As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
National Popular Vote
variant
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So I'm sure you all have heard by now about pact being formed by several states under National Popular Vote to simply give all of their Electoral votes to whoever wins the NATIONAL popular vote, rather then the State. (Atleast that's my understanding)
Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey have enacted the National Popular Vote Bill.
They make up 50 votes out of the 270 needed to win.
The reason a pact is being created is because it has been nearly impossible to alter or more specifically define the electoral system in the Constitution.
Also the Supreme Court has upheld nearly all interstate pacts that it has seen.
The main rationale behind this I believe is individual rights vs. minority rights.
What do you guys think good idea, bad idea, needs modification?
Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey have enacted the National Popular Vote Bill.
They make up 50 votes out of the 270 needed to win.
The reason a pact is being created is because it has been nearly impossible to alter or more specifically define the electoral system in the Constitution.
Also the Supreme Court has upheld nearly all interstate pacts that it has seen.
The main rationale behind this I believe is individual rights vs. minority rights.
What do you guys think good idea, bad idea, needs modification?
variant on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Well it's the same thing with Non Battleground states RIGHT NOW isn't it?
They will receive representation precisely in proportion to how many people there are there. Actually, Rhode Island would probably receive a significant amount of Presidential visits because of its relatively urbanized population and proximity to other major media markets. Montana and, especially, Alaska might possibly receive fewer Presidential visits than they already do, assuming that they receive any at all under the current system, but what's so wrong about that? Voters in Wyoming already count for almost four times as much as voters in California in terms of their command of electoral votes - what about that seems fair to you?
Under a popular vote, Montana's 957,861 citizens would never see anyone looking to their issues. Why? Because they don't have any population density, meaning campaigning there would be a lot less efficient than campaigning in dense urban areas like New York city (population 8.2 million) or the San Francisco Bay Area (7.6 million).
Also I guess we'll find out on Tuesday about the current situation. It's my belief that Obama has shown the value of building a campaign to address the needs of the entire country.
Fixed for accuracy.
Under our current system, voters in dense urban areas are slightly disenfranchised compared to those from rural areas. Under a popular vote, someone from a rural area is completely disenfranchised.
Put it this way. Why would you bother addressing the needs of farmers if you don't need their vote?
A farmer's vote would be worth exactly as much as that of a city-dweller. If there are more farmers than city-dwellers, their concerns will be dealt with. If there are not, then they are outvoted, and that's democracy at work.
And it's not "slightly" disenfranchised. Let me repeat this figure, just to let the outrageous nature of the current system sink in. The vote of someone from Wyoming is worth the votes of about four people from California. There's simply no justification for that - people in California shouldn't be second-class citizens.
Except that there is a massive economy of scale at work. If, in a day's work, you can contact 100 people in Kansas or 10,000 people in Chicago, you would be crazy not to go to Chicago. Should we really be ignoring a large subset of our country?
I don't contend that the electoral college is perfect in its current form, but I think this would be a pretty big step in the wrong direction.
Lord yod:Except that there is a massive economy of scale at work. If, in a day's work, you can contact 100 people in Kansas or 10,000 people in Chicago, you would be crazy not to go to Chicago. Should we really be ignoring a large subset of our country?
If it's a large subset then does that not nullify your argument of economies of scale?
Here's the problem, a bunch of battleground states are getting way more weight then they should under the current system and they're arguing that they don't want the popular vote system because then the majority would get more attention then them??? Should the MAJORITY of the country not get the amount of weight they deserve?
A large subset...like the entire population of California?
Two points to be made in rebuttal of this argument:
1) If it is desirable to have a candidate visit citizens (as, I presume, you are arguing), then we ought to encourage candidates to visit as many citizens as possible. The most efficient way for a candidate to do that is to go to urban areas. The net good is best served by candidates spending most of their time in big cities.
2) It's not like rural voters will be uninformed. There will still be campaign offices, candidates will still visit middle-size cities in an attempt to draw large crowds of rural voters, and television and the Internet make it possible for rural voters to have all the information they need to cast an informed vote.
Wouldn't a system other than winner-take-all for the EC votes work to fix this? Something similar to how the Democratic primaries are handled.
I'm sure you addressed this question satisfactorily last time we did this dance, but why exactly is this same over-representation fine in the Senate but an outrage in the selection of President? Why is it okay that Montana has greatly more say (about 30 to 1, right?) in proportion to its population in the ratification of treaties, confirmation of justices, declaration of war, and passage of every single law but having less disproportionate weight in the selection of President is unacceptable?
It's desirable for a candidate to visit a diverse base of citizens. There are a lot of Americans who are not within driving distance of even a middle-sized city. Of course, this is hardly met now either, where candidates have little incentive to visit citizens across 2/3 of the country, and a lot of the aforementioned isolated urban areas aren't exactly in swing states, either.
It would and it has been attempted and knocked down by power hungry states claiming that they'd be disenfranchised. The big problem with reforming the EC votes is that it requires significant majority (i forget the amount) in the legislature AND 3/4 of states.
First of all, it's in every state's interest to consolidate its electoral college votes, because that gives it the most effective voting power. Since the Constitution gives the individual states the power to determine how to select electors, it'd be dumb to expect them to change their system into the Maine/Nebraska system or something similar.
Second, even if they did, candidates still wouldn't visit places like Manhattan, San Francisco, Seattle, or the downtown areas of most major cities, because the vote there is almost certain to go to the Democratic candidate. They'd be simply looking for swing Congressional districts instead of swing states. That doesn't help at all.
Because the Senate is designed for obstruction. It's designed as the legislative body most friendly to minority constituencies. It thereby serves as a check on the larger states, preventing them from enacting bills to levy higher taxes on the small states, or something of that kind. That's the Senate's role. That's why we have a bicameral legislature in the first place.
On the other hand, the President is a national office. He's supposed to represent all Americans equally, and he's not supposed to be a vehicle for minority constituency obstruction.
I was about to ask this and I -am- in the US.
Besides which, I don't think it would work out that they'd just punt on the rural folks. Especially with how information and shit is disseminated these days, a visit to one steeltown in wherever may as well cover half the general region. And then your oponent has to visit something similar to or he'll lose even worse and blah blah blah balance is maintained.
It's the highest office in the country, they're already well represented BECAUSE of those equal senators.
The current system simply gives them a disproportionate power to the point where they can easily tip an election and ignore what the MAJORITY of the country wants.
While in the legislature, yes they are overrepresented but all states still command an equal amount of power.
In case anybody's unaware, just to be clear, this is the case. Each state's legislature has absolute latitude in how it assigns it electors. There is no requirement that any given state even hold a vote for President. They can decide to have it come down to a cage match between the Governor and the Attorney General if they feel like it.
So the President is chosen by the Electoral College, whose members are chosen by the states. The people only have any say in this if the state legislatures let them. Though, obviously, the people elect those legislatures and as such all fifty states go this route.
Yes but the other states are not flocking to it are they?
Like someone already said, grouping the votes gives the state more power so it's in their best interest, this is the problem...they all need to switch to a system like the Democratic Party or better yet, go by a popular vote system.
What's wrong with one person, one vote? The small states have the Senate.
I think Montana in this election has (or is likely to have) shown that a candidate can pretty safely ignore a rural state, and the polls won't shift all that much. Obama has 19 offices with paid staff here, McCain just kinda-sorta leeches off the five or so general GOP offices. Obama has been running ads here nonstop for months, McCain has run none. Obama has been here...four, five times? More? Couple more from Biden? EDIT: Forgot to finish that, but I'm sure you could assume the conclusion...neither McCain nor Palin have (TMK) been here.
All to...still lose Montana. A state with a Democratic Governor and two Democratic Senators. Really, he probably only closed the gap by single digits, which in Montana means in the 50K vote range. He could have spent a lot less time and money to win the same number of net votes elsewhere, I can almost guarantee it.
But then, this is only because Montana was perceived at one point as a possible swing state. It's not like he's putting this kind of effort into Texas or Wyoming or anything.
My point is that under any system there's very little incentive for a candidate to give any attention to voters in rural states. Under the current system this can at least change if a state can get themselves viewed as competitive.
EDIT: And I'm sure somebody's going to cry that that's how poor California feels now. All marginalized and shit. No. Just no. Yes, Iowa and Florida get a little extra special pandering, but it's not like the voices of California fall on deaf ears. There are like a hojillion of you...trust me, you're not nearly as ignored as you think you are. So stop cutting yourself and crying yourself to sleep at night. Seriously, it's pathetic.
The problem here is that you're using the wrong unit of analysis. You're imagining California as one big, monolithic entity, so you can't sympathize with it because it's so big. But California voters are marginalized. They never see Presidential candidates visit, outside of primaries and the occasional highly exclusive fundraiser. Their votes count for several times less than those of residents of smaller states and they are treated accordingly.
But that's not even the biggest reason that you're using the wrong unit of analysis. The biggest reason is that if we switched to a national popular vote, there would be no distinctions between states and the monolithic power of large states would evaporate. Rural voters in Montana would see Presidential candidates just as much as rural voters in California would.
A "little extra special pandering?" Iowa's 1% of the national population receives a several month-long fellatio of our presidential nominees every four years and gets twelves times as much representation in the senate than California. Candidates spend ~$200 per Iowan caucus-goer in the primaries and then give them an inordinate number of campaign visits in the general election.
This isn't something you can just laugh away. Iowans are worth more to this democracy than Californians. I'm ignored as a voter and a citizen because the system gives more attention to a state a twelfth the size of mine. So forgive me for "crying myself to sleep at night" because I'm "all marginalized and shit," but I don't see how you can dismiss any disparity in the electoral worth of two citizens much less the gigantic cockslapping that Californians and Texans are getting. Are you seriously asking those fifty million people to "get over it?" What can be more serious than my interests being less represented some random fucker from Montana?
And the fact that there are a hojillion of us should make it all the more unacceptable that we're worth less.
I'm not even sure who the AG of Florida is, but I'll bet Crist could take 'em. He's looks pretty fit. I'm kinda glad we don't do it that way. :P
That said, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the red or swing states to sign on to that list. It's going to be a bunch of blue states is all.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Well, I meant in terms of actual policy, not campaigning.
I can accept a difference in electoral worth for the same reason I can accept the Senate. Our system of government is designed from the ground up so that states have value in addition to individuals. I disagree with the extent to which this is present in the EC, but I don't disagree with the principle in general.
No, they wouldn't. Because rural voters in California, if they want to attend a rally with the candidate, need only drive a couple hours. I doubt the candidates would even set foot in Montana, which means any attempt to attend a rally goes well beyond day trip and into "hotel needed." I have to drive something like eight hours from where I sit to get to a city of more than 100K.
Basically, some of you fail to realize that there are two kinds of rural.
The national vote thing can actually work because it just needs enough states to pass it in order to get an EC majority. and then the rest of the states EC allocations become besides the point.
The president has two roles: he's the leader of the American people, and he's the leader of a united federation of semi-autonomous states. The method of selecting him reflects this dual role.
If you want to claim that our states should no longer be treated as semi-autonomous entities with rights and powers separate from those of their respective people, that's fine, but it's not like the electoral college was just created during a drunken flight of fancy. It makes sense given the way the nation was originally constructed.
Personally, I'd like to just see the electoral votes for each state divvied up based on popular vote for that state, a la the Democratic primary. That would probably re-enfranchise the most people. The dust bowl and other large, rural areas would still get the attention of candidates, because they'd still have electoral votes. Every state would be a potential battleground. Recounts would be small and manageable rather than nationwide. (Seriously, think about what happens if you need a recount across 50 states with 100M+ votes.)
edit: And I just noticed we already have an electoral college thread, so lock'd.