National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

[laughing dog]

And how does electing the President by popular vote instead of the electoral college effect this particular scenario do you propose?

Exactly. The kind of voters, conservative "Drill Baby Drill!" Republican(Teaparty) that facilitate oil pipelines are typically the rural voters who currently have way out size representation in the EC.
Tom

And people from other more populated states are often quite thrilled to run pipe lines or put mines in environmentally fragile —or culturally significant sites located in less populated spaces. Fracking seems like a great idea unless you live down the road from a sand mining operation or your cattle graze near by.

I cannot imagine why you think that the Teaparty voters are more environmentally conscious than blue state Democrats.
Tom

People’s attitudes towards their own backyards can be radically different than their attitudes towards the backyards of others. NIMBYism runs across parties and idealogies.

No matter how the national leader is elected, it disadvantages some group(s).

 

[TomC]

And how does electing the President by popular vote instead of the electoral college effect this particular scenario do you propose?

Exactly. The kind of voters, conservative "Drill Baby Drill!" Republican(Teaparty) that facilitate oil pipelines are typically the rural voters who currently have way out size representation in the EC.
Tom

And people from other more populated states are often quite thrilled to run pipe lines or put mines in environmentally fragile —or culturally significant sites located in less populated spaces. Fracking seems like a great idea unless you live down the road from a sand mining operation or your cattle graze near by.

I cannot imagine why you think that the Teaparty voters are more environmentally conscious than blue state Democrats.
Tom

People’s attitudes towards their own backyards can be radically different than their attitudes towards the backyards of others. NIMBYism runs across parties and idealogies.

No matter how the national leader is elected, it disadvantages some group(s).

Give me a break.
If the US electorate had gotten the president they voted for in 2000 do you think that the pipeline would even have gotten started?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

And how does electing the President by popular vote instead of the electoral college effect this particular scenario do you propose?

Exactly. The kind of voters, conservative "Drill Baby Drill!" Republican(Teaparty) that facilitate oil pipelines are typically the rural voters who currently have way out size representation in the EC.
Tom

And people from other more populated states are often quite thrilled to run pipe lines or put mines in environmentally fragile —or culturally significant sites located in less populated spaces. Fracking seems like a great idea unless you live down the road from a sand mining operation or your cattle graze near by.

I cannot imagine why you think that the Teaparty voters are more environmentally conscious than blue state Democrats.
Tom

People’s attitudes towards their own backyards can be radically different than their attitudes towards the backyards of others. NIMBYism runs across parties and idealogies.

No matter how the national leader is elected, it disadvantages some group(s).

Give me a break.
If the US electorate had gotten the president they voted for in 2000 do you think that the pipeline would even have gotten started?
Tom

Why would anyone think the outcome of such a tight election would be the same if the election protocol was different? The strategies of the parties and, perhaps, the motivations of eligible voters would have been different.

I happen to think the POTUS should be elected by a national vote that is constitutionally mandated instead of a reliance on the good intentions of some states. This is important enough to accomplish right. If that requires hard work and patience, so be it.

 

[TomC]

Why would anyone think the outcome of such a tight election would be the same if the election protocol was different? The strategies of the parties and, perhaps, the motivations of eligible voters would have been different.

My point that @Toni seems to think that rural voters are more environmentally conscious than the teapartiers that rural people consistently voted for. They are not. They are the "Drill Baby Drill" people.

And once again, if everyone's vote counted more people will be engaged and vote. Including in state and local elections. I can only imagine that people who won't win free and fair elections support the current system.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

And how does electing the President by popular vote instead of the electoral college effect this particular scenario do you propose?

Exactly. The kind of voters, conservative "Drill Baby Drill!" Republican(Teaparty) that facilitate oil pipelines are typically the rural voters who currently have way out size representation in the EC.
Tom

And people from other more populated states are often quite thrilled to run pipe lines or put mines in environmentally fragile —or culturally significant sites located in less populated spaces. Fracking seems like a great idea unless you live down the road from a sand mining operation or your cattle graze near by.

Lower population states still would have outsize representation in Congress, where the legislation of these issues actually happens. Your comment is still not addressing the question of how popularly elected President changes the situations you are bringing up.

Wyoming has just as many Senators as California, even if the President wins by popular vote.

 

[TomC]

Your comment is still not addressing the question of how popularly elected President changes the situations you are bringing up.

Yes I have! Over and over!

If everyone's vote counted in the big election we would have more engagement and turnout. This voter turnout would affect state and local elections as well.

This is not hard to understand.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Your comment is still not addressing the question of how popularly elected President changes the situations you are bringing up.

Yes I have! Over and over!

If everyone's vote counted in the big election we would have more engagement and turnout. This voter turnout would affect state and local elections as well.

This is not hard to understand.
Tom

I was responding to Toni not you.

 

[laughing dog]

Why would anyone think the outcome of such a tight election would be the same if the election protocol was different? The strategies of the parties and, perhaps, the motivations of eligible voters would have been different.

My point that @Toni seems to think that rural voters are more environmentally conscious than the teapartiers that rural people consistently voted for. They are not. They are the "Drill Baby Drill" people.

Toni made no such claim.

And once again, if everyone's vote counted more people will be engaged and vote. Including in state and local elections. I can only imagine that people who won't win free and fair elections support the current system.
Tom

You need a better imagination.

 

[bilby]

The fact is that (unlike Senators) there are, at any given time, only one (1) Presidents.

Each American should have equal say in who the Senators are that represent them; And indeed, they do.

Each American should have equal say in who the Presidents are that represent them; And yet, they do not.

Sure, there are people in Mississippi Alabama who never get to vote in a Senator who represents their political preference, but that's because those people are a minority of voters in that state. And representative democracy empowers majorities to overrule minorities. That's how it works, and how it is supposed to work.

But when the majority of voters for President are overrulled by a minority of voters, representative democracy is not working.

You could solve this by having one vote, one value - the winner of the popular vote gets to be President; Or by having multiple voting regions, each with their own President, just as you have multiple States, each with their own Senators.

The latter was tried in the 1860s, when there were two Presidents, one for the South and one for the North, but for some reason, it didn't last.

 

[Toni]

And how does electing the President by popular vote instead of the electoral college effect this particular scenario do you propose?

Exactly. The kind of voters, conservative "Drill Baby Drill!" Republican(Teaparty) that facilitate oil pipelines are typically the rural voters who currently have way out size representation in the EC.
Tom

And people from other more populated states are often quite thrilled to run pipe lines or put mines in environmentally fragile —or culturally significant sites located in less populated spaces. Fracking seems like a great idea unless you live down the road from a sand mining operation or your cattle graze near by.

I cannot imagine why you think that the Teaparty voters are more environmentally conscious than blue state Democrats.
Tom

I don’t.

I’m not following…

 

[Toni]

Why would anyone think the outcome of such a tight election would be the same if the election protocol was different? The strategies of the parties and, perhaps, the motivations of eligible voters would have been different.

My point that @Toni seems to think that rural voters are more environmentally conscious than the teapartiers that rural people consistently voted for. They are not. They are the "Drill Baby Drill" people.

And once again, if everyone's vote counted more people will be engaged and vote. Including in state and local elections. I can only imagine that people who won't win free and fair elections support the current system.
Tom

Some are drill baby but you are vastly underestimating non-urban people’s desire and need of environmental protections.

Where people more local to an environmentally questionable proposed project do support a pipeline, mining, oil wells, it is almost entirely based on economics/jobs. People want to be able to provide a living for themselves and their families.

 

[Toni]

Why would anyone think the outcome of such a tight election would be the same if the election protocol was different? The strategies of the parties and, perhaps, the motivations of eligible voters would have been different.

My point that @Toni seems to think that rural voters are more environmentally conscious than the teapartiers that rural people consistently voted for. They are not. They are the "Drill Baby Drill" people.

And once again, if everyone's vote counted more people will be engaged and vote. Including in state and local elections. I can only imagine that people who won't win free and fair elections support the current system.
Tom

You and I don’t live in the same part of the country. While some rural voters are tea party inclined, they are much more rare where I live.

Everyone’s votes do already count.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Everyone’s votes do already count.

Some more than others when it comes to electing a President.

 

[Toni]

Everyone’s votes do already count.

Some more than others when it comes to electing a President.

Yeah. The votes of the people of Alaska and Wyoming are pretty much meaningless compared with California, Texas or New York or Florida.

 

[bilby]

Everyone’s votes do already count.

Some more than others when it comes to electing a President.

Yeah. The votes of the people of Alaska and Wyoming are pretty much meaningless compared with California, Texas or New York or Florida.

Alaska, Wyoming, California, Texas, and New York are not examples of "people", but in order for your reply to be a rebuttal of @Shadowy Man's post, they would have to be.

States are not people. People should vote for the President (but don't); States should not vote for the President (but do). That's the entire issue in a nutshell.

The Presidential votes of people in California are currently entirely meaningless (not just "pretty much"), if those people vote for the Republican candidate. Likewise the votes of people in Alabama if they vote for the Democratic candidate. That's the problem with the Electoral College system.

 

[TomC]

Everyone’s votes do already count.

Some more than others when it comes to electing a President.

Yeah. The votes of the people of Alaska and Wyoming are pretty much meaningless compared with California, Texas or New York or Florida.

That is simply not true.
A presidential vote in Wyoming is worth nearly 4 Californian votes for the president.

And not everyone in those states have any say in the presidential election, because they know how their legislatures are going to vote.

Which is all that matters in the current system.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Everyone’s votes do already count.

Some more than others when it comes to electing a President.

Yeah. The votes of the people of Alaska and Wyoming are pretty much meaningless compared with California, Texas or New York or Florida.

That is simply not true.
A presidential vote in Wyoming is worth nearly 4 Californian votes for the president.

And not everyone in those states have any say in the presidential election, because they know how their legislatures are going to vote.

Which is all that matters in the current system.
Tom

Really. When has Wyoming played any important part in electing any POTUS?

 

[TomC]

Everyone’s votes do already count.

Some more than others when it comes to electing a President.

Yeah. The votes of the people of Alaska and Wyoming are pretty much meaningless compared with California, Texas or New York or Florida.

That is simply not true.
A presidential vote in Wyoming is worth nearly 4 Californian votes for the president.

And not everyone in those states have any say in the presidential election, because they know how their legislatures are going to vote.

Which is all that matters in the current system.
Tom

Really. When has Wyoming played any important part in electing any POTUS?

Every presidential election in my lifetime.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Everyone’s votes do already count.

Some more than others when it comes to electing a President.

Yeah. The votes of the people of Alaska and Wyoming are pretty much meaningless compared with California, Texas or New York or Florida.

That is simply not true.
A presidential vote in Wyoming is worth nearly 4 Californian votes for the president.

And not everyone in those states have any say in the presidential election, because they know how their legislatures are going to vote.

Which is all that matters in the current system.
Tom

Really. When has Wyoming played any important part in electing any POTUS?

Every presidential election in my lifetime.
Tom

I should have worded it better:

When has Wyoming been a deciding factor in any presidential election ?

 

[Bomb#20]

Some more than others when it comes to electing a President.

Yeah. The votes of the people of Alaska and Wyoming are pretty much meaningless compared with California, Texas or New York or Florida.

That is simply not true.
A presidential vote in Wyoming is worth nearly 4 Californian votes for the president.

And not everyone in those states have any say in the presidential election, because they know how their legislatures are going to vote.

Which is all that matters in the current system.
Tom

Really. When has Wyoming played any important part in electing any POTUS?

2000. Wyoming went for Bush; if it had gone for Gore he'd have won.