Well I guess it's that time in the cycle again: for people to complain about the electoral college (disclaimer: I'm not American).

Over the years in different elections in different countries I've heard this complaint [1]

> The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view.

Translation:

> It's unfair that I don't get my way even though I'm in the minority.

Also, this isn't just an election for president. There are Senate (in 2 out of 3 elections) and Congressional races, probably local races too.

But let me address the common "solution" for this "problem": the popular volte (for president). That is a terrible idea.

The electoral college doesn't only exist for the reasons of state rights (although that's a pretty big part of it). It exists to avoid a deadlock. The delegate almost without exception vote as their state did. The possibility of no decision coming out of the electoral college is practically zero.

For those of you who were paying attention in 2000, just look at what a mess Florida became. Now watch me get downvoted into oblivion (but that doesn't make me any less right) but the optional nature of the US voting system has resulted in:

- the left buying votes (cigarettes to homeless people, that sort of thing); and

- the right trying to disenfranchise groups that tend to vote left with such measures as removing the right of felons to vote (and even people who aren't felons).

HOWEVER, by the rules that were in place at the time of the election Florida was always a Bush win (seriously, please don't downvote siimply because you disagree). Even extensive analysis (by the likes of the New York Times, etc) after the fact supports this.

My point was that Florida turned into a circus of trying to change the rules after the fact (eg what constitutes a vote, the whole dimpled and pregnant chad business). You just can't do that.

Imagine that circus on a national level with an incredibly close popular vote.

On a personal note, as someone who resides in New York, one of the most expensive media markets in a state that is safely blue, I appreciate the minimal amount of election ads.

Anyway, the electoral college is not the problem here. There are however two glaring problems (IMHO):

1. Voting is optional;

2. Elections are first-past-the-post ("FPTP").

The argument for (1) is that mandatory voting leads to uninformed people voting. I assure you that uninformed people are already voting.

Voter turnout nationally is something like 50% (IIRC). Of those 40% always vote Democrat, 40% always vote Republican and the 20% in the middle decide the election. So 10% of the population is deciding the election even key states.

The problem with optional voting is it creates the wrong incentives. Measures like voter ID, removing felons right to votes are a consequence of this. If voting were mandatory (as it is in Australia) then a lot of these problems go away. Also, in many parts of the US it is hard to vote with long lines. It should be moved to a Saturday but this difficulty is, in many places, a natural consequence of voting being optional. Election officials are partisans too so you shouldn't be surprised if a right-leaning official under-resources an area with a lot of poor people.

As for (2) the problem is that this reinforces a two-party system. A vote for a minor party is often a vote for the other side (eg voting for the Greens is a vote that would probably otherwise go to a Democrat so is effectively a vote for the Republicans).

Australia has a preferential voting system. Given a field of 5 candidates you number then 1 to 5. When votes are counted you allocate all the "1"s. The candiate with the least number of "1"s is eliminated and their votes are distributed to the "2"s. This continues until something has more than 50% of the vote.

This means you could vote [1] Green [2] Democrat [3] Republican and protest the Democrat candidate without losing your vote.

One last point, as much as people focus on key states deciding the election, the reality is that the states are on a spectrum based on the popular vote. If a Republican wins the popular vote by 8% or more they'll probably carry California, otherwise they won't. A Democrat will have to win by 5-8% to carry Texas. When the popular vote is close, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Wisconsin are in play. Were it not close they wouldn't be.

Over time states change their "bias". For example, Florida is becoming more Democratic with retirees from blue states in the Northeast. California used to be a safe red state but is now safely blue. These changes aren't sudden and the variations possible are actually quite small.

Whatever the case, the popular vote at the national level would be a disaster.

[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4736105