I don’t wanna find out.
One of the things that again irks me about the 8th was that the 3P folks voted mattered, because enough of ‘team blue’ sat out in the states that eventually mattered in relation to outcome.
Yes
I think certain parts of the electorate will again vote 3p or stay home.
And if it wasn’t for the Electoral College a handful of fools sitting out wouldn’t have thrown the election to Trump despite a 2million+ vote deficit just because of the State they happen to be in.
2 Likes
Two problems, one related to the sort of resistance that gets mounted and the second due to some actual democratic governing principles.
The first is that every other state in the union will fight tooth and nail because they will never be represented. And states like Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, etc. have been receiving a nice economic boom every 4 years that they aren’t going to want to give up. And, the political players in rest of the country become useless. Who cares how well you know Ohio when the campaign is in California exclusively?
The second problem is there are issues outside of California. Voter laws in NC don’t matter much to people in CA or TX, but they sure as hell do to people in NC. Down ticket races get a boost from Presidential campaigns run in their states…that ceases in a national popular vote…imagine midterms every election cycle, except in those few big states. And then there is the actual governance questions. Why bother doing anything as President that would improve the state of things outside of CA, TX and NY? And, contrarily, you want to focus the majority of your efforts in office to improving the quality of life in those states.
An electoral strategy concept may not be perfect, but it at least keeps some attention focused on rest of the country.
1 Like
And so what? They do that in the current system anyway so I’m not seeing how that is an argument in favor of the Electoral College.
1 Like
Mitt’s face just says it all doesn’t it?
I’ll be so disappointed in him if he jumps on the crazy train. Maybe he thinks if he does take the Sec. of State job he can somehow salvage something from the wreckage, but as we all know, if you get close enough to the event horizon of trump, it’s the black hole for you and your life and career are all but destroyed and he won’t be able to salvage shit.
3 Likes
Because those places still have Representatives and Senators at least some of whose support and cooperation a President will need to enact desired legislation?
1 Like
I think the primary flaw in the EC is the winner-take-all implementation in most states. Using a threshold to move all votes one of two ways instead of proportioning the EV by popular vote makes for a binary win/lose system which fuels partisanship and makes it virtually impossible to govern from the center. Third parties are completely cut out, along with the minority party in solid red or blue states.
3 Likes
My argument is this: unless its certain that folks (namely Democratic voters) will vote, I rather take a pass on an ‘up and down’ measure.
Except Democrats did vote. 2,000,000+ more than voted for Trump, but because it wasn’t an “‘up and down’ measure” their votes didn’t matter.
3 Likes
Please reference those 13 swing states…
Six of one, half-dozen of the other. That’s just a different way to say the same thing, really. lol
The +2 EVs don’t skew the system nearly as much as forcing the entire growing populace into that 435 number.
If a state’s population has grown, then that state should get more Representatives (and thus more EVs) accordingly - if a state loses population it should have fewer Reps and EVs, though there should be a “floor”. The +2 part of your equation is canceled out because all states get that - though nixing them would be a good counter to the inevitable “we don’t want a bigger government!” folks who will crawl out of the woodwork.
It seems like it should be a simple math equation to me. X Reps/Y people - I’m sure it would spark another big fight over “# of people” versus “# of citizens”, but it’s a start.
1 Like
I think that’s because, and I know this may draw some ire, of our candidate. Firstly, the roaches party effectively swift-boated her. Secondly, Hillary, to our younger voters, was like giving the Apple IPad generation a fruit cake as a gift.
If it’s a charismatic candidate, like Obama was…and hopefully Booker will be…I think they come out. I think, as someone on the Daily Show said, I think it was Roy Wood Jr, young democrats, 45 and under, weren’t pumped about going from Captain Charisma and a 45 year old Barack Obama to a white grandmother. (I understand Bernie was old too. I think his disheveled look was ironically cool to them, and, most importantly, his message was directed at them. And he was genuine. Something Mrs. Clinton never sold herself to be, unfortunately.) Wood crudely stated it, but it seems to be accurate.
Our candidate needs to match our changing demographics. More importantly, speak to the new, younger generation of liberals and their causes/worries. This generation, the Millennials if you will, seem to vote on emotion, and need to be inspired. I don’t think Mrs. Clinton wiring is conducive to them. Whatever she tried, or didn’t try, I don’t think she was going to reach them, sadly. Of her many ill-perceived short-comings. this was a real, and clear and present short-coming that was insurmountable.
For all of the Orange Rapist’s flaws, and there are soooooooooooo many of them, the one thing he is, or portrays publicly, is authentic. He truly believes his “bullshit du jour”. He’s a salesman…and he fooled his supporters into thinking he’s one of them. Contrast that to Mrs. Clinton…voila…we have President Orange Rapist.
3 Likes
So your reason to keep the Electoral College is that despite Democrats getting 2,000,000+ more votes overall some Democrats failed to show in 13 “swing states,” a failure which only matters because of the Electoral College?
1 Like
The real differences in the country are no longer state-based. I live in Texas, but have more in common with the majority of residents in California and New York than in my own state. In fact, I am disenfranchised in my own state. The county I live in has a greater population than the 10 least-populated states, yet these states have 2 senators each. But, you say, the founders intended this to be a nation with independent states of equal stature. Well, that was then but this is now. Point of fact the governments in like-minded states govern by party loyalty, not regional interests.
5 Likes
There is no need to abolish the EC through a Constitutional Amendment which has a slim-and-none chance of passage through the Congress and 3/4 of the states.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has already been passed in ten states plus D.C. and commands 165 EV’s. We need additional states to make up the 105 EV’s to the necessary 270 to pass the Compact and the problem is solved.
In a 50-50 country we are going to have more of these minority winners, unless we DO something; and I am willing to bet the minority will always be a Republican. That is just a bridge too far.
I live in Texas, am 70 years old, have voted in every election since 1968 and would really love it if my vote COUNTED before I die!
8 Likes
While it seemed a noble idea at the time, I really now wish Gore would have fought harder in 2000 to maintain a fair environment during the Florida voter-count madness that Republicans created.
2 Likes
This is not true, if the goal is simply switching to a “winner of the national popular vote wins the election” system. The National Popular Vote Compact would effectively do away with the EC without any federal legislative or Constitutional action at all.
It’s not a pipe-dream, either, at least not IMO. It has already been ratified in 11 states worth 165 EVs, it has passed the state houses in 9 additional states worth 96 more EVs, and it passed (unanimously) at the committee level in two more states worth 27 EVs.
That’s 288 EVs either on board or trying to get there. Once the compact reaches 270 EVs worth of states signed on, it takes effect and the Electoral College is for all intents and purposes abolished.
6 Likes
Not really. If you grew the House based on population growth, the 2 EVs for Senators diminishes as a percentage for each state.
RIght now, Montana has 3 EVs…1 House at large and 2 Senators…the Senate EVs make up 66% of their entire total. Using the 30,000 rule, they would have 37 EVs…35 House seats and 2 Senators…or 0.05% of the total.
California receives 55 EVs right now compared to Montana’s 3…or 18x as many. Under the 33,000 rule, CA would have 1295 EVs compared to Montana’s 37…or 35x.
1 Like
More like the team that lost on points still gets the win because during the “which section of the stadium can cheer loudest” half-time event the losing team got an almost imperceptibly louder response from the sections in the middle and south end of the stadium while in every other section fans of the team that won on points absolutely drowned out fans of the losing team. But hey 21 out of 40 sections cheered louder for the losing team, so the losing team wins.
2 Likes