Jump to content
SaysWho?

The Movement To Skip The Electoral College May Take Its First Step Back

Recommended Posts

In March, the state of Colorado handed a historic win to opponents of the Electoral College by becoming the first purple state to sign on to the National Popular Vote interstate compact. Next November, however, it could make history yet again by becoming the first state to renege on the agreement.

 

How it works:

 

Quote

As we’ve written previously, states that join the National Popular Vote compact agree to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide — not necessarily the candidate who carries the state. And the compact only goes into effect once states worth 270 electoral votes (a majority in the Electoral College) have joined, thus ensuring that its signatories have enough electoral votes to guarantee that the national popular vote winner becomes president.

 

Why it's going on the ballot where it could potentially be overturned:

 

Quote

Four of those states, including Colorado, joined the National Popular Vote movement just this year, but it remains a controversial issue — for example, it recently failed to pass in Maine and was vetoed in Nevada. And opponents in Colorado were upset enough about its passage that they are now actively trying to repeal the law. Earlier this month, the organization Coloradans Vote said it submitted more than 227,198 signatures to the Colorado secretary of state in an effort to subject the law to voter referendum in the 2020 election. With that number of signatures, chances are very good it will make the ballot, making it the first time voters in any state will vote directly on the National Popular Vote compact.

 

According to the Colorado secretary of state’s office, the 227,198 signatures are likely the most ever submitted for a statewide ballot initiative in Colorado — certainly the most since at least 2001. Now, it’s typical for about 20 percent of signatures to be thrown out during the verification process. But because the referendum needs only 124,632 valid signatures to qualify, up to 45 percent of them could be tossed and the measure would still make the ballot. (The secretary of state’s office will announce whether it has done so by Aug. 30.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

The Electoral College is the dumbest thing the founders did. Once slavery was abolished it should have been done away with.

Smaller states who want the same representation as everyone else would disagree. I'm quite glad NY and California aren't choosing the president every election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only acceptable way is to proportionally (or as close to that as mathematically possible) award the state's electoral votes based on the respective shares of the popular vote within the state.

 

"Winner take all" -- no matter what form it takes -- is goddamned stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Smaller states who want the same representation as everyone else would disagree. I'm quite glad NY and California aren't choosing the president every election. 

 

"States with large populations are the same."

 

5 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The only acceptable way is to proportionally (or as close to that as mathematically possible) award the state's electoral votes based on the respective shares of the popular vote within the state.

 

"Winner take all" -- no matter what form it takes -- is goddamned stupid.

 

Yes, and not by district because gerrymandering makes that useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electoral College and 2nd amendment remind me of old video game mechanics that need to be patched and the longer they stick around the longer they can be exploited or something that would be considered a quality of life update.

Like how it’s not a bug in classic wow for rangers to not able to attack unless they are 10 meters away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Electoral College and 2nd amendment remind me of old video game mechanics that need to be patched and the longer they stick around the longer they can be exploited or something that would be considered a quality of life update.

Like how it’s not a bug in classic wow for rangers to not able to attack unless they are 10 meters away.

 

The other characters are certainly happy the rangers need to be that close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a huge state Texas and while the state gets a ton of electoral votes it is not so much the land that gets the vote. It is still a popular vote inside Texas. It is just inside the state it is winner takes all. Although they are close at times. It would be better to not have winner takes all. I understand small populated states like that they get their own electoral votes but they get like 2-3. The popular vote is not a huge shift for them as it would be for Texas if Texas spilt their electoral votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, if I live in West Virginia, I'm considered one of those people who should be glad I have a voice, but if I move to New York and vote the same way, I should count for less and shouldn't overpower the small states. I didn't change because I crossed state lines; we made up the fucking borders and number of states, but I'm looked different depending on what piece of land my home is. :lol: 

 

I had this conversation with someone on my FB and happily talked about how ever single part of government is rigged toward Republicans.

 

Senate - Tons of small states that have equal power to big states. Many of those states were split to artificially increase the number of Senators. These same people don't want Puerto Rico to become a state to limit Democratic Senators even though herp derp, they want to become a state, are a US territory and want to be able to vote on things as well.

 

House - Gerrymandered. Democrats killed it in the popular vote and should have won even more than Republicans did in 2010. It was still impressive, thankfully, being the best since Watergate, which shows how overwhelming they have to win to overcome gerrymandering.

 

State Legislatures - Gerrymandered. Democrats won the popular vote easily in Virginia but Republicans have control of the State House. They destroyed Republicans in the state legislature in Wisconsin but are not in the majority. This stuff also means that Republicans control redistricting unless they're finally defeated in 2020, which will keep them in power in many of these smaller states.

 

Presidency - For the second time in my short life, the Republican lost the popular vote but won the presidency because they won the "correct" states since the presidency comes down to a handful of swing states, not all 50 states.

 

 

Yes, please tell me more about how small states are disadvantaged. Somehow these people would change their tunes if California was artificially cut up in a gerrymandered way to split it into 5 strongly Democratic states and quintuple their Senators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've stated before, the easiest and most constitutional thing that can happen is to expand the House to 1 Representative for every 200,000 residents.  This would have the knock on effect of fixing one of the biggest flaws of the Electoral College, all without passing laws (such as the National Popular Vote Compact) that WILL be challenged in court, or passing a Constitutional Amendment, which is essentially impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mclumber1 said:

As I've stated before, the easiest and most constitutional thing that can happen is to expand the House to 1 Representative for every 200,000 residents.  This would have the knock on effect of fixing one of the biggest flaws of the Electoral College, all without passing laws (such as the National Popular Vote Compact) that WILL be challenged in court, or passing a Constitutional Amendment, which is essentially impossible.

 

And why do you think it's possible to increase the number of politicians in the House and make that popular among voters and among House members who would have less power if there were more voices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

And why do you think it's possible to increase the number of politicians in the House and make that popular among voters and among House members who would have less power if there were more voices?

 

Each citizen would be better represented, with smaller, more compact districts that better align with their political views and/or wants and needs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Each citizen would be better represented, with smaller, more compact districts that better align with their political views and/or wants and needs. 

 

Allowing majority vote to decide a president would allow more of the nation to be represented by the person they voted for, so we come back to how you convince voters that increasing the bureaucracy and amount of politicians is good and how do you convince House members to diminish their power?

 

Because the crux of your argument is that we can do your idea but not the others. I don't have anything against your idea (I like it a lot); I just don't agree with the logic behind pursuing that only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Allowing majority vote to decide a president would allow more of the nation to be represented by the person they voted for, so we come back to how you convince voters that increasing the bureaucracy and amount of politicians is good and how do you convince House members to diminish their power?

 

Because the crux of your argument is that we can do your idea but not the others. I don't have anything against your idea (I like it a lot); I just don't agree with the logic behind pursuing that only.

 

I've got to run, but my argument against the NPVC is that it is arguably unconstitutional, and that it is a fragile system:  As soon as one of the states who are in the compact disagree with the outcome of having their electoral votes go to the candidate who didn't win their state, the state will be compelled by the voters in that state to pull out of the compact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Electoral College and 2nd amendment remind me of old video game mechanics that need to be patched and the longer they stick around the longer they can be exploited or something that would be considered a quality of life update.

Like how it’s not a bug in classic wow for rangers to not able to attack unless they are 10 meters away.

They're called hunters you loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Smaller states who want the same representation as everyone else would disagree. I'm quite glad NY and California aren't choosing the president every election. 

States shouldn't vote for the President, people should. I am not California, you are not... Nebraska or wherever the fuck you're from. I'm me and you're you, and our voices should be equal because it's people voting a person in for the seat, not land voting a person in. You WOULD have equal "representation," in that your vote would represent your choices. How do you feel when your state goes against your vote? Then you have literally no representation at all. Less than one vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

States shouldn't vote for the President, people should. I am not California, you are not... Nebraska or wherever the fuck you're from. I'm me and you're you, and our voices should be equal because it's people voting a person in for the seat, not land voting a person in. You WOULD have equal "representation," in that your vote would represent your choices. How do you feel when your state goes against your vote? Then you have literally no representation at all. Less than one vote.

 

If he's who I think he is, he's Canadian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

If he's who I think he is, he's Canadian.

 

He's definitely Canadian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Keyser_Soze said:

 

He's definitely Canadian.

 

Beady little eyes and flapping head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

As I've stated before, the easiest and most constitutional thing that can happen is to expand the House to 1 Representative for every 200,000 residents.  This would have the knock on effect of fixing one of the biggest flaws of the Electoral College, all without passing laws (such as the National Popular Vote Compact) that WILL be challenged in court, or passing a Constitutional Amendment, which is essentially impossible.

So I finally decided to do the math here.

 

If you give each state the same number of senators, but give them each 1 rep for every 200k people (rounding up reps, so if a state has a pop of 500k, they get 3 reps), Trump wins the EV 1002 to 759 using 2016 results.

 

If you take the total population and divide by 200,000, then roundup and multiply the proportion of the national population each state has (e.g. Alabama has 4.8 million people so about 1.5% of the US population in 2010. There would be roughly 1633 seats at 200k/each for a 2010 population of 326.4 million. So Alabama has 1.5%*1633=24.45 -> 25 reps in this scenario) then Trump wins again, but 1003 to 759.

 

Removing senators from the EC, Trump wins both by about 943 to 716. I've tried it several different ways and in no scenario does the popular vote winner win the EC. (I didn't bother with the NE and ME breakdowns because 21 EVs between the two in this scenario didn't make or break anything)

 

I still support expanding the house, but it will not affect the EC vote for president in any meaningful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

I am not California, you are not... Nebraska or wherever the fuck you're from.

You are, in so far as issues that affect your day to day.  New York and LA voters aren't voting for people based on their farm subsidy positions, or game and wildlife records, or energy industry or factory job support or whatever other concern a small state person might have.  A straight popularity votes means candidates only have to consider and cater to issues that, while affecting a great many people, leave swathes of the country's interests underrepresented or outright ignored.  Campaigns could otherwise safely ignore all but 10 or so states.  Voter turnout nationwide would plummet because why bother?  You are right in that every vote should somehow count the same, but whatever system is in place has to also ensure that the interests of those who aren't metropolitan area citizens don't fall by the wayside because who cares about votes from Iowa anyway? 

 

I'm not a big fan of the electoral college and I don't have any good answers.  But a straight national popular vote isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Slug said:

You are, in so far as issues that affect your day to day.  New York and LA voters aren't voting for people based on their farm subsidy positions, or game and wildlife records, or energy industry or factory job support or whatever other concern a small state person might have.  A straight popularity votes means candidates only have to consider and cater to issues that, while affecting a great many people, leave swathes of the country's interests underrepresented or outright ignored.  Campaigns could otherwise safely ignore all but 10 or so states.  Voter turnout nationwide would be crushed because why bother?  You are right in that every vote should somehow count the same, but whatever system is in place has to also ensure that the interests of those who aren't metropolitan area citizens don't fall by the wayside because who cares about votes from Iowa anyway? 

 

I'm not a big fan of the electoral college and I don't have any good answers.  But a straight national popular vote isn't it.

It's almost like issues pertinent to specific states should be handled by that state and not by the fucking President!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Xbob42 said:

It's almost like issues pertinent to specific states should be handled by that state and not by the fucking President!

So long as the President can make policy decisions that affect all the states and states depend on federal money... *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Slug said:

So long as the President can make policy decisions that affect all the states and states depend on federal money... *shrug*

That seems like the point of contention, so maybe we should address that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Slug said:

You are, in so far as issues that affect your day to day.  New York and LA voters aren't voting for people based on their farm subsidy positions, or game and wildlife records, or energy industry or factory job support or whatever other concern a small state person might have.  A straight popularity votes means candidates only have to consider and cater to issues that, while affecting a great many people, leave swathes of the country's interests underrepresented or outright ignored.  Campaigns could otherwise safely ignore all but 10 or so states.  Voter turnout nationwide would be crushed because why bother?  You are right in that every vote should somehow count the same, but whatever system is in place has to also ensure that the interests of those who aren't metropolitan area citizens don't fall by the wayside because who cares about votes from Iowa anyway? 

 

I'm not a big fan of the electoral college and I don't have any good answers.  But a straight national popular vote isn't it.

Literally everything you said applies to the current system, particularly in bold.

 

The current system has 7 of the top 10 largest states that could be argued as swing states. And I could make a case for 10 of the top 20 are fairly swingy.

 

In fact, in 2016 of the 12 states with a margin of less than 5%, only 3 are not in the top half of population by state. Adding in the next 6 closest states (less than 10% margin) gives you only an additional 2 states from the bottom half of the population by state list.

 

Save me the small state bullshit. CA and NY aren't so big or monolith as to cast a shadow over the rest of the fucking country. And ask Andrew Cuomo or Gavin Newsom if they can just rely on metropolitan votes to win their offices. It's the most idiotic and lazy argument that fails upon the closest of inspection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proportioning the Electoral College votes based on the popular vote share in the state practically guarantees that the candidates will be forced to adopt a "50 State Strategy" as the garbage of "Winner Take All" has been thrown off the table.

 

Every vote counts with a proportional Electoral College. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slug said:

You are, in so far as issues that affect your day to day.  New York and LA voters aren't voting for people based on their farm subsidy positions, or game and wildlife records, or energy industry or factory job support or whatever other concern a small state person might have.  A straight popularity votes means candidates only have to consider and cater to issues that, while affecting a great many people, leave swathes of the country's interests underrepresented or outright ignored.  Campaigns could otherwise safely ignore all but 10 or so states.  Voter turnout nationwide would plummet because why bother?  You are right in that every vote should somehow count the same, but whatever system is in place has to also ensure that the interests of those who aren't metropolitan area citizens don't fall by the wayside because who cares about votes from Iowa anyway? 

 

I'm not a big fan of the electoral college and I don't have any good answers.  But a straight national popular vote isn't it.

 

You're describing the House of Representatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slug said:

You are, in so far as issues that affect your day to day.  New York and LA voters aren't voting for people based on their farm subsidy positions, or game and wildlife records, or energy industry or factory job support or whatever other concern a small state person might have.  A straight popularity votes means candidates only have to consider and cater to issues that, while affecting a great many people, leave swathes of the country's interests underrepresented or outright ignored.  Campaigns could otherwise safely ignore all but 10 or so states.  Voter turnout nationwide would be crushed because why bother?  You are right in that every vote should somehow count the same, but whatever system is in place has to also ensure that the interests of those who aren't metropolitan area citizens don't fall by the wayside because who cares about votes from Iowa anyway? 

 

I'm not a big fan of the electoral college and I don't have any good answers.  But a straight national popular vote isn't it.

 

Let's put aside the bold, which I'm sorry, is such a ridiculous statement since campaigns already safely ignore all but 10 or so states.

 

Why did you single out LA? The argument is, "I don't want such-and-such big states deciding the president alone," but we're taking California's most populated city in this example to further a point. There are many rural areas of California. And Nevada. And Texas. And New York. And Florida. If I'm in a suburban town in Kentucky I may be voting more Democratic as my county is, but I'm outnumbered by the vast majority of rural areas that vote Republican, which means I never really get a vote that counts. Rural areas aren't voting for my interests, either, and sometimes they completely outnumber urban areas. I'm in a suburban Florida area; I'm not "Florida." It's quite a diverse state. So are New York, California and Texas. And if there's a point where all big states are swing states, then there's even more reason to ignore small states.

 

The notion that big states are homogeneous is so ridiculous that I hate that I'm still arguing this nearly 20 years after someone first brought this argument to me. In Florida, you have big Jewish areas, big Cuban areas, agricultural areas, diverse tourist areas, rich coastal areas, Alabama-like areas, college towns, etc. 

 

When I lived in Georgia, I had no power nationally (and very little statewide due to gerrymandering). National vote would allow me to have a voice no matter what state I live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Proportioning the Electoral College votes based on the popular vote share in the state practically guarantees that the candidates will be forced to adopt a "50 State Strategy" as the garbage of "Winner Take All" has been thrown off the table.

 

Every vote counts with a proportional Electoral College. 

 

I'm fine with a proportional EC, but as of now, it wouldn't work very well unless we expand the House.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

The only acceptable way is to proportionally (or as close to that as mathematically possible) award the state's electoral votes based on the respective shares of the popular vote within the state.

 

"Winner take all" -- no matter what form it takes -- is goddamned stupid.

 

Repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Let's put aside the bold, which I'm sorry, is such a ridiculous statement since campaigns already safely ignore all but 10 or so states.

 

Why did you single out LA? The argument is, "I don't want such-and-such big states deciding the president alone," but we're taking California's most populated city in this example to further a point. There are many rural areas of California. And Nevada. And Texas. And New York. And Florida. 

Because in my examples those cities carry the state.  California is a big state with rural areas. But LA and its surrounding county and SF and the bay area together account for nearly half the population of it. NYC is 40% of that state's population alone. NJ is another one that is mostly rural and farmland, and I'd wager would be solidly red if not for a few counties outside New York and Philly out voting the rest of the state. The cities are singled out to make the point because in those states the cities are the only things that matter. 

 

Look, I don't have an answer. I'm not going to pretend to. The electoral system has its problems that need to be addressed. All I know is that a straight national popular vote doesn't fix under-representation, it merely moves it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...