Stunning Demographic Stats Re: the future of elections

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

Its interesting how many folks who claim to care about the little guy are so eager to make a bunch of changes that would essentially make the states that don't think like they do vassal states. 

[seven 1368]

Yeah, those states deserve special treatment because no one wants to live there. 

[formermav43 4630]

19 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Its interesting how many folks who claim to care about the little guy are so eager to make a bunch of changes that would essentially make the states that don't think like they do vassal states. 

Some minorities are more equal than others.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

27 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Its interesting how many folks who claim to care about the little guy are so eager to make a bunch of changes that would essentially make the states that don't think like they do vassal states. 

Much better to make populous states vassal states. 

The ironic thing is that rural states would benefit most from socialism. A socialist can bring them jobs and welfare.  Instead all they get is an earful of fearmongering regarding everything.  

[JBJ 3826]

Instead of anyone being a vassal state, it is probably best to partition the legislative body into two sections: one representing the people and one representing states, and make it so that both must agree to pass a new law.

[wildcat09 29579]

Everyone mentioning the obvious fact that the Senate was intended to be undemocratic is missing the obvious fact that it wasn't intended to be THIS undemocratic, and certainly not as undemocratic as it will be 12 years from now. The Senate was meant to provide a brake on the popular will represented by the House. Instead, we've got a House rigged to represent the will of a minority group and a Senate that is even more favored toward that same minority group. It's only going to get harder and harder for the GOP to argue that its rule is legitimately derived from the consent of the people.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

21 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Much better to make populous states vassal states. 

The ironic thing is that rural states would benefit most from socialism. A socialist can bring them jobs and welfare.  Instead all they get is an earful of fearmongering regarding everything.  

Slaves had jobs too. What are you trying to argue?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Slaves had jobs too. What are you trying to argue?

That GOP ideals do nothing for their base. 

[Rimbo 27014]

On 7/15/2018 at 10:30 AM, FondrenRoad said:

The Senate is fine. Get rid of gerrymandering, bump up the number of representatives, and switch to popular vote for President, and all would be fine. 

The Senate was supposed to be the bone thrown to rural states. Instead, they've also effectively been able to control the House and the Presidency while being outvoted.  Rather than balancing urban states and voters, they have completely disenfranchised them. Rather than the tyranny of the majority, we have the tyranny of the minority. Still tyranny. 

Oh, come on. Having one president elected by the rural minority in the past... how long now? ... does not count as "tyranny." It's exactly the sort of bone that was meant to be thrown at them. The kind of terrible that he is, furthermore, is exactly the result of the rural states being disenfranchised for so long.

If there's a tyranny of the minority in US politics right now, it's the minority of the extreme wealthy, who continue to exert insane influence on US politics in general. But the rural less-populated areas somehow magically becoming a "tyranny" just because they won one presidential election?

Come on, man!

I hate Trump as much as the next guy... probably more than the next guy, in fact, because Trump's presidency probably hasn't directly affected the next guy's family in the way that it has mine ... but that's no cause to engage in lobotomized discourse about the situation.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Oh, come on. Having one president elected by the rural minority in the past... how long now? ... does not count as "tyranny." It's exactly the sort of bone that was meant to be thrown at them. The kind of terrible that he is, furthermore, is exactly the result of the rural states being disenfranchised for so long.

If there's a tyranny of the minority in US politics right now, it's the minority of the extreme wealthy, who continue to exert insane influence on US politics in general. But the rural less-populated areas somehow magically becoming a "tyranny" just because they won one presidential election?

Come on, man!

I hate Trump as much as the next guy... probably more than the next guy, in fact, because Trump's presidency probably hasn't directly affected the next guy's family in the way that it has mine ... but that's no cause to engage in lobotomized discourse about the situation.

W also lost the popular vote in 2000. And Trump could very well win electoral victory in 2020 while losing by a landslide in the popular vote.  I also think that the GOP,  if it continues with its current platform, will never again win the popular vote for the Presidency, but will still have some Presidents.

Regardless, we have exactly one nationwide election.  A nationwide election should be won by the person who gets the majority of votes nationwide.  I see no reason for a rural state vote to be worth more than an urban state vote for that office.  I'm fine with the Senate the way it is.

Rural states have never been disenfranchised.  They have always had outsized voting power, and they typically receive from the federal gov't way more than they put in.  They simply vote against their best interests most of the time, especially when they voted for Trump.  Rural voters in urban states are disenfranchised, however.

[David Dennison 19538]

4 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Slaves had jobs too. What are you trying to argue?

What are you trying to argue?

[Rimbo 27014]

30 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

W also lost the popular vote in 2000. And Trump could very well win electoral victory in 2020 while losing by a landslide in the popular vote.  I also think that the GOP,  if it continues with its current platform, will never again win the popular vote for the Presidency, but will still have some Presidents.

Regardless, we have exactly one nationwide election.  A nationwide election should be won by the person who gets the majority of votes nationwide.  I see no reason for a rural state vote to be worth more than an urban state vote for that office.  I'm fine with the Senate the way it is.

Rural states have never been disenfranchised.  They have always had outsized voting power, and they typically receive from the federal gov't way more than they put in.  They simply vote against their best interests most of the time, especially when they voted for Trump.  Rural voters in urban states are disenfranchised, however.

He lost the popular vote, but he won half of the 4 largest states. That hardly corresponds with the issue described by OP. In fact, same could be said for Trump. As long as 2 of the 4 largest states are throwing in with the popular minority, it lends credence to the "But that's just California" argument.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

He lost the popular vote, but he won half of the 4 largest states. That hardly corresponds with the issue described by OP. In fact, same could be said for Trump. As long as 2 of the 4 largest states are throwing in with the popular minority, it lends credence to the "But that's just California" argument.

Winning half of the 4 largest states doesn't mean anything.  There is no such thing as a California citizen.  California residents are US citizens. So are Texas residents.  There is no "but that's just California argument."  There is also no such thing as a "popular minority".  A majority of Americans voted against Trump.  If Californians are different to you then allow them to close their borders to residents of other US states.

Edited July 16, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Huckleberry 34642]

42 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

W also lost the popular vote in 2000. And Trump could very well win electoral victory in 2020 while losing by a landslide in the popular vote.  I also think that the GOP,  if it continues with its current platform, will never again win the popular vote for the Presidency, but will still have some Presidents.

Regardless, we have exactly one nationwide election.  A nationwide election should be won by the person who gets the majority of votes nationwide.  I see no reason for a rural state vote to be worth more than an urban state vote for that office.  I'm fine with the Senate the way it is.

Rural states have never been disenfranchised.  They have always had outsized voting power, and they typically receive from the federal gov't way more than they put in.  They simply vote against their best interests most of the time, especially when they voted for Trump.  Rural voters in urban states are disenfranchised, however.

We have zero nationwide elections. The election of the POTUS is 50 separate statewide elections.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

We have zero nationwide elections. The election of the POTUS is 50 separate statewide elections.

POTUS and VPOTUS are the only elected officials who represent every US citizen.  It is a nationwide office.  I don't care that Idaho gets 2 Senators while CA also only gets 2 Senators.  ID senators represent Idahoans.  CA Senators represent Californians.  The President represents everyone.

The larger issue with the electoral college isn't even that it gives all the states votes to one candidate.  Its that the electors themselves are not population based due to everyone getting the 2 senate electors.  Make it based on House reps only, and a popular vote loser could still win, but at least everyone's vote would be closer to equal.

[Huckleberry 34642]

There's too much other shit going on for me to rehash this debate. Here's what I wrote in March 2016 on the site that will not be named and to which I refuse to provide a link:

Obviously this topic comes up every four years, so here we are in 2016. In an effort to keep what could be a ridiculously long post as short as possible I will list some of the alternatives below, discussing each briefly, then conclude with the one I would favor most. This is intended to be a thought exercise where hopefully adult-type people can discuss things on a theoretical level and do so civilly. If you come into this thread and start any partisan shit then fuck you and stay out.

A. Current system

Nobody seems to like it all that much, but the people that really hate it are the ones that lose each election. I like the current system in one respect in that it is based on the idea that each State has an inherent value simply by being a member of the union but also reflects the idea that more heavily populated States reflect the will of a greater number of citizens. Detractors of the first part of that sentence like to say things like "land shouldn't have a vote" but I simply view that as far too dismissive of the idea that the nation is a union of distinct States. Those that are familiar with the political posts I've made over the years are well aware that I am a huge fan of the Federal concept in that I believe that the various States should be free to have far different laws on many topics because that presents American citizens with 50 choices of where they want to live. They can vote with their residence in such a system, and the voice of migration would over the long haul have a major say in laws and political developments.

Why do I not like it? Because despite each State's ability to determine how they apportion the delegates the vast majority go with a winner-take-all approach and I simply don't like how that completely devalues votes in States that are solidly one party or the other. I think there is a happy medium in there somewhere.

B. Straight popular vote

Nonstarter for me because as noted above I like the fact that States have inherent value. Plus logistically at some point there will be a race so close that a recount is needed and all ballots nationwide will need to be transported to one location. Just an absurd visual. Plus then you raise the question of runoff elections if it's a straight popular vote considering that 17 times nobody has received more than 50% of the popular vote. Two-round systems are used in dozens of nations where a popular vote decides the chief executive.

C. Electors assigned proportionally to popular vote

This is just putting a different label on the straight popular vote. Basically holding on to the 538 electors simply for tradition's sake. Nah.

D. Assign 2 electors to each State winner, the rest assigned proportionally

This is an attempt to mimic the fact that the electors for each State represent their two Senators and their current Representative count. The reason I don't like this one is because it ignores the fact that Congress was actually set up so that bills must pass both the Senate and the House, so while the Senate is considered the upper chamber the fact remains that they are at least nominally equal in effecting laws. Which leads me to my two favorite options, one of which is I absolutely do not favor due to political realities.

E. 2 electors assigned to each State winner, one elector assigned to the winner of each Congressional district

This one gets to the heart of the people electing the President by speaking in place of their elected Congressmen. This would actually be great in a world where Congressional districts are drawn by computer based on population maps that are devoid of political or demographic information. But holy shit can you imagine the gerrymandering fights when each district helps decide the entire Executive branch instead of merely 1/535th of Congress? So it's a no-go for now. Which leaves me with...

F. Half of a State's electors (rounded up for States with an odd number) to the winner, the remainder assigned proportionally

The Senate being traditionally the upper chamber as mentioned, a State with an odd number of electors will assign the extra elector to the State winner. The remaining electors are assigned proportionally to the popular vote within the state. For example, in 2012 the Presidential results in Texas were

Mitt Romney - 57.17%
Barack Obama - 41.38%
Other People - 1.45%

In this system that would give Romney 19 electors for the State victory, then the remaining 19 would be assigned proportionally. Romney 10.86, Obama 7.86, Other People 0.28 which leaves us with Romney 11 and Obama 8. Romney takes the Texas electors 30-8 in that election instead of 38-0. Similarly California becomes Obama 44, Romney 10, Johnson 1 instead of Obama 55-0. Since I know people will wonder, the overall count in 2012 was originally 332-206 in favor of Obama, with this system it would have been Obama 303, Romney 234, Johnson 1.

I'd be willing to calculate other elections if anyone's interested.

Obviously this will never happen but I like it best so that means it's best.

[JBJ 3826]

6 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

There's too much other shit going on for me to rehash this debate. Here's what I wrote in March 2016 on the site that will not be named and to which I refuse to provide a link:

I'd propose a consitutional amendment that would require a minmum of the lesser of, 2/3 of the total electoral votes or the total electoral votes less two, to be apportioned to the people, whether by districting in a manner consistent with requirements enacted by Congress, or directly proportional to the total vote count.

2/3 instead of 1/2 because it seems fairer for a nearly 50/50 split to become at most 2:1 instead of 3:1.

Edited July 17, 2018 by JBJ

[dark54555 72]

On 7/14/2018 at 7:45 PM, David Dennison said:

It's a design flaw. It needs to be fixed.

Someone needs to go re-read the Federalist Papers.