incorpated in the United States, it prevents a radical canidate that most of the population does not support from gaining the office because the population is split between two conserative canidates (or vice versa if trends change in the next century).

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by m.ar.d

sandsnake said that the popular vote would be worse because it would not represent the whole country . i was trying to prove him wrong..

I dont see how your question has anything to do it.

But he was not wrong, with popular vote elections 9 states would elect every President, no one living in the other 41 states would have any say at all in the matter, simply because they don't have the massive population centers. Wyoming is a very large state but has the lowest population of the 50, around 500,000 people. With your popular vote system those 500,000 people have no vote, and that's just one state. With the Electoral collage every state has a vote, which is how Presidents are elected, by States, not the people.

[Toop]

Originally posted by Makain
What are these rumours I keep hearing about that Bush isconsidering initiaiting a Peace Time Draft now that he controls the Senate and House?

Because when I turn 18 I will not be fighting in Iraq. I don't have a problem with defending my country, but that I will no sacerifice my life to save the economy and his political career. If he thinks he is going to get support for this **** after screwing up the Mideast to an even further level (instead of salvaging the progress Clinton made) by supporting Israel, and then saying he wants to attack Iraq then I truly hope he has an accident going down the stairs (or maybe he will hold a gun the wrong way like he held that book upside down). The pathetic thing is that all of the United States' problems in the Mideast can be traced back to 6 adminstrations of pure Pro-Israeli support, which is way undeserved seeing as they ignore UN resolutions and human rights. So I reiterate my stance, I am not staying in this country if the Draft is initiated. I won't risk my life, or the lives of Iraqi civilians in a war to make Bush feel better about himself. Those who will, I pity your ignorant and blindly patrotic ways.

Well put

Originally posted by Sandsnake


Here, let me break it down using your extreme cases and bring it a little closer to home. In a popular election, the president only needs bother with majorities. What YOU would want, theoretically, he could ignore minorities and just give white people what they want...white people are happy, majority wins.

what the hell are you talking about????
i showed you with numbers that in a electoral vorting system that candidate b can win the elections despite of having millions of votes less tha candiate A. and all you can come up with in return is a weak, unbacked claim about how white people would get what they want???
last time i checked all american presidents were male and white.

and the second thing: in an electoral system the candidate would only need to win by a very small margin in a few key states(florida, california, new york ....) .he wouldnt even bother winning any other states. if you wld look it that way, the votes i small stated like hawai or alaska are virtually unimportant.
so there you go, "the small states wouldnt be represented" claim backfires on you.
it is the electoral voting system that ignores minorities, destroys votes and is undemocratic. if yu cant realize this , you are stupid.

if you know this and think that it is a good thing (hello nod), thats anoter thing.

Originally posted by Nixjim





Wyoming is a very large state but has the lowest population of the 50, around 500,000 people. With your popular vote system those 500,000 people have no vote, and that's just one state. With the Electoral collage every state has a vote, which is how Presidents are elected, by States, not the people.

of course they have a vote , they have 500000 votes and every one of them counts.with the electoral system, you end up voting fot the canddate you didnt choose.

if you have 5 candidates in that state and 3 of them get 20% and 1 gets 21% and 19% the fourth candidate wins the elections.
which means that 79% of the votes were useless.
am i the only who thinks that there is something fudementally undemocratic about that????

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by m.ar.d


if you have 5 candidates in that state and 3 of them get 20% and 1 gets 21% and 19% the fourth candidate wins the elections.
which means that 79% of the votes were useless.
am i the only who thinks that there is something fudementally undemocratic about that????

What do you want to happen instead? Remember - when you vote, you are voting for an individual CANDIDATE, not a political party.



Anyway, any system where you cant vote for multiple people is inherrantly broken and wrong.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by m.ar.d


of course they have a vote , they have 500000 votes and every one of them counts.with the electoral system, you end up voting fot the canddate you didnt choose.

if you have 5 candidates in that state and 3 of them get 20% and 1 gets 21% and 19% the fourth candidate wins the elections.
which means that 79% of the votes were useless.
am i the only who thinks that there is something fudementally undemocratic about that????

I actually somewhat agree with you here. Unfortunately, as there is only one president, in any close election there will always be almost half the votes counting for nothing in the end.

One thing your numbers missed is that there are never 5 significant candidates, and a second thing is that states choose to disenfranchise their voters this way. every state could let their electoral votes split along with the voters, but they force them together to make each state more significant.

Originally posted by Nodrog

Anyway, any system where you cant vote for multiple people is inherrantly broken and wrong.

Only if your country has more than two people.

Boy did I pick out your fallacy in a hurry.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Tactitus

Correction: each state has as many electors as they have House and Senate members.

Yeah, but every state has the same number of senate seats (2) so the number of electorates per state is still based on population...

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by acropolis

Only if your country has more than two people.

Boy did I pick out your fallacy in a hurry.

Im not sure if youre making a joke here... :/

[WarFalcon]

You can vote for more than one of two parties, either in the primaries or in the general election, but unfortunately the majority of people rally around one of the two parties. I see no way to change this that is very satisfactory...

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by m.ar.d


of course they have a vote , they have 500000 votes and every one of them counts.with the electoral system, you end up voting fot the canddate you didnt choose.

if you have 5 candidates in that state and 3 of them get 20% and 1 gets 21% and 19% the fourth candidate wins the elections.
which means that 79% of the votes were useless.
am i the only who thinks that there is something fudementally undemocratic about that????

No they don't. What you fail to understand is that the People in the city of New York want a candidate who will look after the needs of a major city above all else, the people in Wyoming want a candidate who will look after the needs of a rural western state. This will never be the same person in an election, and since New York City by itself outnumbers the entire state of Wyoming, the candidate voted for by the people of Wyoming will lose every time, every single freaking time, meaning the needs and interests of the people of Wyoming will be overlooked every time in favor of New York Citys needs and interest. With a popular vote system Wyoming has NO representation, ever. With the electoral collage system, they have as good a chance of seeing a President elected who will look out for their interest as New York has. States elect the President, based who who the people in that state have voted for.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by acropolis
I actually somewhat agree with you here. Unfortunately, as there is only one president, in any close election there will always be almost half the votes counting for nothing in the end.

One thing your numbers missed is that there are never 5 significant candidates, and a second thing is that states choose to disenfranchise their voters this way. every state could let their electoral votes split along with the voters, but they force them together to make each state more significant.

Only if your country has more than two people.

Boy did I pick out your fallacy in a hurry.

One other point, with the popular vote election, every President will be the one chosen by the 9 states with the highest population. The people in the other 41 states, seeing that they have no say, will very quickly stop voting entirely, since it will be a total waste of time, they know their candidate will always lose, ALWAYS. Then they will start resenting the 9 major states, which may lead to a growing division in the country, where eventually you would have the Federal Government passing laws and the majority of the country, geographically speaking, ignoring them and doing as they please. Pretty soon the USA could have a second civil war. People really hate it when they feel they have no say in the Government, and that is what the popular vote would do.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Makain
Governor races are held by popular vote, so why not Presidential. I personally don't see whats wrong with run-off elections. Isn't that what the primaries are anyway? Vote for your favorite democratic canidate and if they dont make it to the final election vote for the one who did?

Primaries (in the US) are run by and for political parties--they really aren't part of the electoral process per se. They are undemocratic, however, in the sense that they limit who can appear on the ballot (why shouldn't I be able to choose between 3 Republicans and 4 Democrats--assuming they all want to run for the same office?). But political parties are voluntary and no one has to join one (or any) of them.

Primaries and run-offs also have their own brand of mischief--once your preferred candidate is assured to progress to the next level, there's some incentive to vote for a really bad candidate so that your candidate faces weaker opposition. Democratically speaking, I think that's a Really Bad Thing[tm].

Run-offs are good in the way that they allow people whose canidate got third of fourth to vote for which of the final two canidates they want to be elected.

You are assuming that once their preferred choice is eliminated, voters will want to vote for a lesser of two evils. Some might, but others may just stay home. Of course, that's no worse than the current system, but for some, it's no better.

Just like in the French Election, the socialist canidate got third (I think he was socialist), but instead of the first election being final, those who were socialist had a chance to say I would rather have Chirac instead of Le Pen (whatever his name was). True Chirac would of won even if the first election had been the final one, but only by 2%. What would of happened if Le Pen gained 2 or 3 more percentage points in that first election and he was elected President, even though the vast majority would rather have Chirac, but since they voted for the socialist canidate their votes wouldn't have counted. This is why run-offs are good, and should be incorpated in the United States, it prevents a radical canidate that most of the population does not support from gaining the office because the population is split between two conserative canidates (or vice versa if trends change in the next century).

Run-off elections fix some of the problems with direct elections, but they introduce some problems as well. No system of representative democracy is going to be without problems.

If you're going to have run-off elections, I would prefer instant run-off elections (where you rank choices on your ballot).

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
Yeah, but every state has the same number of senate seats (2) so the number of electorates per state is still based on population...

Well, not really.

Including the number of Senate seats biases the Electoral College towards the smaller states. Two more votes means less to a large state with dozens of votes than to a small state with only a few. Take North Dakota, for example. In the House of Representatives they have 1 vote out of a total of 535, or .19% of the total votes. In the Electoral College they have 3 votes out of 635, or .47% of the total votes--more than twice as much representation.

This is also why the Electoral College will be almost impossible to abolish. It would take 3/4ths of the states to ratify such a change, and the numerous small states would block it.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nixjim


One other point, with the popular vote election, every President will be the one chosen by the 9 states with the highest population. The people in the other 41 states, seeing that they have no say, will very quickly stop voting entirely, since it will be a total waste of time, they know their candidate will always lose, ALWAYS. Then they will start resenting the 9 major states, which may lead to a growing division in the country, where eventually you would have the Federal Government passing laws and the majority of the country, geographically speaking, ignoring them and doing as they please. Pretty soon the USA could have a second civil war. People really hate it when they feel they have no say in the Government, and that is what the popular vote would do.

A good theory predicts behavior.
A bad theory only explains behavior.

If only we had a system in which there were 280M people dispersed in a very non-uniform (give me a word for that) manner between 51 groups...oh wait.

'the facts' are a behavior completely contrary to your prediction (in the sense that states with the most people all fell on the bottom for turnout). Truly, the electoral system is great for voter turnout is the **** states of the country like montana, because people know their vote counts for three (or more) californian votes.

So what do you call your theory?