I'm coming around to strongly supporting the Electoral Collegelec

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, NowThis said:

well i was using actual 2016 data. 

How about if no one voted? Who wins then?

It does bring up another reform possibility. Make electors based on voter turnout and not state population. 

[NowThis 931]

if no one votes, it goes to the US HoR where each state has 1 vote , meaning the Rs will always win.  Yes, 11 voters can decide it, just have to switch WA with NJ to get to 270 in my table.

Which brings up the question -- can Electors be bribed? Is there anything forbidding that? 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 minutes ago, NowThis said:

if no one votes, it goes to the US HoR where each state has 1 vote , meaning the Rs will always win.  Yes, 11 voters can decide it, just have to switch WA with NJ to get to 270 in my table.

Which brings up the question -- can Electors be bribed? Is there anything forbidding that? 

Bribery is illegal but electors can be faithless. Look up the 1796 election. 

I do wonder what would happen if electors actually changed the outcome of a modern election. It would be constitutional.  Would we accept the results?

[lemonlime 5503]

If the rural states have more representation, maybe they can also pay more taxes.

[ChickenSandwich 9921]

30 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

If the rural states have more representation, maybe they can also pay more taxes.

Wait, wealth redistribution is now bad?

[Guest Lobo]

Obviously they did not foresee distant “territories-to-be” like California coming along.  And then shit like the Dakotas and Montana with a total of 37 people.  They baked in a platform from which the constitution could evolve and progress.  A breathing document, if you will.  

Except the second amendment.  They just meant muskets with which to fight the British.  Everything else in the Bill of Rights  was meant to grow.  But not that one.  And then maybe not the enumerated rights stuff.  But then everything else can progress.  Well, maybe........

[FondrenRoad 4378]

17 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Obviously they did not foresee distant “territories-to-be” like California coming along.  And then shit like the Dakotas and Montana with a total of 37 people.  They baked in a platform from which the constitution could evolve and progress.  A breathing document, if you will.  

Except the second amendment.  They just meant muskets with which to fight the British.  Everything else in the Bill of Rights  was meant to grow.  But not that one.  And then maybe not the enumerated rights stuff.  But then everything else can progress.  Well, maybe........

They foresaw enough need for flexibility that they set forth an amendment process.  And even as they compromised on human rights and slavery, they probably even foresaw that the amendment process would eventually include the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.  So maybe they did think that reasonable people would amend the Constitution so that the right to bear arms excludes nuclear weapons if/when nuclear weapons were invented.  What they didn't foresee is that people 200 years later would pretend that the Constitution has to be set in stone for all time no matter how much society has changed.

Would they want us shoehorning a bunch of unforeseen shit into the Commerce Clause?  Probably not.  Instead, they would have wanted us to amend the Constitution to cope with that unforeseen shit.

[hpslugga 4096]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

They foresaw enough need for flexibility that they set forth an amendment process.  And even as they compromised on human rights and slavery, they probably even foresaw that the amendment process would eventually include the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.  So maybe they did think that reasonable people would amend the Constitution so that the right to bear arms excludes nuclear weapons if/when nuclear weapons were invented.  What they didn't foresee is that people 200 years later would pretend that the Constitution has to be set in stone for all time no matter how much society has changed.

Would they want us shoehorning a bunch of unforeseen shit into the Commerce Clause?  Probably not.  Instead, they would have wanted us to amend the Constitution to cope with that unforeseen shit.

It really reveals the depravity of our system that we haven't amended that fucking thing in almost 30 years, and that one had to do with congressional salaries.

[Horn Dog 10156]

4 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Wait, wealth redistribution is now bad?

Wait, wealth redistribution is now good?

[TwiceHorn 31995]

15 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Yep, that's how shit liked that worked.

The interesting thing is, it's still better than simple majority where we are asking states to give up power to a federal government.

True enough.  We could stand a little more compromise in this country. 

And, the "compromise" regarding the electoral college wasn't just between the college and a popular vote, it was among several alternatives including senators appointing a president, governors appointing a president, etc.  Nor was it a product insisted upon by evil, slave loving states.  The least populous of the 13 original states at ratification were NH, RI, DE and GA..  Virginia was the most populous state.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

True enough.  We could stand a little more compromise in this country. 

And, the "compromise" regarding the electoral college wasn't just between the college and a popular vote, it was among several alternatives including senators appointing a president, governors appointing a president, etc.  Nor was it a product insisted upon by evil, slave loving states.  The least populous of the 13 original states at ratification were NH, RI, DE and GA..  Virginia was the most populous state.

Don’t confuse this board with facts.  

[Brisketexan 106642]

I'm in favor of the Electoral College because I'm pretty sure that I can come up with a scam where I can bilk some Hollywood dumbasses into paying me millions to get their kids admitted to the Electoral College.

Who cares if the country is going to shit, Brisket's gotta get his.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

17 hours ago, hpslugga said:

It really reveals the depravity of our system that we haven't amended that fucking thing in almost 30 years, and that one had to do with congressional salaries.

And they was only because some UT student had a paper to write. 

[NBMisha 224]

18 hours ago, hpslugga said:

It really reveals the depravity of our system that we haven't amended that fucking thing in almost 30 years, and that one had to do with congressional salaries.

Depravity = things working just fine, thank you very much (assume southern senatorial drawl)

[NBMisha 224]

16 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Don’t confuse this board with facts.  

The issue is how well, or poorly the system is working now and for the forseeable future.  The instutionalized veto power and half the time hegemony of a permanent minority is hardly a defensible model.  It pisses on the dignity of a majority of the country, and protects no enumerable rights or otherwise of the minority.  Just power.

[TwiceHorn 31995]

38 minutes ago, NBMisha said:

The issue is how well, or poorly the system is working now and for the forseeable future.  The instutionalized veto power and half the time hegemony of a permanent minority is hardly a defensible model.  It pisses on the dignity of a majority of the country, and protects no enumerable rights or otherwise of the minority.  Just power.

To debate the issue honestly requires an understanding of where the electoral college came from and why it exists. 

The fact is, the founders understood that simple majority votes get you Brexit and California's direct legislation and sought to prevent that.  They pretty expressly devalued majority votes on a national level, instead confining them to local and state elections where smaller groups of people vote on issues that more directly affect them.

So until you consider the wheres and whyfors of the electoral college, with accurate facts, you are just pissed about the outcome it generates.

You seem to say that not having a national popular vote is undemocratic.  Well, guess what, national popular elections are undemocratic:  they dilute votes.

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, guess what, national popular elections are undemocratic:  they dilute votes.

wut.

[GSU&UT 1799]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To debate the issue honestly requires an understanding of where the electoral college came from and why it exists. 

The fact is, the founders understood that simple majority votes get you Brexit and California's direct legislation and sought to prevent that.  They pretty expressly devalued majority votes on a national level, instead confining them to local and state elections where smaller groups of people vote on issues that more directly affect them.

So until you consider the wheres and whyfors of the electoral college, with accurate facts, you are just pissed about the outcome it generates.

You seem to say that not having a national popular vote is undemocratic.  Well, guess what, national popular elections are undemocratic:  they dilute votes.

 

The great thing is that we no longer have to give a single fuck about the arguments presented in the 1700s, this narrative is shifting and I believe it is you who doesn't like it since you seem hellbent on being a hardcore originalist.

[NBMisha 224]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To debate the issue honestly requires an understanding of where the electoral college came from and why it exists. 

The fact is, the founders understood that simple majority votes get you Brexit and California's direct legislation and sought to prevent that.  They pretty expressly devalued majority votes on a national level, instead confining them to local and state elections where smaller groups of people vote on issues that more directly affect them.

So until you consider the wheres and whyfors of the electoral college, with accurate facts, you are just pissed about the outcome it generates.

You seem to say that not having a national popular vote is undemocratic.  Well, guess what, national popular elections are undemocratic:  they dilute votes.

 

TH

I have considered the why's and wherefores.  My point is that the thinking in 1787-9 was not perfect, and could not anticipate the situation we have now.  They were trying to protect a geographic minority from the tyranny of the majority.  What we have now is quite different, unforseen in the underlying debate records.  And the country, the nation, is those of us now living, responsible for now and the future.  

The fact is the minority in question will veto any dilution of their power until hell freezes over, and keeping hold on power is the only logic operating.  I don't find that logic convincing, and don't find the founding logic to be pertinent to today's problem.

Finally, your suggestion that any view not structured like you own is not honest, is, well, regrettable.

Edited March 26, 2019 by NBMisha

[TwiceHorn 31995]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

The great thing is that we no longer have to give a single fuck about the arguments presented in the 1700s, this narrative is shifting and I believe it is you who doesn't like it since you seem hellbent on being a hardcore originalist.

No, I'm not actually.  I just think it's important to understand the origins of things and not to mischaracterize them to color the debate.

Besides, it would require an amendment to change and this country won't survive a constitutional convention, as much as it might need one.

But those of you in favor of something more resembling a popular vote could go a long way toward it by changing the laws in the states that award all of their electoral votes to a winner.

[GSU&UT 1799]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, I'm not actually.  I just think it's important to understand the origins of things and not to mischaracterize them to color the debate.

Besides, it would require an amendment to change and this country won't survive a constitutional convention, as much as it might need one.

But those of you in favor of something more resembling a popular vote could go a long way toward it by changing the laws in the states that award all of their electoral votes to a winner.

Your argument presumes that we aren't aware of how incredibly difficult it would be to get rid of this system, I think most of us are acutely aware that it will possibly be decades (maybe not in our lifetimes) before the EC is abolished. My point is that this BS of "what did the founding fathers think" is a gross way of viewing something that has very clearly been used by a minority of people to control the majority, not to mention the very racist origins of how the EC came to be in the first place.

[TwiceHorn 31995]

6 minutes ago, NBMisha said:

TH

I have considered the why's and wherefores.  My point is that the thinking in 1787-9 was not perfect, and could not anticipate the situation we have now.  They were trying to protect a geographic minority from the tyranny of the majority.  What we have now is quite different, unforseen in the underlying debate records.  And the country, the nation, is those of us now living, responsible for now and the future.  

The fact is the minority in question will veto any dilution of their power until hell freezes over, and keeping hold on power is the only logic operating.  I don't find that logic convincing, and don't find the founding logic to be pertinent to today's problem.

Finally, your suggestion that any view not structured like you own is not honest, is, well, regrettable.

Better post.  You didn't say it, but others have implied that the electoral college was somehow a corrupt or illegitimate compromise (in the same way as say the 3/5 voting "rights" of slaves),  I don't believe the facts support that.  That was my point.

You make this statement

"What we have now is quite different, unforseen in the underlying debate records.  And the country, the nation, is those of us now living, responsible for now and the future."

I'm not sure what that really means.  Has something changed from the original scheme where less populous states are no longer deserving of "protection" from larger ones?  Or do you just mean that it's completely necessary now to have a federal government that exists without regard for the states?  Or that the President is now more powerful than the founders intended?

Or is it a general statement in support of amending the Constitution?  To me there would be a number of things higher priority than the electoral college if we were to undertake a convention.

I agree that the necessities of modern life probably require a bigger federal government than the founders envisioned.  But we managed to get that quite easily without changing the electoral college, or any number of things provided for in the Constitution.  I do believe that the federal government has gotten too large for its own good though.

The strongest argument I suppose for a national popular election is that President is the only nationally elected office, so it ought to be elected by a simple, popular majority.

 

[TwiceHorn 31995]

21 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Your argument presumes that we aren't aware of how incredibly difficult it would be to get rid of this system, I think most of us are acutely aware that it will possibly be decades (maybe not in our lifetimes) before the EC is abolished. My point is that this BS of "what did the founding fathers think" is a gross way of viewing something that has very clearly been used by a minority of people to control the majority, not to mention the very racist origins of how the EC came to be in the first place.

Lmao.  JFC.

I will grant you that "states rights" have been abused to perpetrate all sorts of mischief.  However, that does not mean that federalism is an invalid or useless concept. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[FondrenRoad 4378]

18 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Your argument presumes that we aren't aware of how incredibly difficult it would be to get rid of this system, I think most of us are acutely aware that it will possibly be decades (maybe not in our lifetimes) before the EC is abolished. My point is that this BS of "what did the founding fathers think" is a gross way of viewing something that has very clearly been used by a minority of people to control the majority, not to mention the very racist origins of how the EC came to be in the first place.

Its more likely that USA ceases to exist than for the EC to be abolished.  States in the minority are never going to willing give up that power.  The nation will be fine as long as a tyrannical minority leadership doesn't become the norm.  We can survive one or two terms of it.  We can even survive somewhat long term minority leadership that seeks some compromise with the majority.  The real issue is that the minority party seems hellbent on tyranny from here on out.

The third Trump type term is where the majority will have had enough, and that will be it for this nation.  Secession movements in coastal states will start in earnest.  By the time the Bamas and Kansases decide that ditching the EC is a better alternative to losing CA as a tax base, it will be too late.  Pretty sure it will go down without a fight too, so that's one good thing at least.

[Incredulity 11861]

43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

The fact is, the founders understood that simple majority votes get you Brexit and California's direct legislation and sought to prevent that.  They pretty expressly devalued majority votes on a national level, instead confining them to local and state elections where smaller groups of people vote on issues that more directly affect them.

 

This.

The initiative system of getting things on the ballot is a fucking mess.  On a simple face value question, "should citizens be able to bring legistation to vote?", it seems wonderful.  The end result is the people voting on how farm animals should be handled.

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

By the time the Bamas and Kansases decide that ditching the EC is a better alternative to losing CA as a tax base, it will be too late. 

You underestimate the fact that Bama and Kansas will be dancing in the streets if CA succeeds. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You underestimate the fact that Bama and Kansas will be dancing in the streets if CA succeeds. 

At first, but once all the educated Bamans and Kansans start running for the exits, they'll change their tune.

But if they dance and want to split up too, all the better.

[GSU&UT 1799]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lmao.  JFC.

I will grant you that "states rights" have been abused to perpetrate all sorts of mischief.  However, that does not mean that federalism is an invalid or useless concept. 

Do you think this is some sort of fringe opinion? Have you done any research on this?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/the-racial-history-of-the-electoral-college-and-why-efforts-to-change-it-have-stalled

[TwiceHorn 31995]

9 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Do you think this is some sort of fringe opinion? Have you done any research on this?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/the-racial-history-of-the-electoral-college-and-why-efforts-to-change-it-have-stalled

That is a false narrative regarding the actual debate over the electoral college and doesn't actually purport to describe the debate.  It conflates the 3/5 issue with the electoral college.  As noted above, Virginia, through its slave population, but also without it, was one of the largest states by population and would have favored a popular election.

The debate was among several alternatives, only one of which was a popular vote.  The concern was dilution of the small population states, most notably Rhode Island and Delaware, which were not slave states.  The least populous state was Georgia, a slave state that would have benefitted from the EC, but it's delegates were not as vocal as those from RI and DE on the issue.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[GSU&UT 1799]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

That is a false narrative regarding the actual debate over the electoral college and doesn't actually purport to describe the debate.  It conflates the 3/5 issue with the electoral college.

The debate was among several alternatives, only one of which was a popular vote.  The concern was dilution of the small population states, most notably Rhode Island and Delaware, which were not slave states.

Here is a major candidate echoing my opinion (start at 27:12), be sure to write to Mayor Pete to let him know that his thoughts on the matter are not rooted in the correct history.

 

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

The EC is outdated and needs to go. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is a false narrative regarding the actual debate over the electoral college and doesn't actually purport to describe the debate.  It conflates the 3/5 issue with the electoral college.

The debate was among several alternatives, only one of which was a popular vote.  The concern was dilution of the small population states, most notably Rhode Island and Delaware, which were not slave states.

While we would have been better off if RI had merged with MA and DE had merged with MD, I understand that they would have never joined under those circumstances, so I give the original 13 a pass.  Where we really messed up was allowing arbitrary division of territories as new states.  Later territories that became states should have been required to join in one piece which would give us something like 12 additional states rather than 37.

Alternatively, if we focused on city-states with surrounding rural economically linked areas, we'd also be better off.

[elfenix 34661]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is a false narrative regarding the actual debate over the electoral college and doesn't actually purport to describe the debate.  It conflates the 3/5 issue with the electoral college.  As noted above, Virginia, through its slave population, but also without it, was one of the largest states by population and would have favored a popular election.

The debate was among several alternatives, only one of which was a popular vote.  The concern was dilution of the small population states, most notably Rhode Island and Delaware, which were not slave states.  The least populous state was Georgia, a slave state that would have benefitted from the EC, but it's delegates were not as vocal as those from RI and DE on the issue.

we can acknowledge the original rationales while also recognizing the reality that those rationales quickly became unfounded (or that the EC didn't address them - 4 of the first 6 presidents were born in VA and the other two were born in MA, two of the three most populous states) and that subsequent history that shaped our institutions into the present is corrupted by racist chattel slavery.  why is there a kansas?

Edited March 26, 2019 by elfenix

[TwiceHorn 31995]

25 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

While we would have been better off if RI had merged with MA and DE had merged with MD, I understand that they would have never joined under those circumstances, so I give the original 13 a pass.  Where we really messed up was allowing arbitrary division of territories as new states.  Later territories that became states should have been required to join in one piece which would give us something like 12 additional states rather than 37.

Alternatively, if we focused on city-states with surrounding rural economically linked areas, we'd also be better off.

Interesting.

Here's a paper that attempts to describe the constitutional debate over the electoral college.  http://people.uncw.edu/lowery/pls101/wilson_chapter_outlines/The Proslavery Origins of the Electoral College.pdf

Its conclusion is that it was a racial thing.  But it is unable to actually quote any debate where the issue of slavery is directly connected to the electoral college, instead ascribing motives to various delegates that seem to be a stretch.  You would never get his conclusion from studying the records alone.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, the paper was authored after and in response to Bush v. Gore.

The 3/5 issue is gross, no question about that, but its real impact and design was in the number of Representatives. .  Further, the constitutional convention mostly selected among alternatives other than a popular vote, only Pennsylvania's delegates desired a popular vote..  Also note that the 3/5 "compromise" was decided in the Articles of Confederation, which didn't even have a President or electoral college.  It was then carried forward into the Constitution.

Did the electoral college have the effect of giving small population slave states disproportionate representation in the Presidential election, probably so, but I don't believe it was designed to do that. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[elfenix 34661]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, guess what, national popular elections are undemocratic:  they dilute votes.

i'd really like to see your rationale for this claim. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Interesting.

Here's a paper that attempts to describe the constitutional debate over the electoral college.  http://people.uncw.edu/lowery/pls101/wilson_chapter_outlines/The Proslavery Origins of the Electoral College.pdf

Its conclusion is that it was a racial thing.  But it is unable to actually quote any debate where the issue of slavery is directly connected to the electoral college, instead ascribing motives to various delegates that seem to be a stretch.  You would never get his conclusion from studying the records alone.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, the paper was authored after and in response to Bush v. Gore.

The 3/5 issue is gross, no question about that, but its real impact and design was in the number of Representatives. .  Further, the constitutional convention mostly selected among alternatives other than a popular vote, only Pennsylvania's delegates desired a popular vote..  Also note that the 3/5 "compromise" was decided in the Articles of Confederation, which didn't even have a President or electoral college.  It was then carried forward into the Constitution.

The 3/5 issue still exists in different forms.  Wilbur Ross wants a citizenship question on the census form in order to decrease representation in states with large immigrant populations.

Ironically, it was slave owning states that wanted to count slaves as whole human beings, albeit ones who could never vote, and non-slave owning states that didn't want them to count at all if they couldn't vote.

But the real issue with the EC has little to do with who we count as people within a state's borders.  There will always be undercounts and overcounts.  The primary problem is with the 2 electors each state has that reflect their 2 Senators.  This means that rural states will always have disproportionate voting power no matter who we count.

[TwiceHorn 31995]

21 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i'd really like to see your rationale for this claim. 

If you accept that democracy is government according to the will of the people, where a majority vote is a stand-in for the will of the people, then the larger the voting population, the less it accurately reflects the will of the people.  If you consider democracy to be "majority rules," then it's perfectly democratic.

[elfenix 34661]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you accept that democracy is government according to the will of the people, where a majority vote is a stand-in for the will of the people, then the larger the voting population, the less it accurately reflects the will of the people. 

i guess i can see that.  but i think that's more a factor of how we select our governments in particular than the size of the population.  israel probably gets closest to the will of the people with the way the knesset is selected, from what i understand of it. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you accept that democracy is government according to the will of the people, where a majority vote is a stand-in for the will of the people, then the larger the voting population, the less it accurately reflects the will of the people.  If you consider democracy to be "majority rules," then it's perfectly democratic.

Ahh, so its better to be ruled by the 40% than the 51%?

In actuality, majority vote is as close to the will of the people that you are going to get.  1 person, 1 vote.  No doubt that people are never going to be unanimous and there will always be minority voters who lose a "majority rules" election.  However, it is as fair a system as can exist so long as minority rights are protected.  It is far more fair than disenfranchising the majority so that the minority can assert its tyrannical will on them.

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

Politicians figured out how to take advantage of the EC setup, and now we have a Democratic Party for the urban people and a GOP for the rural folks. It’s a complete disaster.

If these parties have to chase EVERYONE’S vote, we might actually have a functioning government and some sort of positive future. 

Popular vote probably creates a 10-15% increase in voter turnout right away.

[TwiceHorn 31995]

15 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Ahh, so its better to be ruled by the 40% than the 51%?

In actuality, majority vote is as close to the will of the people that you are going to get.  1 person, 1 vote.  No doubt that people are never going to be unanimous and there will always be minority voters who lose a "majority rules" election.  However, it is as fair a system as can exist so long as minority rights are protected.  It is far more fair than disenfranchising the majority so that the minority can assert its tyrannical will on them.

I didn't exactly say that.  But the more discrete issues and the smaller the voting population, the closer you get to the will of the people, which is mostly what we want.

 

And I think what we're ultimately driving at is my nagging suspicion that the country is getting too damn big to run right.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31995]

7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Politicians figured out how to take advantage of the EC setup, and now we have a Democratic Party for the urban people and a GOP for the rural folks. It’s a complete disaster.

If these parties have to chase EVERYONE’S vote, we might actually have a functioning government and some sort of positive future. 

Popular vote probably creates a 10-15% increase in voter turnout right away.

You think that many decline to vote because they understand the EC may render their vote "meaningless"?

Popular vote creates its own distortions.  Hillary won a popular vote and lost an EC vote because she specifically declined to chase midwestern votes.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

Yes. Is this a trap or something?

[TwiceHorn 31995]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yes. Is this a trap or something?

No.  I mostly hear people that vote grousing that it won't count because of electoral votes.  People that don't vote say it won't count, but I doubt most of them have any inkling that may be why.  So I hesitate to assume that a popular vote would bring them out.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No.  I mostly hear people that vote grousing that it won't count because of electoral votes.  People that don't vote say the same thing, but I doubt most of them have any inkling that may be why.  So I hesitate to assume that a popular vote would bring them out.

To me it’s just common sense. What’s the motivation for a Republican to vote in CA or NY? Hell, I’m sure there are plenty of Democrats in those states that don’t bother to vote because the outcome is pre-determined.

Election after election,  I cast a meaningless vote here in Texas. It’s completely understandable why some people have apathy for going to the polls. 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[FondrenRoad 4378]

27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You think that many decline to vote because they understand the EC may render their vote "meaningless"?

Popular vote creates its own distortions.  Hillary won a popular vote and lost an EC vote because she specifically declined to chase midwestern votes.

Of course people declined to vote.  Turnout is always higher in swing states than in decided states.  That also has a massive negative effect on downstream races.  People certainly need to understand that municipal, county, and state races matter even if the Presidential race is already decided in their state.

We have exactly one office in our nation that represents every single one of us.  But it doesn't really represent us equally.  You and I count for about 1/2 of a Wyomingan.  A Californian is worth even less than us.  Maybe you're happy with a Wyomingan having more say than you when it comes to sending our troops off to die in foreign lands, or implementing trade wars which negatively effect your local economy. I'm not. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[TwiceHorn 31995]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Of course people declined to vote.  Turnout is always higher in swing states than in decided states.  That also has a massive negative effect on downstream races.  People certainly need to understand that municipal, county, and state races matter even if the Presidential race is already decided in their state.

We have exactly one office in our nation that represents every single one of us.  But it doesn't really represent us equally.  You and I count for about 1/2 of a Wyomingan.  A Californian is worth even less than us.  Maybe you're happy with a Wyomingan having more say than you when it comes to sending our troops off to die in foreign lands, or implementing trade wars which negatively effect your local economy. I'm not. 

Best argument yet in favor of a popular vote. Well-stated.

 

[Mdhorn 6153]

13 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

To me it’s just common sense. What’s the motivation for a Republican to vote in CA or NY? Hell, I’m sure there are plenty of Democrats in those states that don’t bother to vote because the outcome is pre-determined.

Election after election,  I cast a meaningless vote here in Texas. It’s completely understandable why some people have apathy for going to the polls. 

 

It's how Maryland got a Republican governor.  They liked him so they kept him, especially since he's tempered by positions that are almost all Democrats. 

[lemonlime 5503]

Hell, with the gerrymander, voting doesn't even matter in downstream races for me.  I always vote, because civil duty and all that.  But if I was going to get in trouble for getting to work late, etc. no way would I wait in line to cast a purely symbolic vote.

[Murfdogg21 4552]

People having a academic or philosophical debate over this in a vacuum is funny, when nobody is acknowledging the underlying changes coming within a generation: millions of millennials with worthless degrees, mountains of debt, not great jobs, and raised on cell phones, Snapchat/Facebook, and the Kardashians as well as another generation of Hispanics (from legal and illegal parents) will all be voting solid Democrat and if there are no changes in the GOP platform, they would never win another national popular election. 

In its 228 year history, it has delivered the popular winner with the exceptions of 1876 (bizarre post-reconstruction election), 1888, 2000 and 2016. These later two show the evolution of the nation into dense population centers that typically vote supermajority democratic while all the other areas vote republican by a lesser average margin. 

It is strange that the argument to end the EC is based on protecting the “individual” within the national majority, and the argument against the EC is it protects “small states.” Are small states not composed of individuals? Was the nation not a union of states and not a union of 300 million federal citizens? Hypocrites cannot look in the mirror and say the majority of their angst is because their preferred candidate didn’t win, twice in a 16 year period, and based on national demographic changes a national popular election would substantially benefit their preferred political party more often than not.