The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[Tigers!]

No, it wouldn't. We don't need 11 months for someone to get the message out. If Canada can snap an election in a month, I think the the US can as well. Over 5 weeks is long enough to get things moving. Our overly protracted primary election season is torturous!

Your overly protracted primary election season is certainly torturous to the rest of the world.

 

[TomC]

Personally, I think our nation and Democracy would benefit a lot more from a contracted primary season starting in August of the General Election year and moving Election Day to the weekend.

In Australia our campaigning season is usually 30-40 days. Plenty of time to bore the electorate. And we vote on a Saturday.

Yeah yeah...

You Australians also think that up is down and winter is summer.
Tom

 

[Tigers!]

I don't think over-weighting smaller states is necessarily a problem. It could be considered as a feature. The problem with EC is the disenfranchisement of all the voters of minority parties in each state that do so. There were 5.2 million Biden voters in Florida, who might as well be zero. And six million Trump voters in California. And so on.

I do not fully understand what you mean about the disenfranchisement of some voters. Were they prevent from voting?
I assume that their votes were counted since you mention numbers. I guess you really mean they didn't get what they wished. But that does not mean they were disenfranchised.

 

[TomC]

I don't think over-weighting smaller states is necessarily a problem. It could be considered as a feature. The problem with EC is the disenfranchisement of all the voters of minority parties in each state that do so. There were 5.2 million Biden voters in Florida, who might as well be zero. And six million Trump voters in California. And so on.

I do not fully understand what you mean about the disenfranchisement of some voters. Were they prevent from voting?
I assume that their votes were counted since you mention numbers. I guess you really mean they didn't get what they wished. But that does not mean they were disenfranchised.

I quite understand why folks from modern democratic countries, like Finland and Australia, wouldn't understand our byzantine systems.

I voted with the majority in 2016. I voted for Hillary Clinton. I did so in Indiana, a deep red state, knowing that my vote for president wouldn't matter because Trump would get all our EC votes.

Clinton lost in my state, but she got the most votes in the American popular election. Nevertheless, the very Republican partisans in my state legislature gave all our EC votes to Trump. Something similar happened in blue states. It didn't matter how many people voted for Trump, as long as a majority voted for Clinton she got all the EC delegates.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

It was a hedge against a populist authoritarians gaining power. as with Trump. As was separion of p[owers.

It didn't work.

Or are we referring to different Trumps?

If you expect a perfect system find perfect people.

Compared to history and other modern systems it has worked quite well. Whatever the system is, it comes down to the majority of people in power doing the right thing.

Thing about the scope. Individual stets with local power and multiple factions with competing interests. A round 400 million people with freedom of political choice. I'd say it is a miracle it is working at all and has lasted as long as it has.

The attack on the capitol may be a harbinger of the future. Take a reall look at all that is going on.

Republicans told Nixon to step down. Today republicans are Trump's sheep. In a democratic system such as ours there is no protection from that.


China's solution to stability is rigid social and political control.

I have asked people in past and never got an answer.

Food,water, and ecricity will be there. your freedoms will be intact.

What is the basis of the system stabilty that allows you to live your lfe as you please without having to work for a stable system?

What are the long term consonances of popular vote?

 

[Politesse]

Whatever the system is, it comes down to the majority of people in power doing the right thing.

Well, no. No it doesn't. That's the topic of the thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

This makes no sense.

There is no way California actually wants water from the Great Lakes, although some morons might call for it. Lifting water across the Continental Divide is simply too costly.

 

[TomC]

I know. I'm not expecting any kind of reasonable response, but I do expect the usual barage of personal insults about how I'm an alt-right, conservative, QOP Trump sucking right winger for just bringing it up. It wouldn't seem like the forum I know without it.

Lemme ask you this.
Why do free and fair elections so consistently favor Democrats?

Frankly, I'm not particularly fond of the Democrats myself. But the TeaParty Republicans have gotten so extreme and removed from my values and concerns I've become a straight ticket Democrat voter. Since the Democrats became the center-right party that's who I vote for.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Would someone show how a candidate can win the popular vote for president but lost the election in the EC because of "winner-take-all?" I admit to having trouble understanding how this could happen. What I need to see is numbers in an example. I know it happens, I just need to see how. Consider me cognitively challenged.

Small states have a disproportionate number of electoral votes. 2000 and 2016 are real-world examples of it happening.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's also the fact that small states have much greater EC voting power than big ones. A vote in Wyoming is worth almost four in California.

Please explain how this is so. Electoral votes are apportioned by population and based on the latest census. If that is so how can a Wyoming voter have more voting power than a voter in California?

No. Electoral votes are apportioned based on the number of elected officials they send to Washington. Every state gets two senators.

 

[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.

This makes no sense.

There is no way California actually wants water from the Great Lakes, although some morons might call for it. Lifting water across the Continental Divide is simply too costly.

Try googling it. There are definitely proposals to move water from the Great Lakes to thirsty western states. Does it make sense, even if the waters were not shared with Canada? Nope. But neither does Las Vegas make sense, with all of its fountains and pools, or growing enormous amounts of thirsty almond trees or grazing millions of cattle or a dozen million other things.

 

[TomC]

There are definitely proposals to move water from the Great Lakes to thirsty western states.

There are also proposals for domed cities on Mars.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

This makes no sense.

There is no way California actually wants water from the Great Lakes, although some morons might call for it. Lifting water across the Continental Divide is simply too costly.

Try googling it. There are definitely proposals to move water from the Great Lakes to thirsty western states.

Proposals might be a bit strong of a word, kind of like saying evolution is "only a theory". I'd say some people have suggested it. A quick look, just from Duluth, MN to Grand Forks, ND is about 250 feet gain in elevation.

And in other news, I'm currently working on a proposal for a raw water main of Lake Erie, and it is 7 or so miles long and the anticipated construction cost is $150 million. 7 miles! And that is just one raw water line for one city, which has numerous. The NYC water tunnel #3 took 50 years to build, cost several billions, and was "only" 60 miles in length. I can't imagine just how much it'd cost. Tens of trillions? And this is ignoring the hydraulic issue! It is beyond a bad idea and not making sense, it is beyond being stupid for sci-fi, like Armageddon or 2012 dumb (I apologize for putting the term sci-fi near those two movies.

 

[Politesse]

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.

This makes no sense.

There is no way California actually wants water from the Great Lakes, although some morons might call for it. Lifting water across the Continental Divide is simply too costly.

Try googling it. There are definitely proposals to move water from the Great Lakes to thirsty western states. Does it make sense, even if the waters were not shared with Canada? Nope. But neither does Las Vegas make sense, with all of its fountains and pools, or growing enormous amounts of thirsty almond trees or grazing millions of cattle or a dozen million other things.

What "proposals" are you referring to? Which politicians support it? Give us names and titles. Otherwise -- if free and fair elections would not in fact suddenly result in an international treaty to steal water from Canada -- then this is both a made-up issue irrelevant to the topic of the thread, and a piss-poor reason to give up on the hope of free and fair elections.

If "rural America" wants to convince me that my vote should count for a third of one of theirs, it better be over something more substantial than an internet conspiracy theory.

 

[Toni]

Great Lakes water piped to Southwest 'our future,' says NASA scientist

The idea is as old and dusty as the desert Southwest: Pipe abundant Great Lakes water to parched cities such as Phoenix

www.freep.com

Googling will yield dozens of hits about the issue. Is it far fetched? Maybe. Horrendously expensive? Definitely. Beyond the realm of possibility? Nope.

The Great Lakes are not the only potential source of water for thirsty states:

Proposed interstate water pipelines to California - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[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.

This makes no sense.

There is no way California actually wants water from the Great Lakes, although some morons might call for it. Lifting water across the Continental Divide is simply too costly.

Try googling it. There are definitely proposals to move water from the Great Lakes to thirsty western states. Does it make sense, even if the waters were not shared with Canada? Nope. But neither does Las Vegas make sense, with all of its fountains and pools, or growing enormous amounts of thirsty almond trees or grazing millions of cattle or a dozen million other things.

What "proposals" are you referring to? Which politicians support it? Give us names and titles. Otherwise, if free and fair elections would not in fact suddenly result in an international treaty to steal water from Canada, then this is both a made-up issue irrelevant to the topic of the thread, and a piss-poor reason to give up on the hope of free and fair elections.

If "rural America" wants to convince me that something is more important than instating democratic governance over the country, it better be something more substantial than an internet conspiracy theory.

The founding fathers took great pains to balance the will of the majority against the rights and needs of the minority. I’m not interested in seeing that balance changed. No matter whether I am in ‘the majority’ or whether I am in the ‘minority.’

The power of the powerful and majority has frequently been used to suppress the rights of many many minorities in the past and in the present. We have some small checks and balances in place now. I shudder to think if we had none.

I also don’t believe that there would be nearly so much fevor from the left to ditch the electoral college in favor of the popular vote if the electoral college had delivered wins to right wing candidates. In fact, I’m certain there would be an enormous outcry to preserve the electoral college.

For the record, I’ve never said I was against eliminating the electoral college, but merely that I had concerns.

 

[Politesse]

Great Lakes water piped to Southwest 'our future,' says NASA scientist

The idea is as old and dusty as the desert Southwest: Pipe abundant Great Lakes water to parched cities such as Phoenix

www.freep.com

Googling will yield dozens of hits about the issue. Is it far fetched? Maybe. Horrendously expensive? Definitely. Beyond the realm of possibility? Nope.

The Great Lakes are not the only potential source of water for thirsty states:

Proposed interstate water pipelines to California - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

From your article:

"The idea is as old and dusty as the desert Southwest: Pipe abundant Great Lakes water to parched cities out West, such as Phoenix and Las Vegas. The idea's been dismissed for as long as it's been pitched, with adamant opposition from Great Lakes states, whose representatives crafted a pact with Canada just to stop such a thing."

There is no such proposal.

Jay Famiglietti is some random Canadian scientist, who has not actually advanced such a proposal, he just talked to some damn interviewer about it, speculating about something that "might be in the future", no doubt because he heard the same conspiracy theory as you.

Giving California fair representation in the House of Representatives would not make this non-existent proposal any more or less likely.

Because things that do not exist cannot become more or less likely whether or not there is democratic governance.

Either how me the state representative who backs such a proposal, or admit that you were bringing a red herring to the discussion.

 

[Politesse]

For the record, I’ve never said I was against eliminating the electoral college, but merely that I had concerns.

Good. And now you've voiced them. I should give up my hope for an equal vote because some people heard a conspiracy theory about a non-existent aqueduct. Because you're "concerned".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Great Lakes water piped to Southwest 'our future,' says NASA scientist

The idea is as old and dusty as the desert Southwest: Pipe abundant Great Lakes water to parched cities such as Phoenix

www.freep.com

Googling will yield dozens of hits about the issue. Is it far fetched? Maybe. Horrendously expensive? Definitely. Beyond the realm of possibility? Nope.

Ummm... yes it beyond possible. And again, that isn't a "proposal" that was a hypothetical and a suggestion.

We haven't even touched the dreaded v-word... volume. That article is whacked up. The "tens of billions"? One line would cost hundreds of billions. Just one line... and you'd need more than one line. A lot more.

 

[Toni]

For the record, I’ve never said I was against eliminating the electoral college, but merely that I had concerns.

Good. And now you've voiced them. I should give up my hope for an equal vote because some people heard a conspiracy theory about a non-existent aqueduct. Because you're "concerned".

Please: that was just one example. The completely dismissive attitude towards rural areas permeates this forum and politics in general, not to mention all forms of media.