Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Popular Vote vs Electoral College
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 9 of 118 (903634)
12-14-2022 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-14-2022 12:07 PM


Proportional EC
Trump lost by 3 million popular votes yet was elected due to the electoral college.
That's not the first time that has happened. Other presidents were minority elected for the same reasons. The problem is not the Electoral College (EC) itself but the way the states implemented and continue to use it.
A feature of the electoral college is that, without it, the smaller states have no way to have their voices heard in the republic. The smaller less populated states would see their state and local interests lost to the larger populations and the interests of the larger states. Democracy is fine and all but being able to participate is even better.
I’m finding that race was an issue in counting populations but the structure of the EC was addressing a more major issue. The four most populous states in the proposed new union would dominate any election even with the 3/5 rule. The less populous states would, in effect, be disenfranchised. If you wanted a federal structure for the new union then at the negotiating table, where each state was equal in voice and vote, a compromise needed to be made. The EC was acceptable to both sides and a nation was born.
Today we have the same concerns. Without the EC and its effect on the political landscape (who actually wants to go to Iowa in mid-winter to listen to hog and corn farmers?), no concern need be paid to any issues outside the most populous regions along the east and west coasts. From Maine down a narrow strip of the coast to Washington and from Oregon down to San Diego would be the effective voting population of the nation. The major population centers in other regions (Chicago, Denver, Dallas/Houston) combined, would be a minor blip in the vote easily swamped by the populations on the two coasts. Rural areas, like all of Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, the Dakotas, etc, need not exist at all.
Deciding by popular vote and its appeal to democracy sounds wonderful but, today, in this political setup, it would lead to a situation where 3/4 of the land mass of this nation, and its lesser population, is effectively disenfranchised from the vote. If you don’t live in one of the larger population coastal areas then your vote means considerably less, if anything at all.
I like the electoral college. I like the political dynamic it forces on the party structure and the wider scope of political interests that must be addressed by the national candidates.
The problem with the EC’s present structure is, in most states (48), the college is a winner-takes-all scheme. That is where the lopsidedness of the EC loses effectiveness. It does not represent the vote of the populous. It hides the actual political sentiment of the population across the nation and can lead to stupid outcomes like Bush II against the popular will.
The way to solve it is easy. Award electoral votes based on the popular vote. To mandate that at the federal level will take a constitutional amendment. That only leaves a voluntary effort on the parts of the various state legislatures.
I do like the Maine and Nebraska schemes. Much closer to the actual sentiment of the population. But, in this political climate, such schemes do not fall in the Republicans favor and will not be done.
We are stuck with this flavor of EC until (as usual with anything good for voting rights in this nation) until the republican’s constant efforts to restrict voting can be thwarted.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-14-2022 12:07 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 12-14-2022 5:55 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 16 of 118 (903643)
12-14-2022 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phat
12-14-2022 5:08 PM


Re: A Rancher vs UCLA Berkley
AZ Paul sees the wisdom of the electoral college.
Which does not agree with anything you just said.
Why is your WY rancher bitchin' about local social mores in Berkley? He's not affected.
As for taxes, you will pay what your government, the one you had a voice in electing, tells you to pay. That is your civic obligation to society.
You may not see the need for a new stoplight at that intersection but if the government says one is needed then you will pay for it. You had your say when you elected the government.
If your government, the one you elected whether you voted for each member or not, says you pay higher taxes just so a bunch of homeless people can get food, then you pay. That is your duty to the society of which you are a member.
I don't see where any of your anti-government, anti-people, bullshit is related to the subject you started.
WTF does this have to do with the electoral college?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 12-14-2022 5:08 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 12-14-2022 5:40 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 19 of 118 (903646)
12-14-2022 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
12-14-2022 5:34 PM


Re: The Trump Factor. A Bull In A China Shop
... he kept us from sliding down the slope closer to China.
What? The? Fuck?
What kind of conspiratorial sicko makes up this shit? WTF does that even mean? I don't think you know what you just said.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 12-14-2022 5:34 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 12-14-2022 6:08 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 21 of 118 (903648)
12-14-2022 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
12-14-2022 5:40 PM


Re: A Rancher vs UCLA Berkley
Don't you see how authoritarian that sounds?
Do I care? When you participate in a society governed by openly elected citizens your obligation is to speak, vote, then pay up.
My ranch is every bit as important to me and the welfare of my workers as Democracy is to the homeless folks who need a place to squat.
No one is threatening your ranch. Why do you threaten the homeless you can't even see?
Hypothetically, just because 5 friends always get together and vote and 4 of them vote for the same thing does not mean that the fifth guy always has to turn the other cheek.
Hypothetically, this makes no damn sense. 5 friends deciding on dinner is not a government and cannot be expected to act like a government. It means nothing to this theme.
I think it has more to do with congressional districts and the House of Representatives than it does to the electoral college. Right now, anyway.
Subject Leviosa!

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 12-14-2022 5:40 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 30 of 118 (903659)
12-14-2022 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Taq
12-14-2022 5:55 PM


Re: Proportional EC
That's taken care of in the Senate.
The founders didn't think so. To address the imbalance in voting strength the smaller states required both the Senate membership and the electoral college. Else, no deal.
That's not what I see. Presidential candidates are much more likely to go to Michigan than they are California or Texas. What matters is being a swing state. That's where you get the attention.
Because we have an electoral college now, so, yes, now, we see national political focus across the changing list of "swing" states. That's a good thing. We should keep that. But winner-take-all EC votes in a state must go.
There is also a problem in just ditching the EC. Without the dynamics of the EC, meaning you are going by popular vote alone, politicians have no reason to go to Michigan, or Texas or anywhere outside the voting blocks of the two narrow strips along the coasts. The majority within those two voting blocks along the coasts determines the election. The votes from no other regions of the country matter one bit. The majority vote in those 2 small strips of our east and west coast IS the majority vote of the nation.
If it were a popular vote then they very well may campaign here because my vote for a Democrat would actually matter.
Unless you live on the coast ... no it won't ... and it doesn't matter if you vote Dem or Rep, it won't count. The national consensus would be determined on the coasts, not across the nation.
I don't see why having more dirt around you entitles you to more voting power.
Because democracy must always be tempered with minority protections. We learned that from Athens. The vote is no different. Democracy is wonderful but meaningful participation is even better. If compromises need be made to vote weight to protect the voice of the minority then society seems better off so says history.
Without something like the EC, if going strictly by popular vote, then my sister's vote in New York City will help determine the election while your vote in Dallas does not even need to be registered as it will have no effect on the outcome.
That may be democratic majority rule but it is not, imho, viable democracy.
Re: National Popular Vote
From what I have seen, that is getting closer to happening.
Oh, I sure hope so. All this discussion goes away and democracy, representative democracy, is preserved.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 12-14-2022 5:55 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by xongsmith, posted 12-14-2022 8:23 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 12-15-2022 11:08 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 54 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 2:54 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 33 of 118 (903663)
12-14-2022 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by xongsmith
12-14-2022 8:23 PM


Re: Proportional EC
AZPaul3 writes:
The majority within those two voting blocks along the coasts determines the election.

But if it was by Population, your vote in California would count just as much as your vote in South Dakota.
I was talking about 'by population', I think? The two coasts of the United States, within 100 miles of each coast, if I have my numbers right, is where a super majority of people (voters) live.
If the majority of those voters go for Sam then Sam will be president regardless of any votes in South Dakota. North Dakotans, South Dakotans and everyone south to the Mexico border have no say, no voice, in the presidential vote. The voters on the coasts are numerous enough to control the outcome of a popular vote.
For appearances sake all votes cast are indeed to be counted across the country and a winner declared on the national totals and no one would care what regions the votes came from. But when a politician goes to ply his trade and do his influence pork barrel thing looking for votes, he can save a lot of money and time schmoozing the coastlines without any concerns for the interior.
Maine (I think) divides their 5 electors by popular vote
I may have this wrong but I thought the Maine-Nebraska model of Electoral College was two at large votes to the state-wide winner then the remaining EC votes are apportioned to the winner of each congressional district. That makes sense when your district votes blue to give the 1 EC vote that represents that congressional district to the blue guy even, or especially, when in a red state.
... advertising, even the shittiest kind, actually works.
I am constantly surprised at how effective negative political ads can be. I'm old enough to remember seeing the first and only airing of the Daisy Spot. I ran upstairs to ask my dad if he had seen it. He was upset, flabbergasted and POd to the max. He was a Goldwater fan. I don't remember his words just that he was not a happy camper. I was just a tweenager and I felt the raw power. Yeah, political ads can be very effective indeed.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by xongsmith, posted 12-14-2022 8:23 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 12-15-2022 1:10 AM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 38 by xongsmith, posted 12-15-2022 2:03 AM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 42 by Taq, posted 12-15-2022 11:14 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 49 of 118 (903719)
12-15-2022 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taq
12-15-2022 11:08 AM


Re: Proportional EC
Why wouldn't they go to wherever the voters are?
That is kind of the point. The super majority of voters along the coasts IS where the voters are. So many that, in a popular election, the number of voters living on our two coasts outweighs the rest of the nation combined. The way that population votes IS the majority vote of the nation with or without any votes from the interior. That will be the popular vote.
Presidential campaigns have (huge) limited resources and must pick and choose the cheapest way to schmooze the most voters. In a popular vote-based election, ALL your schmoozing will be along the coasts because that is where the voters are.
In an electoral college type system, as we have seen, that dynamic changes and we get a changing list of swing states and battleground states, all, imho, the most excellent forums for political discussion, intrigue and discovery on the American political stage. I want to keep it ... modified by the Maine-Nebraska doctrine.
That's false. Those votes count the same.
Yes, they do. They go into the computer and increment the appropriate counters just like any other vote. They get counted and tallied and displayed in aggregate with everyone else's. Yes, what minor numbers are added by the interior vote would be counted in the national totals. The point is, adding the interior vote totals would not change the outcome. That is the overwhelming power of the coasts in a popular vote.
The way I'm seeing the politics, a popular vote presidential election would concentrate political influence to the coasts. A repaired electoral college scheme would broaden the candidates' need to schmooze and pork barrel farther inland.
That may violate majority rule in a basic form but, so says my read of history, democratic societies seem to function better when political influence is more widespread.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 12-15-2022 11:08 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 12-16-2022 10:59 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 50 of 118 (903720)
12-15-2022 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ringo
12-15-2022 12:31 PM


Re: The Daisy Spot
AZPaul3 writes:
Um, no he doesn't.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 12-15-2022 12:31 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 53 of 118 (903732)
12-15-2022 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taq
12-15-2022 11:08 AM


Re: Proportional EC
Because democracy must always be tempered with minority protections.
Voting Republican is a not a minority.
Reference was unclear. I was referring to a geographic minority (the voters not within 100 miles of the east or west coasts) not to any specific social minority.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 12-15-2022 11:08 AM Taq has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 56 of 118 (903767)
12-16-2022 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taq
12-16-2022 10:59 AM


Re: Proportional EC
We are also assuming that there voting will be lopsided in coastal regions. It doesn't need to be that way.
What? Who made that assumption? Why?
The coastal population is the vast majority of voters. All other regions of the country are minor players.
How they do or don't block vote is not at issue. Never has been. They are not one political monolith. What is important is to recognize that in a popular presidential election the majority of voters determines the outcome and that majority is on the coasts, by a lot, regardless of candidate or party or state.
If all candidates did that then they would split the coastal votes.
That is what a popular election is - determining who gets the most votes.
Where did this hive-mind stuff come from? No one ever alluded to such a stupidity.
The issue is where the voters are, so, in a popular election, where will candidates spend their political largess. That is on the coasts where the vast majority of the voters are.
There is a reason presidential candidates today don't go smooze and pork barrel in Wyoming. Compared to other places there is little-to-nothing there to influence. It doesn't have the voting population or the electoral votes to warrant the attention.
In a popular election, the coasts, because that's where the voting population is concentrated, will get the attention. The rest of the nation in comparison is just like today's Wyoming. The voting numbers from the interior are not enough to significantly change what is produced on the coasts regardless of politics or party.
This was the Georg HW Bush's electoral map:
Why do you continue to argue the effects of a popular vote using electoral college maps? This map does not show the popular vote.
Wipe out all the state lines and overlay a population map then we can talk.
The point is that in a popular vote for president the states don't matter. Population density will determine where the influence, the schmoozing, the pork barrel should be spent. In this country that is on the coasts were the vast majority of the voters, of all flavors and persuasions, reside. Forget states. States mean nothing in a popular vote.
My point for this discussion is that an electoral college type of setup forces, as we see today, presidential candidates to spend more political attention interior to the coasts. We should want to keep that.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 12-16-2022 10:59 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 4:29 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 12-19-2022 12:12 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 57 of 118 (903778)
12-16-2022 3:28 PM


Population Density Rules
The east and west coasts are where the vast majority of the population lives. In a popular election for president the populations on the coasts hold enough votes to determine the results. The votes from the rest of the country, from the rust belt around the Great Lakes, through the Midwest and down through Texas then on out to the Rockies, will be minor in comparison.
I contend that presidential candidates will spend their political capital where and when it best suites them. If they are chasing electoral votes to get elected they may find it advantageous to visit a packing plant in Moline, Illinois, where, for a hundred-thousand more votes they may be on the verge of a state-wide victory. If they are chasing the popular vote to get elected then they may opt to use those resources to schmooze a million voters in Manhattan.
Forcing the candidate to focus on the state as the prize to be won rather than on a stateless statistical area of population to be harvested, to my mind, spreads the political attention farther across the country. The problem of the electoral college disconnect from the popular vote can be fixed by the Maine-Nebraska doctrine while maintaining the state-centric focus of the campaign.
We should do that.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 60 of 118 (903791)
12-16-2022 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by xongsmith
12-16-2022 4:29 PM


Re: Proportional EC better but not as good
As I have pointed out, there are more disenfranchised voters in the solid Blue or solid Red coastal states than the total of all the fly-over states.
I don't get this. Just because your side lost does not mean you were disenfranchised.
Voter suppression IS NOT the topic.
As it is now, they spend more time in the so-called swing states
than your interior states, because of the Winner-Take-All EC system.
Last election swing states included Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, interior states all. And the list changes every election.
What are you talking about?
When was the last time any candidate spent much time in Montana? Wyoming? South Dakota?
None at all. And in a popular election scheme there will be even less. The populations in these regions (states don't matter in a popular election scheme) are scarce and very few. Campaign $$ best be spent going to where the greater concentration of voters live, on the coasts.
Or, we can do a modified electoral college and get at least some interior states some attention periodically.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 4:29 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 5:33 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 62 of 118 (903797)
12-16-2022 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by xongsmith
12-16-2022 5:33 PM


Re: Proportional EC better but not as good
Capisch?
Bullshit. That is NOT being disenfranchised. That is losing the election. Doesn't matter if it happens multiple elections in a row. You voted. You lost. You were NOT disenfranchised. Capisce?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 5:33 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 7:31 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 66 of 118 (903814)
12-16-2022 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by xongsmith
12-16-2022 9:19 PM


Re: Proportional EC better
So if we went to a popular vote for president and your red friend lost, would you or he consider himself disenfranchised?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 9:19 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 10:39 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 68 of 118 (903816)
12-16-2022 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by xongsmith
12-16-2022 10:39 PM


Re: Proportional EC better
In his state his vote was "thrown away" because he and his lost the election. If you define disenfranchised that way it should apply equally at any level. Now he lives in a nation that just threw out his vote.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 10:39 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by xongsmith, posted 12-17-2022 12:22 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024