I've never voted in a state where the electoral votes didn't go in the direction I'd have wanted them to. Subsequently, I've never considered how disenfranchising it must be to know that your vote counted for nothing, zilch. I imagine that getting rid of the EC would help stimulate voter turnout too. When you KNOW that your vote could have an impact, you're more likely to participate. What's the hold up? How could a politician not look good by supporting a popular vote based electoral process?
That's where the whole discussion of a 3rd party candidate becomes relevant. Politicians are concerned about keeping their seat above all else and so they play the numbers game to skew it in their favor. One interesting thing I've seen in the news lately is the process of Gerrymandering where districts are redrawn in order to pack certain types of voters together in order to control and predict elections more easily. Take a look at these districts and tell me if they seem reasonable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illinois_District_4_2004.p...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IL17_109.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering I'm all about having a third (fourth, fifth) party. And I bet you that when Ron Paul loses the primary, he'll be so heavily persuaded to run as an independent that he just might do it. If that happens he has my vote. I'd really hate to see the EPA go under his watch but that'll probably happen anyway. At least he'll try to get rid of the Fed. On a side note - living in Canada for that past 4 years has been a real eye opener as to how things could be different. There are roughly 5 parties that all have a fairly strong voice, but what's interesting is how that works at the provincial level where certain parties gain support in some places but don't in others. In Vancouver, the Green party just won a seat (the first in Canadian history I think) because their platform is more sympathetic to British Columbians. Of course Le Bloc Party can only keep power inside Quebec so they can't do shit in the west. I think that if each state in the U.S. starting introducing parties particular to their concerns, then the senate and therefore the country could have a much more interesting and nuanced discussion.
Let's say you're running for dog catcher. Nobody knows your name. You're running against someone else for dog catcher. Nobody knows their name, either. "Dog catcher" is an ostensibly bipartisan office. Let's say you're running on a platform of no-kill shelters and mandatory licensing or something reasonable like that. You don't need a political party. Let's say the other guy, however, declares himself Republican. So now you're spending your money to get your name out, while your opponent is spending someone else's money. Even if your message makes the most sense, you're going to have to spend more to get it out. Not only that, but when the Republican party sends out a flier telling everyone who to vote for, your name isn't on it. Extrapolate that from "dog catcher' up to, oh, state senate. Let's presume there are two Democratic candidates, both qualified, both talented, but one wants to, oh, appoint electoral votes based on popular vote rather than winner-take-all. The other guy just wants to get elected. Who do you think the Democratic party is going to throw their weight behind? The electoral college turns local politics national. Eliminating it eliminates the local power of national political parties. And national political parties decide races. "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796