pfife Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 7 hours ago, ewsieg said: After the fact, that's absolutely true. But going into it, you never know (to a point). There are absolutely states that aren't changing who they pick anytime soon. Georgia and Arizona went Dem this year which isn't what I would have expected. Many feel Texas may change some time in the near future as well. Not being able to win an EC vote would eventually lead to a change in a losing party as well, meaning a changing party would look at aspect that a majority of people agree with. so the party that gets more votes every time except 1 in the last 8 elections needs to look at an aspect that a majority of people agree with? That's some twisted logic to avoid admitting the system that gives the dude with the least votes the presidency need not be changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 8 hours ago, ewsieg said: After the fact, that's absolutely true. But going into it, you never know (to a point). If you are a Democrat living in Overland Park, Kansas, you know. If you are a Republican living in Bakersfield you know. Since you brought up Texas, prior to this past election, I knew ahead of time my vote didn't matter. Its a stupid system for electing Presidents that, in itself, has done a lot of damage and has divided the populace as red states and blue states. If one were starting this experiment from scratch, they'd never consider utilizing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 53 minutes ago, pfife said: so the party that gets more votes every time except 1 in the last 8 elections needs to look at an aspect that a majority of people agree with? I'd argue that a national popular vote would do a lot more to get parties to campaign in front of people they don't normally cater to given that about 90% of the states are flat out ignored during the general election campaign under this current system Edited February 2, 2022 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Donald Trump got more votes in California than in any other state. You're telling me Republicans wouldn't start campaigning in California if it were a national popular vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 I'm actually trying to remember when my vote for president actually mattered. Virginia was solid red from 1972-1988. Illinois 1992-2000, it was always given a Democrat would win. I guess my time in Michigan gave some intrigue to the national elections 2004,2016 This may not hold for local and state elections. The whole EC thing failed when they started allowing commoners to. vote while keeping the veneer of "smart electors" deciding the executive position. One man, one vote has been a farce for 200 plus years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 47 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Donald Trump got more votes in California than in any other state. You're telling me Republicans wouldn't start campaigning in California if it were a national popular vote? Absolutely he would. Both parties would campaign on the coasts and just say enough to try and grab votes for those states in between creating a different problem. I'm not saying the EC is perfect, I'm just saying I don't think it's as clear cut as most of you seem to think it is in terms of just getting rid of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Absolutely he would. Both parties would campaign on the coasts and just say enough to try and grab votes for those states in between creating a different problem. I'm not saying the EC is perfect, I'm just saying I don't think it's as clear cut as most of you seem to think it is in terms of just getting rid of it. Well Biden got over 5 million votes in Texas who had one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country. I have to imagine Democrats would campaign heavily in Texas. Trump got over 2 million votes in Illinois. Surely he would spend some time there as well. Most of the same battleground states would still be in play like Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan and probably Georgia. Millions of votes still there for those states, but New Hampshire would be less relevant so we have to scrap the popular vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 8 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Absolutely he would. Both parties would campaign on the coasts and just say enough to try and grab votes for those states in between creating a different problem. I disagree with you on this one. There are too many voters in the rest of the country to just campaign on the coasts and expect to win an election. The more likely result is that Rs and Ds would be more incentivized to visit places where they don't necessarily excel in order to maximize their margins. You'd see Rs visiting places like California and Ds spending time in places like Omaha or Kansas City or OKC or Little Rock trying to get votes. As opposed to our current system, where candidates spend time in eight states and ignore the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 I wonder if there's a significant % of non voters in "decided" states that would be more likely to vote in a popular vote election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 minute ago, oblong said: I wonder if there's a significant % of non voters in "decided" states that would be more likely to vote in a popular vote election? I'd be curious to know myself, but I suspect the answer to this is "yes". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Well Biden got over 5 million votes in Texas who had one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country. I have to imagine Democrats would campaign heavily in Texas. Trump got over 2 million votes in Illinois. Surely he would spend some time there as well. Most of the same battleground states would still be in play like Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan and probably Georgia. Millions of votes still there for those states, but New Hampshire would be less relevant so we have to scrap the popular vote. Yeah, I meant they would focus on the coasts (populated portions), not that they would never visit elsewhere. There would be stops in Texas as they go back and forth. Iowa, New Hamshire, Vermont, Wyoming, both Dakota's, Rhode Island, Delware, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Maine, West Virginia, those guys can stfu and just accept the president California, Texas, Florida, and New York elect for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Yeah, I meant they would focus on the coasts (populated portions), not that they would never visit elsewhere. There would be stops in Texas as they go back and forth. Iowa, New Hamshire, Vermont, Wyoming, both Dakota's, Rhode Island, Delware, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Maine, West Virginia, those guys can stfu and just accept the president California, Texas, Florida, and New York elect for them. Even if this were the case (which I don't believe it is), under the current system, don't Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wyoming, both Dakota's, Rhode Island, Delaware, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Maine, West Virginia have to stfu and just accept the President that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia select for them? The current system is what it is, it's not gonna change, but this idea that a national popular vote ***** over the rest of the country more than the EC does, just can't agree with that. I'll admit maybe my perspective is different though because I live in a state where my vote is pretty worthless... Edited February 2, 2022 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 4 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Yeah, I meant they would focus on the coasts (populated portions), not that they would never visit elsewhere. There would be stops in Texas as they go back and forth. Iowa, New Hamshire, Vermont, Wyoming, both Dakota's, Rhode Island, Delware, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Maine, West Virginia, those guys can stfu and just accept the president California, Texas, Florida, and New York elect for them. Why are those Americans more important than the people in California, Texas, Florida, and New York? If there vote counts more than Kevin McCarthy, Devin Nunes, and Elise Stefaniak votes should count less in congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Why are those Americans more important than the people in California, Texas, Florida, and New York? If there vote counts more than Kevin McCarthy, Devin Nunes, and Elise Stefaniak votes should count less in congress. Also, why should votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia matter more than in the rest of the country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 I also think even Democratic strongholds would see more attention by Democrats. You think a Democrat wouldn't at least make a stop or two in Chicago to make sure they are maximizing the vote there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 36 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Absolutely he would. Both parties would campaign on the coasts and just say enough to try and grab votes for those states in between creating a different problem. I'm not saying the EC is perfect, I'm just saying I don't think it's as clear cut as most of you seem to think it is in terms of just getting rid of it. you seem to be saying that campaigning where the voters are is problematic. To me it's the opposite of problematic and also is exactly what they should be doing. Edited February 2, 2022 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 With a popular vote, Democrats would also campaign in Tijuana and Juarez since they rely on that illegal vote. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 20 minutes ago, oblong said: I wonder if there's a significant % of non voters in "decided" states that would be more likely to vote in a popular vote election? I think yes, but there may also be some voters in undecided states who won't vote in a popular vote election if candidates are not campaigning in their state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 42 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Absolutely he would. Both parties would campaign on the coasts and just say enough to try and grab votes for those states in between creating a different problem. I'm not saying the EC is perfect, I'm just saying I don't think it's as clear cut as most of you seem to think it is in terms of just getting rid of it. For me it's not the level of indirection of the EC that is the problem as much as that the EC votes are not democratically apportioned. The point about putting the campaign before more voters is certainly valid, but the margin magnifying properties of having the election be decided state-wise also has value in a non-parliamentary system where extremely close elections still have to have binary outcomes instead of the possibility of coalition rule, so I will grant that some aspects of the EC system do have value in the particular US setup, but it has gotten to the point where the basic population misrepresentation is a bigger problem than the value of any of its virtues. Edited February 2, 2022 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: For me it's not the level of indirection of the EC that is the problem as much as that the EC votes are not democratically apportioned. The point about putting the campaign before more voters is certainly valid, but the margin magnifying properties of having the election be decided state-wise also has value in a non-parliamentary system where extremely close elections still have to have binary outcomes instead of the possibility of coalition rule, so I will grant that some aspects of the EC system do have value in the particular US setup, but it has gotten to the point where the basic population misrepresentation is a bigger problem than the value of any of its virtues. Probably the best way to solve that is to expand the house to 500 reps. That would likely result in a state like California getting more reps and more electoral votes making it more fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Probably the best way to solve that is to expand the house to 500 reps. That would likely result in a state like California getting more reps and more electoral votes making it more fair. that would certainly help. it's about the best marginal improvement that can be made without a Const amendment. Edited February 2, 2022 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 45 minutes ago, oblong said: I wonder if there's a significant % of non voters in "decided" states that would be more likely to vote in a popular vote election? Politicians want everyone to be able to vote, however they really don't want everyone to vote. The fear is the "uninformed" voter casting a ballot. Hence the quote "I love the uneducated" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 17 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Probably the best way to solve that is to expand the house to 500 reps. That would likely result in a state like California getting more reps and more electoral votes making it more fair. I like the idea, especially if it makes the House more proportional. There is no reason a voter in South Dakota, Wyoming, or Alaska have more power than one in larger states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Liz Cheney represents about 576,000 people. If California was divided up into districts of 576,000, it would have at least 68 congressional districts and 70 electoral votes. It currently has 52 congressional districts and 54 electoral votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.