Popular elections

Kevin supports popular-vote elections and so do I. But crimony! It's not for this reason: "I say, make 'em campaign everywhere. I want to see all the attack ads too."

First, I point Kevin to YouTube where he can see not just attack ads, but also, I would imagine, counter-attack ads, attack ad spoofs, and electronic remixes of attack ads. It's a real-life attack ad bonanza.

But my real objection (inasmuch as I have one) is basically this map.

Well, not exactly this map. But imagine this map corrected for population density. I imagine sophisticated political apparatuses like Hillary Clinton's poring over this map and tailoring different messages to regions with different shades of purple. I imagine endless talking head debates about whether Democrats should rest on their laurels in the blue and purple areas and focus on converting people in the red areas, or vice versa. I imagine dilettante candidates confusing Claremont, CA for Montclair, CA and never really understanding the politics of either.

Which is to say, I think the one thing that would become more annoying about American electoral politics in a popular vote system is the campaign process. To reiterate, though, this really agitates for a parliamentary system. That way the work of campaigning would be done by scores of politicians across the country (instead of by just one) and they as a group would pick the prime minister who, as part of the legislature, would be forced to answer to his electors week in and week out. Who's with me?