The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[ZiprHead]

Color me suspicious. The elections in 2000 and 2016 were won by Republicans via the EC vote, and this change is being pushed by Democrats. Would the Democrats be pushing the NPV, or even just be in favor of it, if it was the Democrats who won in 2000 and 2016 via the EC? I'm guessing the answer is no, which makes me think the purpose of it has less to do with any principal of election fairness and more about wanting "my side to win". Its like the Democrats lost twice at the game of chess, and instead of improving their strategy for future games, they want to change the rules of chess instead.

We're not supposed to talk about that part.

You can talk about it. It makes you look stupidly partisan. Not everyone shares your partisanship.

The reason that Republicans as a group oppose free and fair elections is because they don't reflect American values and have such low integrity. If everyone's vote for president counted equally, the GOP/TeaParty would be left in the dust.

Maybe then the American people could get on dealing with the huge problems we have.


The chess game analogy is ridiculous. The "rules" aren't the same for both sides as things are. What National Popular Vote is attempting to accomplish is leveling the playing field.
Tom

Elections are fair if they favor Democrats and unfair if they favor Republicans.

Are you feeling okay? You seem to be at odds with reality.

 

[ZiprHead]

I cannot help but be concerned that lower population states (including MInnesota) will give up what little power and influence they have if we go to popular vote for POTUS elections. Why does this matter? Well, the concerns of large population states such as CA, TX, and NY are often quite different than those of less populous states. One issue that leaps to mind is with regards to water rights. CA would like to get its hands on water from the Great Lakes, rather than curb its own water use, an enormous amount of which is for agricultural crops.

Land doesn't vote.

 

[Jarhyn]

Color me suspicious. The elections in 2000 and 2016 were won by Republicans via the EC vote, and this change is being pushed by Democrats. Would the Democrats be pushing the NPV, or even just be in favor of it, if it was the Democrats who won in 2000 and 2016 via the EC? I'm guessing the answer is no, which makes me think the purpose of it has less to do with any principal of election fairness and more about wanting "my side to win". Its like the Democrats lost twice at the game of chess, and instead of improving their strategy for future games, they want to change the rules of chess instead.

We're not supposed to talk about that part.

You can talk about it. It makes you look stupidly partisan. Not everyone shares your partisanship.

The reason that Republicans as a group oppose free and fair elections is because they don't reflect American values and have such low integrity. If everyone's vote for president counted equally, the GOP/TeaParty would be left in the dust.

Maybe then the American people could get on dealing with the huge problems we have.


The chess game analogy is ridiculous. The "rules" aren't the same for both sides as things are. What National Popular Vote is attempting to accomplish is leveling the playing field.
Tom

Elections are fair if they favor Democrats and unfair if they favor Republicans.

No, elections are fair if they represent the will of the population and unfair if they represent the will of a strict minority, at least in terms of democracy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Elections are fair if they favor Democrats and unfair if they favor Republicans.

Not all of us are as hard core partisan.

True, not all of us are.

Elections are fair when everybody's voice is equally heard.

That's not the tread topic.

 

[Jarhyn]

I cannot help but be concerned that lower population states (including MInnesota) will give up what little power and influence they have if we go to popular vote for POTUS elections. Why does this matter? Well, the concerns of large population states such as CA, TX, and NY are often quite different than those of less populous states. One issue that leaps to mind is with regards to water rights. CA would like to get its hands on water from the Great Lakes, rather than curb its own water use, an enormous amount of which is for agricultural crops.

Land doesn't vote.

Not to mention that even as a Minnesota resident, largely we concern ourselves with less petty things... Like legal weed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Elections are fair when everybody's voice is equally heard.

That's not the tread topic.

Yes, it is the thread topic. It is literally about the popular vote being the measure of elections on the national stage.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Elections are fair when everybody's voice is equally heard.

That's not the tread topic.

Yes, it is the thread topic.

The thread topic is national popular vote. TomC posted about everyone's voice being heard. That's not the same.

 

[Tigers!]

The US Electoral College has sometimes misfired, producing a mismatch between the popular and electoral votes.  List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote

1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016



In 1888 was another misfire, but the next one happened 112 years later, in 2000, and then 16 years later, in 2016.

Why have the misfires become much more common recently?

Saying that misfires are more common recently strikes me as a little odd seeing that there was only 12 years (3 elections) between 1876 & 1888 but 16 years (4 elections) between 2000 & 2016) with a gap of 112 years in-between.
I suppose someone in 1895 might have opined that there have been more misfires recently.

 

[Toni]

I cannot help but be concerned that lower population states (including MInnesota) will give up what little power and influence they have if we go to popular vote for POTUS elections. Why does this matter? Well, the concerns of large population states such as CA, TX, and NY are often quite different than those of less populous states. One issue that leaps to mind is with regards to water rights. CA would like to get its hands on water from the Great Lakes, rather than curb its own water use, an enormous amount of which is for agricultural crops.

Land doesn't vote.

Point?

I also am not in love with the electoral college. The ONLY thing that I can see that it has going for it is that it somewhat mitigates the domination of large centers of population (NYC, LA) over small centers of population such as WY and AK. The 9 most populous states have more than half of the population of the US. If you think there is a great divide between the right and left now, that would be nothing compared with the divide between high population states and low population states. The Democrats already have an issue with more rural, or rather non-urban voters because they focus on the issues where the most voters are, and not in balancing the needs of the few against the wants of the many.

Living in a less populated state myself, and in a less populated region of that state, I see daily how many assumptions are made about what is 'best for America' or best for families or best for the people of the great state of (insert state) which do not take into consideration at all of the needs of more rural populations aside to make certain that there are plenty of vacation spots available for when the 'real' people need a break from the hustle and bustle of city life.

The framers of the constitution wanted to balance the rights of minorities against the rights of majority, which is why our constitution was written how it is. Never mind that they defined majority and minority including only white men. The principle stands.

 

[Tigers!]

I cannot help but be concerned that lower population states (including MInnesota) will give up what little power and influence they have if we go to popular vote for POTUS elections. Why does this matter? Well, the concerns of large population states such as CA, TX, and NY are often quite different than those of less populous states. One issue that leaps to mind is with regards to water rights. CA would like to get its hands on water from the Great Lakes, rather than curb its own water use, an enormous amount of which is for agricultural crops.

Land doesn't vote.

Point?

I also am not in love with the electoral college. The ONLY thing that I can see that it has going for it is that it somewhat mitigates the domination of large centers of population (NYC, LA) over small centers of population such as WY and AK. The 9 most populous states have more than half of the population of the US. If you think there is a great divide between the right and left now, that would be nothing compared with the divide between high population states and low population states. The Democrats already have an issue with more rural, or rather non-urban voters because they focus on the issues where the most voters are, and not in balancing the needs of the few against the wants of the many.

Living in a less populated state myself, and in a less populated region of that state, I see daily how many assumptions are made about what is 'best for America' or best for families or best for the people of the great state of (insert state) which do not take into consideration at all of the needs of more rural populations aside to make certain that there are plenty of vacation spots available for when the 'real' people need a break from the hustle and bustle of city life.

The framers of the constitution wanted to balance the rights of minorities against the rights of majority, which is why our constitution was written how it is. Never mind that they defined majority and minority including only white men. The principle stands.

We have a similar problem in Australia. The two most populous states, Vic & NSW, have more voters than the rest of Australia combined. Their concerns are usually different to the smallest state, Tasmania. Thus we need to balance competing interests in the fairest way possible.

 

[Patooka]

We have a similar problem in Australia. The two most populous states, Vic & NSW, have more voters than the rest of Australia combined. Their concerns are usually different to the smallest state, Tasmania. Thus we need to balance competing interests in the fairest way possible.

And we do. We actually do it the same way Americans do as well. It's called The Senate.

I can't believe the level of chutzpah required to complain about how unfair it would be to eliminate the Electoral College whilst remain silent on gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. I could not be such a disingenuous cunt myself.

 

[Tigers!]

We have a similar problem in Australia. The two most populous states, Vic & NSW, have more voters than the rest of Australia combined. Their concerns are usually different to the smallest state, Tasmania. Thus we need to balance competing interests in the fairest way possible.

And we do. We actually do it the same way Americans do as well. It's called The Senate.

Occasionally though in Australia we still get the wally's who complain about the "unfairness" of our senate.

I can't believe the level of chutzpah required to complain about how unfair it would be to eliminate the Electoral College whilst remain silent on gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. I could not be such a disingenuous cunt myself.

Yes the cognitive dissonance is quite striking.

 

[Patooka]

Occasionally though in Australia we still get the wally's who complain about the "unfairness" of our senate.

I encourage the complaining. I have the unscientific opinion that when the complaining stops and the complacency sets in, the corruption creeps in. "A good government is when no one is happy with it, but everyone can live with it".

 

[TV and credit cards]

Occasionally though in Australia we still get the wally's who complain about the "unfairness" of our senate.

I encourage the complaining. I have the unscientific opinion that when the complaining stops and the complacency sets in, the corruption creeps in. "A good government is when no one is happy with it, but everyone can live with it".

The complacency sets in when the citizenry is bombarded with conflicting information through the media and throw their arms up in disgust.

Entertain, confuse, and overwhelm.

 

[Toni]

We have a similar problem in Australia. The two most populous states, Vic & NSW, have more voters than the rest of Australia combined. Their concerns are usually different to the smallest state, Tasmania. Thus we need to balance competing interests in the fairest way possible.

And we do. We actually do it the same way Americans do as well. It's called The Senate.

I can't believe the level of chutzpah required to complain about how unfair it would be to eliminate the Electoral College whilst remain silent on gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. I could not be such a disingenuous cunt myself.

If you want to start a thread about gerrymandering, I’m all in. If you want to start a thread about voter disenfranchisement, I’m all in. I’m 99.9% certain that we agree on those subjects.

As it is, I expressed a concern, not outright opposition to eliminating the electoral college.

I’ve spent most of my life living in small towns but I’ve also spent some time in major cities—and enjoyed my big city time. But one thing I noticed was that each major city really seemed to see itself as the center…if not the universe, of their little ( or not so little) corner of the universe. To them, the concerns of small town hicks ( all racists, of course) and backwards farmers are…trivial. Beneath their notice.

In a way, I see something similar in my small college town. Many of the students are local but some are here from large cities, sometimes from other states. Almost all are really nice kids. But—-some of the parents seem to believe that our town would not exist if it were not for the university. And that the city and the university needs to arrange itself to suit their darlings. I worked with a fair number of very bright graduates of this university we’re really quite unaware that anything existed in my town aside from the university, bars, a couple of fast food restaurants and Walmart and Target. Actually, there’s a fair amount of industry in our town and at least one company whose CEO receives bonuses of upward of $1M/year.

Basically what I am saying is that a whole lot of people can’t see much or much value beyond the ends of their noses.

Just as I despise gerrymandering and voter suppression, I also have concerns about heavily populated states acting in their narrow self interests to the detriment of those whose needs and opinions are in conflict, and therefore beneath their consideration.

 

[Patooka]

Just as I despise gerrymandering and voter suppression, I also have concerns about heavily populated states acting in their narrow self interests to the detriment of those whose needs and opinions are in conflict, and therefore beneath their consideration.

I understand that and agree. It's not unique and there are plenty of Australians who don't appreciate how dependent the country is on rural areas or the hardships they have to endure (youth suicide being a BIG issue).

I'm saying that's why Wyoming has the same amount of senators as California - to put a check on such attitudes. It's the same with New South Wales and South Australia. Either keep the EC and make the Senate more representative or keep the Senate and do away with the EC

 

[Toni]

Just as I despise gerrymandering and voter suppression, I also have concerns about heavily populated states acting in their narrow self interests to the detriment of those whose needs and opinions are in conflict, and therefore beneath their consideration.

I understand that and agree. It's not unique and there are plenty of Australians who don't appreciate how dependent the country is on rural areas or the hardships they have to endure (youth suicide being a BIG issue).

I'm saying that's why Wyoming has the same amount of senators as California - to put a check on such attitudes. It's the same with New South Wales and South Australia. Either keep the EC and make the Senate more representative or keep the Senate and do away with the EC

Wyoming and California have the same number of senators. The number of representatives to the House are proportional to the population of each individual state. The number of electoral votes are also proportional to the population of each state.

But electoral votes only count with regards to the election of the POTUS, once every 4 years.

 

[TomC]

I'm saying that's why Wyoming has the same amount of senators as California - to put a check on such attitudes.

To put a check on what attitudes?
That everyone's vote for president should count equally?

I don't pretend to understand Australia, I've got no important opinions about how y'all should run your country.

I'm saying that the reason Wyoming has almost 4X the electoral college voting power, per capita, over California is because people in Wyoming are more likely to support the wealthy WASPs that designed the "election" process a couple of centuries ago.

Californians are vastly more representative of the U.S. as a whole. More diverse in terms of urban/rural. More diverse in terms of ethnicity. Socio-economic strata. Pretty much everything. Big states like California, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania reflect the American people as a whole, as opposed to Wyoming and the Dakotas and Montana and Idaho. Those are very white, Christian, and "conservative*".

Tom

*As long as opposed to features of American culture like "This Nation of Immigrants" is considered conservative.

 

[Patooka]

Wyoming and California have the same number of senators. The number of representatives to the House are proportional to the population of each individual state. The number of electoral votes are also proportional to the population of each state.

But electoral votes only count with regards to the election of the POTUS, once every 4 years.

I guess I'm not making myself clear. I understand all that, but it appears to me that an argument you are making about reservations for doing away with the electoral college is that rural areas might be ignored in government. I agree that's a concern - I'm also saying how the senate is organised addresses that making the electoral college redundant. As things are right now, out of the House, Senate an Presidency only 1 out of the 3 truly care about the will of the people. It's my opinion that 2 out the 3 should be such and the third (whether the presidency or senate) be used as a check on "tyranny of the majority".

To put a check on what attitudes?
That everyone's vote for president should count equally?

To use a simple analogy - if 3 million people live in a city and 500,000 people live in rural areas, every rural initiative will most likely get voted down. The "check" for that is to have representatives represent a fixed amount of the population whilst seats in the senate are fixed from state to state.

 

[Toni]

I'm saying that's why Wyoming has the same amount of senators as California - to put a check on such attitudes.

To put a check on what attitudes?
That everyone's vote for president should count equally?

I don't pretend to understand Australia, I've got no important opinions about how y'all should run your country.

I'm saying that the reason Wyoming has almost 4X the electoral college voting power, per capita, over California is because people in Wyoming are more likely to support the wealthy WASPs that designed the "election" process a couple of centuries ago.

Californians are vastly more representative of the U.S. as a whole. More diverse in terms of urban/rural. More diverse in terms of ethnicity. Socio-economic strata. Pretty much everything. Big states like California, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania reflect the American people as a whole, as opposed to Wyoming and the Dakotas and Montana and Idaho. Those are very white, Christian, and "conservative*".

Tom

*As long as opposed to features of American culture like "This Nation of Immigrants" is considered conservative.

Nation of immigrants? Sure. That what I grew up valuing. But consider which states have the largest number of Native Americans:

Alaska
Oklahoma
Wyoming
South Dakota
Montana
North Dakota
New Mexico
Oregon
Arizona

All low population states.