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

[Jason]

8 minutes ago, Slug said:

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. 

 

4 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

Why should land pick the president?

 

[SaysWho?]

27 minutes ago, Slug said:

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. 

 

So. What. You talk about LA like it's the Borg; it's just a bunch of people, and a bunch of them vote Democratic. What about Oklahoma City? Votes heavily Republican. It being a city doesn't automatically mean that it dictates the state's issues. It's not this big alien that controls the state; it's a bunch of people who happen to live there. 

 

New York used to be a swing state because the entire upstate voted opposite of New York City, whereas now upstate is way more competitive, so the entire state shifted. If you move half of NYC to Buffalo and Albany, the state doesn't magically become Republican because there are fewer people in NYC. Atlanta votes heavily Democratic not simply because it's a city, and it clearly hasn't controlled the state since the last time it voted Democratic was 1992. WHY do people think this way?

 

What happens under the current system is I only count if I'm in a swing state. If I'm not, I'm irrelevant. If I'm a Democratic voter in a heavily Republican state, my presidential vote means shit. At least I can vote statewide (which is gerrymandered), but I'm sick of every single branch and part of every government benefiting Republicans and this dumb idea that, somehow, if more people vote one way, that's bad so the winner should be the minority because "representation," when the majority of people aren't necessarily represented in the current system.

[Slug]

29 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

5 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

Why should land pick the president?

 

 

1 hour ago, Slug said:

I'm not a big fan of the electoral college and I don't have any good answers.

 

38 minutes ago, Slug said:

Look, I don't have an answer. I'm not going to pretend to. 

 

[Slug]

36 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

What happens under the current system is I only count if I'm in a swing state. If I'm not, I'm irrelevant. If I'm a Democratic voter in a heavily Republican state, my presidential vote means shit. At least I can vote statewide (which is gerrymandered), but I'm sick of every single branch and part of every government benefiting Republicans and this dumb idea that, somehow, if more people vote one way, that's bad so the winner should be the minority because "representation," when the majority of people aren't necessarily represented in the current system.

Yup.  And that sucks.  I agree completely.  I'm in an irrelevant state.  It blows because I know that my vote has zero chance of affecting the outcome for either my state, or nationally.  You're right; a lot of people aren't necessarily represented in the current system.  I've said it several times and quoted myself above; I don't think the current electoral system is good for how our country works in this day and age.  I just also believe a new system that merely changes who isn't represented is not the answer to it.

 

I live where my vote doesn't matter and it's one of the more populous states.  National popular vote would make my vote "count" and we'd probably get candidates campaigning on our issues.  Cool.  I still think it's a bad idea even though it would benefit me.  Maybe it's following the lead of the New England states and everyone taking a look at doling out their electoral votes by ranked choice.  Maybe it's a redistribution of the number of electoral votes.  Probably something else entirely.  I just don't know.

[Jason]

"We should do this because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" what a compelling argument.

[Joe]

A big part of this is that Americans that dont live in cities have a lot of disdain for Americans that do live in cities for whatever the fuck reason.

[Slug]

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

"We should do this because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" what a compelling argument.

Who said that? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

14 minutes ago, Jose said:

A big part of this is that Americans that dont live in cities have a lot of disdain for Americans that do live in cities for whatever the fuck reason.

That street goes both ways.

 

There's a significant, insurmountable urban/rural divide that has always existed and should ultimately result in the dissolution of the country into entities that are only united by trade (coastal cities to provide technology/intellectual goods, rural areas to provide agricultural products/raw materials).

[stepee]

just put an amazon warehouse in every rural area and turn them into a city, then we are all united

[Joe]

12 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

That street goes both ways.

 

There's a significant, insurmountable urban/rural divide that has always existed and should ultimately result in the dissolution of the country into entities that are only united by trade (coastal cities to provide technology/intellectual goods, rural areas to provide agricultural products/raw materials).

 

While it does go both ways to an extent, there is no one suggesting anything as ridiculous as someone who lives in an apartment building should have their vote be worth less because they decided they didn't need to be wasteful by buying a huge plot of land and drive their car for every little task that needs to get done. 

 

Honestly, I used to go out in the city a fair amount and the people you would hear make comments about the B&T crowd was super light. I have heard way worse come from suburbanites disparaging people from the city.

[Jason]

8 minutes ago, Jose said:

While it does go both ways to an extent, there is no one suggesting anything as ridiculous as someone who lives in an apartment building should have their vote be worth less because they decided they didn't need to be wasteful by buying a huge plot of land and drive their car for every little task that needs to get done. 

 

You don't hear this about national politics, but lots of NIMBYs really do apparently believe that your vote shouldn't count if you don't own land (renters aren't "invested in the community" like they are).

[Jwheel86]

Republicans will hate the EC as soon as this map becomes a reality, but they'll "fix it" by making Texas and NC's EC Votes distribute by Congressional district. 

 

[SaysWho?]

4 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Republicans will hate the EC as soon as this map becomes a reality, but they'll "fix it" by making Texas and NC's EC Votes distribute by Congressional district. 

 

 

tbh, that map won't because Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico have trended plenty blue over the years.

 

It's still a damn good point at how much they could lose if Dems continue to gain strength in Texas, which is the point: if Dems do, then you still have big states deciding the fucking election.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

The thing proponents of the Electoral college ignore when they say popular vote would disenfranchise small states if the electoral college disenfranchises large states. 

 

Republicans all but ignore California and New York. Democrats all but ignore Texas. 

[finaljedi]

16 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. 

 

It is much more fair that about 3 or 4 Midwest (and Florida) swing states pick the election instead.  In fact thanks to electoral math and fairness my vote in Ohio counts in a meaningful way and a person's vote in Texas, New York, California, Alabama and many other states have absolutely 0 impact on a Presidential election.  That's what you call fairness, not one person one vote.

[TheGreatGamble]

15 hours ago, Jose said:

A big part of this is that Americans that dont live in cities have a lot of disdain for Americans that do live in cities for whatever the fuck reason.

And Americans in cities have a lot of disdain for Americans that live in rural areas. 

[Anathema-]

18 hours 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. 

 

That's... Not exactly right. A wholly proportional system would actually make the big state/small state issue worse.

 

States with fewer electoral votes will present a harder path for candidates to improve their standing. In an extreme example, a state with only three ev's will essentially always give two to one candidate and one to the other, the winner being first past the post. 

 

States with more electoral votes will also be easier to focus on to run up the score. Right now winning California gets you everything, in a proportional system more votes in Cali gets you more EV's than more votes elsewhere.

 

All it would do is even out the campaigning between large states and give a more perverse incentive to ignore the small ones.

[thewhyteboar]

The only thing the Electoral College accomplishes is disenfranchising voters. I'm from eastern Washington, it's red as hell. Those Republican voters haven't cast a meaningful vote in a presidential election since...1984?? 

[SaysWho?]

9 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

The only thing the Electoral College accomplishes is disenfranchising voters. I'm from eastern Washington, it's red as hell. Those Republican voters haven't cast a meaningful vote in a presidential election since...1984?? 

 

Spokane's city center is as blue as it gets.

 

BTW, when I went through Washington to drive to Montana, FUCK, Washington is beautiful border to border.

[mclumber1]

35 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Spokane's city center is as blue as it gets.

 

BTW, when I went through Washington to drive to Montana, FUCK, Washington is beautiful border to border.

 

Aside from the more urban parts of Spokane, Yakima, Tri cities, and Pullman, Eastern Washington votes reliably red. I think the only county to vote for Clinton in 2016 was Whitman, which is home to WSU.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

 

Aside from the more urban parts of Spokane, Yakima, Tri cities, and Pullman, Eastern Washington votes reliably red. I think the only county to vote for Clinton in 2016 was Whitman, which is home to WSU.

 

I know. I surprisingly know a lot about Washington's geography mostly because I've gotten into county-by-county maps and trends over the past 10 years or so.  

 

What I meant was, that's as blue as it gets in eastern Washington, not that Spokane was "as blue as it gets" as in eastern Washington is a blue enclave. Sorry if that was typed confusingly. If you live closer to Spokane's city center -- or urban parts, as you said -- yeah, you'll feel like home if you vote mostly blue.

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

On 8/14/2019 at 5:35 PM, Jwheel86 said:

Republicans will hate the EC as soon as this map becomes a reality, but they'll "fix it" by making Texas and NC's EC Votes distribute by Congressional district. 

 

Oh they will definitely separate votes. It would appear as though they split texas up by rural and urban voting blocks, as rural Texas is always red and large urban areas are blue and getting more blue. 

 

Although, farmers and ranchers should tell Donald to fuck off at the voting booth. But despite Donald’s trade war hurting them, they’ll still vote Republican. 

[TwinIon]

Smaller states are already disproportionately represented in the Senate, and that seems unlikely to change. I don't know why we need grant them a similarly disproportionate representation in other branches. A straight popular vote doesn't give a California voter any more power than a voter in Wyoming or Ohio, but any system that relies on the EC changes that one way or another.