Are you going to vote? How do you decide?

[JulieA97]

I am unaffiliated/Independent but lean heavily one way. Normally. I am in a swing state. I do not like either of the main 2 candidates but I find the one in the party I normally lean towards absolutely horrifying. Truly terrified to let this insane person near the Oval Office. I am planning to vote 3rd party but if its anywhere close in my state, I will vote for the other political party nominee. I don't like that person or politics but at least I feel like they are sane. I will not allow my vote to go in any way, shape or form go towards letting a sociopath near that amount of power. I am very openly anti-one candidate. The other I would never vote for normally if my side had a decent candidate.

[IfIOnly]

Unaffiliated too and no idea what to do this election. I've voted democrat, republican, third party, and not voted before. The line (my personal reasons that make me truly unable to vote with a good conciense--the bar's not set that high people--we are talking politicians ;)) has been crossed for me by both major party candidates. I've listened over and over to all the various voting thought processes, and I'm just flummoxed this year. Truly.

Edited August 7, 2016 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[msrift]

As Nebraska is one of two states that handles its electoral votes differently, I am very motivated to vote. I definitely feel that my voice will be heard as I live in the one swing district. Really, if we're going to stick with the electoral college this is a much more equitable way to do it. Winner of the popular vote gets the state's two 'Senate' votes, and the winner of each district gets vote allocated to that district. 

Deciding who to vote for is fairly obvious for me. Evaluating the platforms, issues, history, and personality leaves me with only one choice. I may not be in love with the choice, but I never really have been in love with any candidate in any election. 

 

[Pam in CT]

re Maine and Nebraska's proportionate electoral system:

 

As Nebraska is one of two states that handles its electoral votes differently, I am very motivated to vote. I definitely feel that my voice will be heard as I live in the one swing district. Really, if we're going to stick with the electoral college this is a much more equitable way to do it. Winner of the popular vote gets the state's two 'Senate' votes, and the winner of each district gets vote allocated to that district. 

Deciding who to vote for is fairly obvious for me. Evaluating the platforms, issues, history, and personality leaves me with only one choice. I may not be in love with the choice, but I never really have been in love with any candidate in any election. 

 

 

It's interesting how much the dynamics would change, if all (or even just more) states went to proportionate allotment.  Winner takes all certainly does have a disenfranchisement / discouraging effect on voter turnout and decision making.

 

If ever there's a year where this is evident on BOTH sides this is the one... maybe-just-maybe there might be bipartisan traction to re-think the electoral system.

 

A girl can dream.

[MelAR05]

I am affiliated and pretty involved in my party, but I will not be voting for either of the two major candidates.

[Pawz4me]

Are you voting in person or absentee?

 

I am seriously considering voting absentee this time around.  I need to mail in the paperwork.  

 

I will be working full time and really don't want to stand in line for over an hour or longer after a full day of work.   Two elections ago I waited over 1.5 hours, last election I waited almost an hour.

 

 

Can't you do early voting? Barring one rather minor election (i.e., the kind that gets a lower than low voter turnout) I haven't voted on an actual election day in years. I go during early voting at a time that's convenient for me and rarely have to wait more than 15 minutes.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Pawz4me

[DawnM]

Can't you do early voting? Barring one rather minor election (i.e., the kind that gets a lower than low voter turnout) I haven't voted on an actual election day in years. I go during early voting at a time that's convenient for me and rarely have to wait more than 15 minutes.

 

 

Both of the times I mentioned that I waited in LONG lines I voted early!  I haven't voted on voting day for the last two elections.

Edited August 7, 2016 by DawnM

[heartlikealion]

I did not know you could vote early at a physical location. I thought only mail in votes.

 

Back to the analogy about the dinner reservation. I don't think it's so much about what meal you will get but to send a message that you want more options at the next event. If enough people write in the same third party (or any third party) maybe the media will give more attention to the third party candidates.

[Amira]

While more media attention helps nearly any candidate (and we're seeing a real-life test this time around of the idea that there's no such thing as bad press), I don't think the media is to blame for our lack of third-party choices and their paying more attention to alternative candidates wouldn't really make a difference. Even Trump's media attention couldn't have won him a third-party victory, in my opinion, if he'd chosen to run as an independent.

 

We either need to change our voting system (not likely) or change our campaign finance system (not likely either). Or we need to see some consistent and major funding to build a new party from the bottom up, not the top down.

 

Personally, I wish we'd change our voting system.

[heartlikealion]

While more media attention helps nearly any candidate (and we're seeing a real-life test this time around of the idea that there's no such thing as bad press), I don't think the media is to blame for our lack of third-party choices and their paying more attention to alternative candidates wouldn't really make a difference. Even Trump's media attention couldn't have won him a third-party victory, in my opinion, if he'd chosen to run as an independent.

 

We either need to change our voting system (not likely) or change our campaign finance system (not likely either). Or we need to see some consistent and major funding to build a new party from the bottom up, not the top down.

 

Personally, I wish we'd change our voting system.

 

I somewhat disagree. I don't blame the media completely but let's not act like being a third party candidate isn't horrible for coverage. Ron Paul felt he had to run as a Rep. I never said lack of third party choices. I said lack of coverage. Months ago I brought up a third party candidate's name and people are like, "who?" and I voted for the guy LAST election.

 

Something does need to change, though.

[KarenNC]

I did not know you could vote early at a physical location. I thought only mail in votes.

 

Back to the analogy about the dinner reservation. I don't think it's so much about what meal you will get but to send a message that you want more options at the next event. If enough people write in the same third party (or any third party) maybe the media will give more attention to the third party candidates.

 

In this election, I feel like we're being offered shrimp or chicken, when I would ideally prefer steak. I will have no choice but to eat the meal ultimately chosen (and only that) repeatedly for the next four years. Sure, I could write in steak to encourage more options, but that won't help if I'm severely allergic to shrimp.

[heartlikealion]

In this election, I feel like we're being offered shrimp or chicken, when I would ideally prefer steak. I will have no choice but to eat the meal ultimately chosen (and only that) repeatedly for the next four years. Sure, I could write in steak to encourage more options, but that won't help if I'm severely allergic to shrimp.

 

I think I'm allergic to both shrimp and chicken :lol:

 

[Amira]

Yeah, if you're allergic to both then it doesn't matter what you choose, but if you can eat one, you'd better choose that one to make sure you don't get served the other. Because they'll serve you, no matter what.

[heartlikealion]

Yeah, if you're allergic to both then it doesn't matter what you choose, but if you can eat one, you'd better choose that one to make sure you don't get served the other. Because they'll serve you, no matter what.

 

The majority at the table is determining what is served I think (the state). So it doesn't matter at all in a way at my particular table; I know what my state is choosing.

 

[Pam in CT]

The majority at the table is determining what is served I think (the state). So it doesn't matter at all in a way at my particular table; I know what my state is choosing.

 

 

 

I just want to make sure I'm following your metaphor, here.... Do you mean, because of the winner-take-all electoral system, the majority of your state (your "table") is going to determine the meal?

[KarenNC]

The majority at the table is determining what is served I think (the state). So it doesn't matter at all in a way at my particular table; I know what my state is choosing.

 

 

At one time, NC was considered solidly Republican, having gone that way in 7 consecutive presidential elections, before a surprise flip to Democrat in 2008 then back to Republican in 2012. Now we are a battleground state. Change can happen.

[heartlikealion]

I just want to make sure I'm following your metaphor, here.... Do you mean, because of the winner-take-all electoral system, the majority of your state (your "table") is going to determine the meal?

 

Not the electoral system, but even just the majority popular vote.

 

At one time, NC was considered solidly Republican, having gone that way in 7 consecutive presidential elections, before a surprise flip to Democrat in 2008 then back to Republican in 2012. Now we are a battleground state. Change can happen.

 

Well, I've seen the presidential signs in lawns and on bumper stickers. I've only seen one sign lol.

 

(I know not everyone is voting for that person, but it does color my picture of where the election is heading)

Edited August 7, 2016 by heartlikealion

[DawnM]

At one time, NC was considered solidly Republican, having gone that way in 7 consecutive presidential elections, before a surprise flip to Democrat in 2008 then back to Republican in 2012. Now we are a battleground state. Change can happen.

 

 

I don't see us as battleground at all!  That 2008 election was called LONG before the NC votes were even counted.  

 

2012, again, president declared before NC was even called.

 

We just don't carry enough electoral votes to matter.

[luuknam]

Well, I've seen the presidential signs in lawns and on bumper stickers. I've only seen one sign lol.

 

(I know not everyone is voting for that person, but it does color my picture of where the election is heading)

 

What, you drove around all of your state?

 

We don't have a bumper sticker, partially because I don't want to give people a sense of complacency. I don't want to encourage people to not vote or vote third party because this state will go anyway. Just to say that people may or may not have bumper stickers/signs for whatever reason.

Edited August 7, 2016 by luuknam

[Pam in CT]

re feeling that other voters determine what meal is served

Not the electoral system, but even just the majority popular vote.

 

 

Well, I've seen the presidential signs in lawns and on bumper stickers. I've only seen one sign lol.

 

(I know not everyone is voting for that person, but it does color my picture of where the election is heading)

 

 

Sorry, I'm afraid I'm still struggling to follow what you mean.  I totally get frustration with an Electoral College system in which Candidate A can with the popular vote but Candidate B can win the electoral.   I totally get why voters in winner-take-all states that always go ______ direction, feel disenfranchised by such a system.

 

But no matter WHAT electoral system was in place, there's always still a chance that "the other guy" (whoever that is) will win, right?  

 

 

 

 

ETA to clarify Electoral College parameters

 

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Pam in CT

[heartlikealion]

 

What, you drove around all of your state?

 

We don't have a bumper sticker, partially because I don't want to give people a sense of complacency. I don't want to encourage people to not vote or vote third party because this state will go anyway. Just to say that people may or may not have bumper stickers/signs for whatever reason.

 

Oh I know that not everyone has signs and I haven't actually gone looking for them. I just meant in the time I was visiting the gulfcoast of my state that's all I saw and I live in the central part of my state. I admittedly haven't seen much here. Probably because I'm not usually driving inside neighborhoods.

[luuknam]

Oh I know that not everyone has signs and I haven't actually gone looking for them. I just meant in the time I was visiting the gulfcoast of my state that's all I saw and I live in the central part of my state. I admittedly haven't seen much here. Probably because I'm not usually driving inside neighborhoods.

 

In other words, you don't know what 99+% of people in your state are planning to vote.

[Pawz4me]

I don't see us as battleground at all!  That 2008 election was called LONG before the NC votes were even counted.  

 

2012, again, president declared before NC was even called.

 

We just don't carry enough electoral votes to matter.

 

There are probably several definitions of "battleground state," but one is a state that can go either way in any given election. That certainly fits.

 

We are the ninth most populous state and have 15 electoral votes. So only eight states have more electoral votes than we do. We matter very much.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Pawz4me

[RootAnn]

My kids notice bumper stickers. So far, the most they've seen are for one of the candidates that didn't get their party's nomination. There have maybe been a handful of others. The one candidate had/has some really emphatic fans based on just bumper stickers in my state.The fans of the other major candidate(s), in general, and in my part of the state, don't seem to want to put bumper stickers on their cars.

 

I was just commenting the other day that I haven't seen ANY yard signs for the Presidential race yet. Maybe it is too early as of yet.

[heartlikealion]

re feeling that other voters determine what meal is served

 

 

Sorry, I'm afraid I'm still struggling to follow what you mean.  I totally get frustration with an Electoral College system in which Candidate A can with the popular vote but Candidate B can win the electoral.   I totally get why voters in winner-take-all states that always go ______ direction, feel disenfranchised by such a system.

 

But no matter WHAT electoral system was in place, there's always still a chance that "the other guy" (whoever that is) will win, right?  

 

 

 

 

ETA to clarify Electoral College parameters

 

I am probably not making sense. I did not mean I know who will win the election. I meant I feel like I know who will win our state's popular vote and electoral vote. And apparently depending on which state you live in, your electors have different rules for voting. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

 

[Pam in CT]

I am probably not making sense. I did not mean I know who will win the election. I meant I feel like I know who will win our state's popular vote and electoral vote. And apparently depending on which state you live in, your electors have different rules for voting. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

 

 

 

Gotcha, thanks.  Yeah, if I could wave a magic wand over the Electoral College system...

[heartlikealion]

My kids notice bumper stickers. So far, the most they've seen are for one of the candidates that didn't get their party's nomination. There have maybe been a handful of others. The one candidate had/has some really emphatic fans based on just bumper stickers in my state.The fans of the other major candidate(s), in general, and in my part of the state, don't seem to want to put bumper stickers on their cars.

 

I was just commenting the other day that I haven't seen ANY yard signs for the Presidential race yet. Maybe it is too early as of yet.

 

Good point, lots of people probably won't put stuff in their yard til later. Or car. Or whatever.

 

[heartlikealion]

In other words, you don't know what 99+% of people in your state are planning to vote.

 

I know it's split, but I think the majority of the votes will go toward the direction they have for the past nine elections. But hey, I could be wrong.

 

[DawnM]

There are probably several definitions of "battleground state," but one is a state that can go either way in any given election. That certainly fits.

 

We are the ninth most populous state and have 15 electoral votes. So only eight states have more electoral votes than we do. We matter very much.

 

Yeah, I guess if the elections were super close we would count, but  we haven't counted, at least not recently.  

 

Don't get me wrong, I will still vote, I just don't feel it really matters.

[hornblower]

As much as polling is faulty, I think it's a million times more predictive than scanning bumper stickers or lawn signs. 

I'd take Nate Silver's data over any bumper sticker count. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

he lists the states to watch especially ....

[heartlikealion]

As much as polling is faulty, I think it's a million times more predictive than scanning bumper stickers or lawn signs. 

 

I'd take Nate Silver's data over any bumper sticker count. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

he lists the states to watch especially ....

 

haha I should have prefaced with "since this state has voted ___ way since before I was born/is known for being conservative... " the signs and bumper stickers just added to my impression

 

[hornblower]

haha I should have prefaced with "since this state has voted ___ way since before I was born/is known for being conservative... " the signs and bumper stickers just added to my impression

 

 

 

ah gotcha. But now I'm curious - what does Nate say? :D 

[heartlikealion]

ah gotcha. But now I'm curious - what does Nate say? :D

 

Says 74% for the side I figure will win in my state

 

[FaithManor]

In terms of electoral college, I"d love it to be eliminated, but since that isn't likely to happen, modified so the electors go by district or by county. This way one large metropolitan area could not "elect" for that state. I really think that if this were the case, politicians would have to work a lot harder to explain their party platform and win over more areas. it makes more votes count. For example, Michigan has 16 electoral votes. So it has always been that if Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties voted one particular way, then bam, it was all over for everyone else. But if it was one electoral count per county, that would seriously change the landscape. It would also mean that smaller states had more of a vote which I think is important because some states are truly just stomped on by the electoral system, and though they still have two senators, the reality is that in the House they are just bizarrely under-represented, and often their politicians are ignored, especially when the vote is not close enough to court them.

 

I also think that this would allow third party candidates to have a better chance of moving beyond local politics.  In some ways even for state elections in which simple majority wins, the one county one vote system would also make state legislators and governors gear themselves to only caring about one or two metro areas. I mean frankly in Michigan the only people that have a voice are Metro Detroit area, Flint to some degree, and as the Grand Rapids area grows they are getting some attention. If you live in the Upper Peninsula, you are about entirely ignored by Lansing as if you don't exist. But if each of those little counties had a vote won based on the majority vote in its districts.....whew boy, now that would be a game changer.

 

The problem is that the current system works very, very well for our corrupt system and the lazy fat cats who only want to campaign in a few urban places where their rich buddies have businesses while merely waving out the bus window as they whiz past the rest of America making one ridiculous "town hall" stop in some rural hamlet in order to throw a bone as if said politician actually intends to take a wider look at the interests of his/her state or district as a whole, NOT! So I don't see it changing unless because it benefits them, not us.

 

ARGH! I'm rambling!!!!  :willy_nilly:

 

 

[Anacharsis]

​

In terms of electoral college, I"d love it to be eliminated, but since that isn't likely to happen, modified so the electors go by district or by county. This way one large metropolitan area could not "elect" for that state. I really think that if this were the case, politicians would have to work a lot harder to explain their party platform and win over more areas. it makes more votes count. For example, Michigan has 16 electoral votes. So it has always been that if Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties voted one particular way, then bam, it was all over for everyone else. But if it was one electoral count per county, that would seriously change the landscape. It would also mean that smaller states had more of a vote which I think is important because some states are truly just stomped on by the electoral system, and though they still have two senators, the reality is that in the House they are just bizarrely under-represented, and often their politicians are ignored, especially when the vote is not close enough to court them.

 

I think this is caused by the number of States not growing proportionally with the population. A place like New York City is really large enough and distinct enough that it could be its own city-state. When was the last time an existing area of the U.S. subdivided? Was it the split of Dakota Territory into North and South Dakota in 1889?

Edited August 7, 2016 by Anacharsis

[Bluegoat]

If the electoral colleges were got rid of, wouldn't you need something else to replace their function?

[Mergath]

In terms of electoral college, I"d love it to be eliminated, but since that isn't likely to happen, modified so the electors go by district or by county. This way one large metropolitan area could not "elect" for that state. I really think that if this were the case, politicians would have to work a lot harder to explain their party platform and win over more areas. it makes more votes count. For example, Michigan has 16 electoral votes. So it has always been that if Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties voted one particular way, then bam, it was all over for everyone else. But if it was one electoral count per county, that would seriously change the landscape. It would also mean that smaller states had more of a vote which I think is important because some states are truly just stomped on by the electoral system, and though they still have two senators, the reality is that in the House they are just bizarrely under-represented, and often their politicians are ignored, especially when the vote is not close enough to court them.

 

 

But wouldn't that make a person's vote count even less than it already does? A county with several million votes should have more say than a rural county with a few thousand people. I don't know what the demographics are where you live, but if they did it that way here they would basically be disenfranchising large, ethnically-diverse counties in favor of small, wealthy, predominantly white counties. Giving each county one electoral vote would basically be just like the electoral college times a million.

[Mergath]

If the electoral colleges were got rid of, wouldn't you need something else to replace their function?

 

Is there a reason we couldn't just use the national popular vote?

[BusyMom5]

I don't know that I have a problem w/ the Electoral College as much as I have a problem with the way primaries are run.  THe reality is that for the majority of Americans- neither of these 2 candidates were our choices.  Only a very small minority picked them, and that process is different for every state.  You have caucuses, primaries where you can only vote for one side- if you are in the middle that means you will never have a chance to vote 'for' someone, rather you are always voting against.  Picking the lesser of two evils.   If we are going to use the food metaphor it's like I had a choice between boiled chicken, fried chicken, grilled chicken, hamburger, steak, chicken fried steak (you know, it's steak, but cooked like fried chicken), roast and sirloin tips.  I can only vote for the beef or the chicken.  If I pull the Chicken Ballot- and I only like grilled chicken, but others vote for fried, then I am stuck with only the fried chicken.  If I choose to pull the Beef Ballot, and like only steak and hamberger, but cannot eat roast at all- and the majority choose roast at only a 30% majority.  Now I have to choose between fried chicken and roast- neither of which I like, and I would have rather had any of the other Beef Choices or Chicken Choices, but now I don't have those options anymore.  I should have voted for Chicken Fried Steak - the best of both worlds, but no one really likes it because it's not WHOLE steak or WHOLE chicken- it's just straddling the middle and i'ts a little too fried for some, and a little too steak-ey for others, and some are just mad b/c it won't make up it's mind- ARE YOU STEAK OR CHICKEN!  They call it different names, claim it really belongs on the other side, but really it's neither and both, and a lot of people would have been happier to have this middle of the road option, but all the beef lovers lined up to vote beef only, and all the chicken lovers voted more chicken-ey options.  Options too closely related to the opposite side were cast out.  How do I even figure out which ballot to pull?  Which side to vote on?  And it still won't matter if the majority of the people at my table want the roast- that's what I will be stuck with, too!  My choices would have been Grilled STeak, Grilled chicken, hamburger, then possibly the chicken fried steak and fried chicken.  THe sirloin tips were just a little too spicey, with extra ingredients thrown in there that I don't like, so even though I liked some of it, I still wouldn't have preferred it.  And Roast my absolute LAST option- it's dry, and everyone makes it differently so I can't really know how it will taste.  It might be okay, or it might have some whacky sauce thrown on it that will give me an anaphylactic reaction.   

Edited August 7, 2016 by BusyMom5

[heartlikealion]

Is there a reason we couldn't just use the national popular vote?

 

As long as the voting system is better organized than it was the year of the hanging chads.

 

[Bluegoat]

Is there a reason we couldn't just use the national popular vote?

 

Because that would tend to allow populous regions to dominate ones that have fewer people. 

[Anacharsis]

Is there a reason we couldn't just use the national popular vote?

 

States would be tempted to leave. It would be similar to the European Union making decisions based on European popular majority -- countries like Ireland, Greece, or Portugal simply don't have the combined populations to counter even half of Germany wanting a particular outcome. A European majority would usually end up as some sort of discussion between Germany, France, and Italy, so other countries would wonder why they were participating.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Anacharsis

[Mergath]

Because that would tend to allow populous regions to dominate ones that have fewer people. 

 

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but... so? Isn't it more fair for each person's vote to count equally when electing the president?

[Mergath]

States would be tempted to leave. It would be similar to the European Union making decisions based on European popular majority -- countries like Ireland, Greece, or Portugal simply don't have the combined populations to counter even half of Germany wanting a particular outcome. A European majority would usually end up as some sort of discussion between Germany, France, and Italy, so other countries would wonder why they were participating.

 

But is it somehow more fair for a minority of people to decide for everyone else when it comes to things like electing leaders? I don't think majority vote should decide everything, of course, but when it comes to picking the people who represent us in government, it's bizarre that the majority vote can be overruled by the electoral college.

[heartlikealion]

FYI there are some petitions circulating to get attention to at least one third party candidate. I'm sure there are more. I've signed a couple. One is to get a third party candidate on 60 Minutes and another is to get them included in the debates. I think it'd make for a more interesting debate regardless of what party people are voting for. In order to get to the debate it sounds like candidates need to hit 15% in at least 4 major polls by Labor Day???

[heartlikealion]

But is it somehow more fair for a minority of people to decide for everyone else when it comes to things like electing leaders? I don't think majority vote should decide everything, of course, but when it comes to picking the people who represent us in government, it's bizarre that the majority vote can be overruled by the electoral college.

 

And it seems like if people anticipated a popular vote leading to the winner then they would make more effort to vote.

 

[Bluegoat]

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but... so? Isn't it more fair for each person's vote to count equally when electing the president?

 

From a historical perspective, the states would never have agreed to enter into the union under those conditions. 

 

But more generally, I would say, no.  If we could count on people to put the interests of the whole ahead of personal interests, it might work.  But what you would end up with is probably the regional interests of a few areas dominating the whole of the country.

 

The electoral college system was designed to try and give reasonable weight to both population and regional factors, rather than letting either dominate.

[Pam in CT]

Yeah, I'm hard pressed even to describe what "purpose" the current Electoral College serves.

 

To a limited extent it arguably has the effect of giving smaller-population states a slightly-proportionately-higher degree of influence. In a body like the Senate, I can see a purpose to this (for example, ensuring that agricultural interests which are intrinsically lower-population-density, are not overwhelmed by bigger-population areas).  Not sure how that translates into Presidential selection, however.  And this effect is limited because the number of electoral votes each state has is periodically adjusted to population

 

The much greater effect comes from the winner-take-all aspect of the current system, which allow the electoral majority in each state to overrule the votes of the electoral minority within that state... which in turn is why is possible that a candidate win the popular yet lose the electoral.  I couldn't say what the "purpose" of this would be.  Why should individuals casting GOP votes in California, or those casting Dem votes in Texas, not count?  What "purpose" is served?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yeah, I'm hard pressed even to describe what "purpose" the current Electoral College serves.

 

To a limited extent it arguably has the effect of giving smaller-population states a slightly-proportionately-higher degree of influence. In a body like the Senate, I can see a purpose to this (for example, ensuring that agricultural interests which are intrinsically lower-population-density, are not overwhelmed by bigger-population areas).  Not sure how that translates into Presidential selection, however.  And this effect is limited because the number of electoral votes each state has is periodically adjusted to population

 

The much greater effect comes from the winner-take-all aspect of the current system, which allow the electoral majority in each state to overrule the votes of the electoral minority within that state... which in turn is why is possible that a candidate win the popular yet lose the electoral.  I couldn't say what the "purpose" of this would be.  Why should individuals casting GOP votes in California, or those casting Dem votes in Texas, not count?  What "purpose" is served?

 

Currently? None.  But changing the entire system will require an Amendment and good luck getting that passed.

[mamiof5]

Dh and I cannot vote for either of the 2 main candidates, we just can't. Voting for a third party