How? I would argue the opposite because it's an all or nothing system in nearly every state. For example, here in Georgia we know one thing: The Republican will very, very likely get the state's electoral votes in 2008. Hence, any vote for the Democrat is totally wasted. Even if the Democrat gets 49% of the votes, the GOP will get 100% of the EC votes. If we went to a popular vote the Democratic votes would actually count. They would be added to the other Democratic votes to determine the winner. The opposite would happen in California, where GOP votes for President don't matter. The fact your vote would actually count for something in those states would increase voter participation. If I were an Alabama democrat I would know full well my vote was worthless.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Breaking up electoral votes by district would be even worse. Then there would be only a few districts that would be important in elections. Most districts are more solid than states as a whole thanks to gerrymandering.
Plus the process of states individually doing it would be nasty.
Imagine if California had gone through with it... and then Texas decided not to, just yelled "Suckers!" We'd have a one-party system from then on.

I think if it's not the EC winner take all, it should be direct vote. Either one basically amounts to the same thing. Politicians are still going to cling to big populations that tend to swing just like they do now. But that beats just the few districts that swing.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

With one major difference. In a popular election the person with the most votes always wins (novel idea). The EC allows the person with the most votes to lose. Which, frankly, is totally stupid. In a national election states shouldn't matter at all. One vote, one person. So California has more people than Maine. So what? Each person still gets one vote. And the vote is counted.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I guess the idea is that with direct vote, we get presidents that only cater to urban interests... which I think is pretty silly, since even in rural states, populations are largely concentrated in the more urban areas... so it shouldn't make a huge difference.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I don't think it matters. The states with the highest population now (and hence with the most EC votes) are not rural. They are states with large urban centers. So nothing would change. If most people live in urban areas, then those people are a more powerful voting block.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Say we had 100 voters. In a direct vote to get my candidate elected, there would have to be 50 voters voting with me. Now, break those voters into 5 groups, where the majority of groups, ie 3 out of 5, need to vote the same as I. To get a majority in each group takes 11 votes in 2 groups and 10 votes in my group: Total number of votes required, excluding my vote, is 32.
An extreme: break the voter into 5 groups with 4 groups of 3 and one group of 88. Number of voters needed to get my candidate elected is 5 if all the 3 groups vote my way or 48 if 3 of the smaller groups vote against me.
Wouldn't you be more likely to vote if you felt your vote could make a difference?

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

So, you think it's better that the person getting 32 votes wins and the one getting 68 loses? That's quite a "Democracy". If that's why we need to keep the EC I would suggest you need a better reason. With one vote, one person your vote counts. It counts 1. The same as everyone else.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

My post was in answer to your question how does the EC give citizens more incentive to vote.
By your logic, do we get rid of the Senate?

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[quote]It's all the response needed to "Duhhh, There is no reason to have the EC."


No, I mean the statement "It was set up because people didn't vote for President back in the day" is a dimwitted tautology. The reason the electoral college was set up, as one can repeat millions of times to the uniformed but without effect, is that it apportions power in a way that recognizes the federal nature of the US.

OK, factless one, I'll give you your fourth grade tutoring (but only this once): such outcomes are possible in parliamentary systems or any democracy that isn't a direct democracy - REAL CLEAR NOW, EINSTEIN??

.

No - you tell me - Americans are dumb, and ugandans are smart?? Come on. let's hear it.

What would I have against the Senate?

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.