The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[Toni]

Face it: The big states have an outsized influence over who does and does not win POTUS.

Fact is - only because of the electoral college could that even be true - and I do not believe it is.

Fact is - what on earth is wrong people picking the president instead of states picking the president?

Why should any non-human entity be created to have a say? A State? What’s a state? California is not a monolith, and it doesn’t become one until someone creates a bundle called “state” in the electoral process and counts only the winner of it.

One person. One vote. You seem to think that someone in Ornge County is going to always vote the same as someone in East LA. That someone in the Bronx will always vote the same as someone in Queens. And that this will drown out Laramie and Fargo and Peterboro.

The number of people in California and New York who don’t even bother to vote because their vote can’t change anything is a symptom of the malfunction in our process.

The number of people who don’t vote ‘because their vote won’t change anything’ is not confined to NY or CA or to elections for POTUS. People decide ding not to make an effort have voted to not participate. . Usually because they think their one vote ensure their candidate will win. Happens all the time in races for school board or county commissioner or city council or state Congress or senate or governor. Happens in my state which has relatively high turn out for most elections.

Using your logic, people in any state with few electoral votes simply will not vote at all—because their one vote won’t matter against the onslaught of those damn liberals in NYC or California.

It actually IS one person/one vote.

 

[TomC]

Using your logic, people in any state with few electoral votes simply will not vote at all—because their one vote won’t matter against the onslaught of those damn liberals in NYC or California.

WTF?

Rhea's logic is that if everyone's vote counted more people would vote.
Your "OMG, water rights!" and "OMG, why would anyone vote if their geographic area was stuck with the outcome of a national popular vote?" is ridiculous.

Believe it or not, even here in Indiana there's a ton of liberals. Dividing people up by state and assuming that they're a monolithic voting bloc is less relevant to modern U.S. society than your urban/rural divide.

I think the big problem is that the wealthy elite can manipulate the ill-informed and disengaged electorate who know that their vote won't count anyway, given our system.
How about we start by changing that?
Tom

 

[Rhea]

The number of people in California and New York who don’t even bother to vote because their vote can’t change anything is a symptom of the malfunction in our process.

The number of people who don’t vote ‘because their vote won’t change anything’ is not confined to NY or CA or to elections for POTUS.

Note that I said “can’t” change, not “won’t” change.

A minority vote in a solid state CANNOT make a difference, as long as we have electoral college instead of popular vote. If it is possible for a person to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote then those popular votes DID NOT COUNT toward the win.

This is not true in school boards, where every vote counts.

It actually IS one person/one vote.

No it isn’t. Yu’re actually arguing to continue a tradition that was EXPLICITLY DESIGNED to NOT be one vote = one person. You need to address that hypocrisy.

And I am still waiting for you to tell me what Wyoming-ey thing is preserved in presidential elections. What Idaho-ey thing do the Idahoans get by having trump? And do the Boiseans and the Coeur d'Aleneans agree on what that is?

Answer = nothing.
Certain extremist conservatives get things. But there is nothing Idaho-ey that is “preserved” or “balanced” by the electoral college. Not any more. Interstate movement, commerce, communication and travel is too widespread for that to be true.

(edited to add clarity and detail)

 

[Toni]

Using your logic, people in any state with few electoral votes simply will not vote at all—because their one vote won’t matter against the onslaught of those damn liberals in NYC or California.

WTF?

Rhea's logic is that if everyone's vote counted more people would vote.
Your "OMG, water rights!" and "OMG, why would anyone vote if their geographic area was stuck with the outcome of a national popular vote?" is ridiculous.

Believe it or not, even here in Indiana there's a ton of liberals. Dividing people up by state and assuming that they're a monolithic voting bloc is less relevant to modern U.S. society than your urban/rural divide.

I think the big problem is that the wealthy elite can manipulate the ill-informed and disengaged electorate who know that their vote won't count anyway, given our system.
How about we start by changing that?
Tom

I absolutely know there are liberals in Indiana. I’m related to some. Also to some extremely staunch Southern Baptist conservatives.

I’m simply pointing out what I have observed time and time again, in whatever state I’ve lived in, with respect to local or state elections. A lot of people don’t vote because ‘their vote won’t count’ by which they mean, they are either well within the majority block—or in a distant minority block. What it really means is that they are lazy or, more generously too disaffected to be bothered to vote.

As it is, I am greatly bothered by election ( partial) results being announced before all voters have had a chance to vote.

I honestly do not think that eliminating the electoral college will encourage more voters to vote—short run or long run.

 

[Elixir]

The number of people who don’t vote ‘because their vote won’t change anything’ is not confined to NY or CA or to elections for POTUS

My thesis is that gerrymandering dissuades people from voting by making districts non-competitive and exacerbating the apathy/excuse you speak of. It has become a feature of the system rather than a glitch - for both parties.

 

[Toni]

The number of people who don’t vote ‘because their vote won’t change anything’ is not confined to NY or CA or to elections for POTUS

My thesis is that gerrymandering dissuades people from voting by making districts non-competitive and exacerbating the apathy/excuse you speak of.

Gerrymandering is a problem. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Elixir]

Gerrymandering is a problem. I agree wholeheartedly.

I’m say it is the primary underlying cause of the “my vote won’t count” syndrome on the left. On the right, the primary cause is … Trump telling them their vote won’t count.

 

[Politesse]

Using your logic, people in any state with few electoral votes simply will not vote at all—because their one vote won’t matter against the onslaught of those damn liberals in NYC or California.

WTF?

Rhea's logic is that if everyone's vote counted more people would vote.
Your "OMG, water rights!" and "OMG, why would anyone vote if their geographic area was stuck with the outcome of a national popular vote?" is ridiculous.

Believe it or not, even here in Indiana there's a ton of liberals. Dividing people up by state and assuming that they're a monolithic voting bloc is less relevant to modern U.S. society than your urban/rural divide.

I think the big problem is that the wealthy elite can manipulate the ill-informed and disengaged electorate who know that their vote won't count anyway, given our system.
How about we start by changing that?
Tom

I absolutely know there are liberals in Indiana. I’m related to some. Also to some extremely staunch Southern Baptist conservatives.

I’m simply pointing out what I have observed time and time again, in whatever state I’ve lived in, with respect to local or state elections. A lot of people don’t vote because ‘their vote won’t count’ by which they mean, they are either well within the majority block—or in a distant minority block. What it really means is that they are lazy or, more generously too disaffected to be bothered to vote.

As it is, I am greatly bothered by election ( partial) results being announced before all voters have had a chance to vote.

I honestly do not think that eliminating the electoral college will encourage more voters to vote—short run or long run.

I strongly disagree. The Electoral College is an incredibly unpopular institution, that in more than one way leads to a common perception that people's votes do not matter. Both because of the vote weighting phenomenon we've been discussing and because most states employ a winner-takes-all strategy for guiding electors, that discourages voting within minority parties who know their vote will be canceled out within their state's considerations. I think many more California Republicans and Texas Democrats would vote in national elections if they expected their vote to be counted equally to others. And even if a potential voter were not following or thinking about any of this right now, the news coverage surrounding an abolition or curbing of the college would certainly encourage public interest in the vote.

I also think voting day should be either moved to Sunday or declared a holiday, but no one listens to me...

 

[Toni]

Using your logic, people in any state with few electoral votes simply will not vote at all—because their one vote won’t matter against the onslaught of those damn liberals in NYC or California.

WTF?

Rhea's logic is that if everyone's vote counted more people would vote.
Your "OMG, water rights!" and "OMG, why would anyone vote if their geographic area was stuck with the outcome of a national popular vote?" is ridiculous.

Believe it or not, even here in Indiana there's a ton of liberals. Dividing people up by state and assuming that they're a monolithic voting bloc is less relevant to modern U.S. society than your urban/rural divide.

I think the big problem is that the wealthy elite can manipulate the ill-informed and disengaged electorate who know that their vote won't count anyway, given our system.
How about we start by changing that?
Tom

I absolutely know there are liberals in Indiana. I’m related to some. Also to some extremely staunch Southern Baptist conservatives.

I’m simply pointing out what I have observed time and time again, in whatever state I’ve lived in, with respect to local or state elections. A lot of people don’t vote because ‘their vote won’t count’ by which they mean, they are either well within the majority block—or in a distant minority block. What it really means is that they are lazy or, more generously too disaffected to be bothered to vote.

As it is, I am greatly bothered by election ( partial) results being announced before all voters have had a chance to vote.

I honestly do not think that eliminating the electoral college will encourage more voters to vote—short run or long run.

I strongly disagree. The Electoral College is an incredibly unpopular institution, that in more than one way leads to a common perception that people's votes do not matter. Both because of the vote weighting phenomenon we've been discussing and because most states employ a winner-takes-all strategy for guiding electors, that discourages voting within minority parties who know their vote will be canceled out within their state's considerations. I think many more California Republicans and Texas Democrats would vote in national elections if they expected their vote to be counted equally to others. And even if a potential voter were not following or thinking about any of this right now, the news coverage surrounding an abolition or curbing of the college would certainly encourage public interest in the vote.

I also think voting day should be either moved to Sunday or declared a holiday, but no one listens to me...

Well, Sunday is church day, so that would be a nonstarter. Not that I agree. I’m still trying to decide if I should make a fuss that my polling place is in a church. I’m opposed to any political polling behind done in a church or any house of worship.

I disagree with you because I think most people don’t think as hard as you have them thinking. I think a lot of people find all kinds of excuses not to vote. Locally, our school district has a terrible time passing referendums for additional school funding whether it is to improve programming or to build or repair a school building. They always hope for bad weather in such days as the referendum vote will be taken in hopes that it will keep old people home. It never does—old people tend to be very dedicated voters. Also tend to be much more supportive of funding education than is supposed. Also, voting is incredibly easy here, and there are rarely lines outside. The last referendum they tried to pass was not joined with any other election ( big mistake) and you could vote over a few days by simply showing up at the district office and dropping your ballot off there. It failed, with the lowest voter turnout I’ve seen. I think there are a lot of reasons it failed, especially decoupling it from a general
election. It was also poorly publicized.

In an exceptionally rare ( one time only!) event, neither my husband nor I voted in that referendum. It was poorly publicized and we had already made plans to be out of town over those days. We could have arranged to vote by mail but….we expected the referendum to fail by a large margin and decided not to bother.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For those of you arguing that Montana has an outsized voice compared to California...

2012 - 2020 Federal Representation by People per House Seat, Senate Seat, and Electors

Tally of how federal representation of each state by people per house seat, senate seat, and electors.

www.thegreenpapers.com

Montana's single Representative is representing ALL of its 900K residents. Each Representative in California only has 700K citizens. Thus, on a per-capita basis, CA has MORE of a voice than MT. Your complaints are effectively trying to disband the Senate.

Try again.

Yes, they have fewer seats in the house than warranted by their population. However, they are way overrepresented in the senate.

How about you trying…some history. Each state was allocated 2 representatives, regardless of population ON PURPOSE. The founders worked very diligently to put into place checks and balances, between branches of the government but also between state and federal powers and to ensure that states were equal partners

Which produces exactly the result we are discussing--the low-population states get more electoral votes per voter than the high-population states.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But why does it matter if we know how much crap a cow makes? I'm not in the cow business. I'm not in the manure business. I'm not in the ecology business. I'm not a politician looking to regulate any of these industries. Why am I clueless for not knowing it?

Because
Food.
Shelter.
Clothing.
I don’t suppose there’s any good reason to understand any of it, as long as they can feed, shelter and clothe themself or pay someone else to do it for them.

There are many industries involved in supplying those things. Why should the average person have a far more detailed understanding of one than another when neither of them is their domain?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree with you because I think most people don’t think as hard as you have them thinking. I think a lot of people find all kinds of excuses not to vote. Locally, our school district has a terrible time passing referendums for additional school funding whether it is to improve programming or to build or repair a school building. They always hope for bad weather in such days as the referendum vote will be taken in hopes that it will keep old people home. It never does—old people tend to be very dedicated voters. Also tend to be much more supportive of funding education than is supposed. Also, voting is incredibly easy here, and there are rarely lines outside. The last referendum they tried to pass was not joined with any other election ( big mistake) and you could vote over a few days by simply showing up at the district office and dropping your ballot off there. It failed, with the lowest voter turnout I’ve seen. I think there are a lot of reasons it failed, especially decoupling it from a general
election. It was also poorly publicized.

Agreed, although locally I find they are always dishonest about it--they're always slipping operating expenses into bond issues that are for capital expenses. Operating funding never appears on the ballot.

 

[TomC]

The number of people who don’t vote ‘because their vote won’t change anything’ is not confined to NY or CA or to elections for POTUS

My thesis is that gerrymandering dissuades people from voting by making districts non-competitive and exacerbating the apathy/excuse you speak of. It has become a feature of the system rather than a glitch - for both parties.

I totally agree that gerrymandering is a huge problem as well. But it's not the one that is the thread subject.
One big difference is that the EC problem can be resolved without the denizens of The Swamp getting involved. Perhaps if the federal government became more representative of The People the more virulent forms of gerrymandering could be effectively addressed.
That would require federal intervention, which Nationalpopularvote doesn't.
Tom

 

[Tigers!]

I’m simply pointing out what I have observed time and time again, in whatever state I’ve lived in, with respect to local or state elections. A lot of people don’t vote because ‘their vote won’t count’ by which they mean, they are either well within the majority block—or in a distant minority block. What it really means is that they are lazy or, more generously too disaffected to be bothered to vote.

Yes indeed. We see that in council elections in Australai where voting is not compulsory.

As it is, I am greatly bothered by election ( partial) results being announced before all voters have had a chance to vote.

So silly as I am suprised that you still do so. (or maybe I shouldn't be suprised)

I honestly do not think that eliminating the electoral college will encourage more voters to vote—short run or long run.

That is most probably true.

 

[Emily Lake]

For those of you arguing that Montana has an outsized voice compared to California...

2012 - 2020 Federal Representation by People per House Seat, Senate Seat, and Electors

Tally of how federal representation of each state by people per house seat, senate seat, and electors.

www.thegreenpapers.com

Montana's single Representative is representing ALL of its 900K residents. Each Representative in California only has 700K citizens. Thus, on a per-capita basis, CA has MORE of a voice than MT. Your complaints are effectively trying to disband the Senate.

Try again.

Yes, they have fewer seats in the house than warranted by their population. However, they are way overrepresented in the senate.

Lol, they're equally represented in the Senate - every state has the exact same number of senators. The senators represent the state as an entity within the Union.

 

[Emily Lake]

You’ll have to forgive me. I am traveling and do not have access to my library at home.

Try this: https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

That link doesn't support your claim either but just makes obvious the reality that the EC today is something that should be eliminated. It's an anachronistic vestige of centuries past.

The EC today doesn't operate like the EC in our early history. The electors aren't completely independent of the populace in effect - although they technically could be.

Look, I don't have any issue with revising the system by which the electoral votes are apportioned. I would be quite happy to remove the ability of electors to vote whatever they hell they personally want. I favor a proportionate system - the Representative votes go to the winner of each district, the Senatorial votes go to the overall winner of the popular vote across all districts in that state.

What I don't support is going to a pure popular vote - not with FPTP.

The concerns that the founders had still hold, and there still needs to be some balance. There's still risk of tyranny of the majority, there's still risk of a populist candidate effectively gaining overarching power.

We can look back at the times where the popular vote has been different from the EC vote recently - but bear in mind this isn't a result of independent electors just doing their own thing. This is a result of the EC count for a state ALL going to the popular winner of that state, even if the popular vote was very very close.

I think it's worth giving some consideration to how candidates campaign... and how that has worked out. In 2016, Clinton won California by a massive margin - far more margin than she needed in that state. She won California by more than she won the overall popular vote - all of her margin came from one state.

In California, Clinton got 8,753,788, Trump got 4,483,810, giving Clinton a margin of 4,269,978
Overall, Clinton got 65,853,625, Trump got 62,985,106, giving Clinton a margin of 2,868,519
The unfortunate reality of that is that outside of California, Clinton lost the popular vote. Excluding CA, Clinton got 57,099,837 votes and Trump got 58,501,296... giving Trump a margin of 1,401,459

But both candidates campaigned knowing how the EC works. Trump didn't invest much time or energy in CA. CA has voted blue every election since 1988. That's over 30 years, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

If it were changed to a pure popular vote... candidates wouldn't campaign in the same way. The strategy would change. The time investment would change. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the same margins seen in prior elections would remain in place if you disbanded the EC system.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why should Wyoming be even more irrelevant than it already is?

For all your fury at small states, how did your own state go in 2016? Where is your fury at how unfair it was that Ohio got the number of electoral votes it did? You are ficussing your ire in the wrong direction.

Face it: The big states have an outsized influence over who does and does not win POTUS.

See, I disagree as it currently stands. I don't think big states have an outsized vote under EC methodology. I think the EC methodology is better than a pure popular vote - under a pure popular vote, I think big states would have an outsized impact. That said, I don't really like the "winner take all" allocation of EC votes in most states either.

If I had my druthers, I'd replace the entire voting structure in the US for a multiple or ranked vote. Barring that, I'd like to see a revision to the EC vote method. I still like distributing votes based on congresscritters, but I'd like to see the congressional districts have independent votes, with the states pitching in the 2 senate-based votes for the overall winner of the state's popular vote. This would result in EC votes being less liable to be firewalled one side or the other, and also more likely to find EC more in line with popular votes. I think more people would be more satisfied with the outcome that way.

 

[Emily Lake]

Face it: The big states have an outsized influence over who does and does not win POTUS.

So it should be one state one vote, right?

No, it should be a balance between the citizenry and the states. The states as entities have a stake in who leads the executive branch, but so do the people. I don't want a system that favors one over the other, I want something that balances them as well as possible.

Alternatively, eliminate FPTP.

 

[ZiprHead]

What I don't support is going to a pure popular vote - not with FPTP.

The concerns that the founders had still hold, and there still needs to be some balance. There's still risk of tyranny of the majority, there's still risk of a populist candidate effectively gaining overarching power.

It would be better than what we have now, tyranny of the minority.

 

[ZiprHead]

Face it: The big states have an outsized influence over who does and does not win POTUS.

So it should be one state one vote, right?

No, it should be a balance between the citizenry and the states. The states as entities have a stake in who leads the executive branch, but so do the people. I don't want a system that favors one over the other, I want something that balances them as well as possible.

Alternatively, eliminate FPTP.

States don't have interests. States have no thoughts at all, let alone interests.