Focus of local media on local pols is still true today. I need to do work to find out about candidates in other states or regions. Sorry, no sources, common sense. Taking it further, just look at all the Northeastern and Great Lake states Libs bitching about "Texas this" and "Texas that" with reference to Bush. Clearly, regionalism and local favorite situations are still quite possible. Why do you care so much about this, what dog do you have in this hunt? Be honest. Do you really want us to become like all the other "Parlimentary Democracies" out there; do you really find them superior to our system?
If a candidate expects my support, then I would like that candidate to at least come to my state and ask for my support.
The fact of the matter is that the Electoral College has created the very isolationism you claim it is trying to prevent.
The primary argument for keeping the Electoral College is that those in power are kept in power by the Electoral College. As things are today, the person for whom I cast my vote in November won both my state and the election as a whole.
That does not mean that I do not feel a bit disenfranchised by the process. Neither Bush nor Kerry felt it necessary to visit Indiana. Should I take that to mean that neither wanted my vote? I could, but I didn't. The Libertarian candidate visited my hometown, but that did not persuade me to vote for him.
I do believe that voter turnout is as low as it is because of the electoral college. I see this opinion reflected in hundreds of letters to the editor, polls and comments by individuals in the media.
My brother, a staunch GOP supporter in Chicago, tells me he hates the idea of the electoral votes from his state going to Kerry just because one county in the state voted Democrat. He feels left out of the picture.
With the continued emergence of so-called "third" parties, the situation could arise where candidates from these parties work to win a plurality of votes in the bigger states. Say a party picks up 34 % of the vote in the 12 to 15 biggest states, with the GOP and the Dems spliting the rest equally. Let's say this candidate does even run the rest of the states, meaning he o she doesn't try to get on the ballot. With 34 % of the vote, that person becomes president despite the fact that he or she failed to receive even a third of the total popular vote.
Is it possible, well it's how Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota. Jesse received 34% of the vote. the other two candidates received 33% each. Jesse was governor. simple as that.
With the electoral college system, Jesse would have received all the electoral votes for that state, despite the fact that 66% of the people voted against him.
A strong third party kept George H. W. Bush out of a second term, pulling just enough votes to put Clinton on top.
The third parties recognize how the system works, which is why they work harder to get on the ballots of the larger electoral states.
I think the system should be changed. Perhaps not complete elimination, but a distribution of electoral votes based on percentage of the popular vote, similar to what Maine has in place.
I