Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9102 total)
6 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat, Tangle (5 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,721 Year: 1,602/14,231 Month: 526/1,076 Week: 259/376 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Popular Vote vs Electoral College
ringo
Member
Posts: 20915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 46 of 118 (903705)
12-15-2022 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by dwise1
12-15-2022 2:01 AM


Re: The Daisy Spot
dwise1 writes:
Wolves are too big to fit in a henhouse. That's why they infiltrate the herds of sheep.
And the sheep's clothing doesn't fool the chickens.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2022 2:01 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 12-15-2022 6:15 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 47 of 118 (903706)
12-15-2022 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
12-15-2022 10:25 AM


Re: Another Rabbit Trail: What are Populists?
Phat writes:
Should we expect him to grovel at the feet of the majority?
Nobody is asking anybody to "grovel". We're asking him to respect the majority. Yes, even if the majority considers their own interests more important than his.
Phat writes:
He is doing us a favor by raising livestock.
And the homeless people are doing us a favor by keeping the sidewalks warm?
Phat writes:
Or would you prefer the state do that?
Stop the Red Scare tactics.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 12-15-2022 10:25 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 48 of 118 (903715)
12-15-2022 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
12-15-2022 10:25 AM


Re: Another Rabbit Trail: What are Populists?
Phat writes:
My conservative friend, (he loves Ben Shapiro) claims that "we" (see? He uses that word too! )need to kick the elitists out of political office.
‚Äč
Ben Shapiro is part of the elite, so that's a big miss right away. Trump is the very definition of the elite, and I would hazard a guess he is a big fan. What they mean when they say "elitists" is Democrats.
Being from a small state, I do see one big issue that is only magnified as you move up the political ladder. You have to be relatively rich to be a politician. You can't be a median income earner with two kids and a mortgage who is barely making it paycheck to paycheck. In my state, the state legislature meets just 3 months a year. They do get paid a small salary while in session, but nothing outside of session. It is very difficult for a regular person to have a job where they are gone 3-4 months out of the year, and also have the time to make meetings outside of session.
State legislatures are usually where politicians start. Once they get some experience at the state level they may try for a federal seat (rep/senator). That takes a lot of time away from a job.
The issue with "elitists" in politics is that the job selects for elitists. It is very difficult for a regular Joe or Jane to even attempt to run for office.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 12-15-2022 10:25 AM Phat has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7508
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


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: 7508
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


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

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2235
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 51 of 118 (903728)
12-15-2022 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
12-15-2022 1:44 AM


Re: Why do they call it Partisan Politics?
No one?
who besides the republicans are advocating a one party state?

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 12-15-2022 1:44 AM Phat has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2402
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 52 of 118 (903731)
12-15-2022 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ringo
12-15-2022 12:03 PM


Re: A Rancher vs UCLA Berkley
ringo writes:
Typically, the party in power spends money like water and the opposition questions every penny.
well, typically they want to spend the money on things they like instead of what the other party spends it on when they are in power.
Repugnants like to cut taxes for their corporate donors and spend money on the military.
Democrats like to balance the budget and pay as you go, even if that means raising taxes on the wealthier. they also make sure the military has "enough", which is far less than what the Repugnants want. And then they want to divert funds to the poorer people while the Repugnants say "fuck those people".

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 12-15-2022 12:03 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7508
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


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

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2402
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 54 of 118 (903735)
12-16-2022 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by AZPaul3
12-14-2022 7:15 PM


Re: Proportional EC better but not as good
AZPaul3 wrote back in message 30:
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.
I have seen this quoted in other posts as well and after thinking about it, I'm sorry and I have to say:
BULLFUCKINGSHIT! This can only be true if Dallas's state, Texas, has made a Winner Take All clause on the state's popular vote and then sends all of their EC votes to that Winner Took All.
Hey, this is even why Proportional EC is bad, because which EC elector did your Dallas vote get assigned to?
What if your Dallas vote was the only one for your candidate in Texas, so it gets rounded off to ZERO electors,
but the national totals were 1 national vote short of your Dallas vote making the difference?
Hypothetical to the extreme, but serves to rule it out when they already have the technology
to do an accurate total national population vote.
My apologies, AZPaul3, as you do have a VAST improvement to the existing EC system.
But with Total Population voting, your Dallas vote gets counted along with your sister's New York vote.
They would all get tossed into the big bins at the national level, regardless of which state they came from.
Nope, count them all. Use the popular vote, every vote counts!
Now as to campaigning, maybe make that illegal. Have the League of Women Voters keep a listof what bills
and positions all candidates took on all issues and make it available to everyone every week forever.
But that's another story....

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 12-14-2022 7:15 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 55 of 118 (903758)
12-16-2022 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by AZPaul3
12-15-2022 6:01 PM


Re: Proportional EC
AZPaul3 writes:
The super majority of voters along the coasts IS where the voters are.
The voters are across the entire country. How many voters can a candidate speak to at any one go? It seems they can get that same crowd in less dense areas.
In today's connected world, does it really matter where the candidate is?
We are also assuming that there voting will be lopsided in coastal regions. It doesn't need to be that way.
es, 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.
It absolutely could. It wasn't too long ago in history that Republicans were winning along the coasts. This was the Georg HW Bush's electoral map:
I think it is also a mistake to think that coastal voters are some kind of hive mind.
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.
If all candidates did that then they would split the coastal votes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AZPaul3, posted 12-15-2022 6:01 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 12:31 PM Taq has replied
 Message 58 by Phat, posted 12-16-2022 3:38 PM Taq has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7508
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


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: 7508
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(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!

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17111
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 58 of 118 (903781)
12-16-2022 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taq
12-16-2022 10:59 AM


Re: Proportional EC
Taq writes:
How many voters can a candidate speak to at any one go?
When the presidential debates are broadcast, they can swing an election due to the large audience they reach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 12-16-2022 10:59 AM Taq has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2402
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 59 of 118 (903789)
12-16-2022 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by AZPaul3
12-16-2022 12:31 PM


Re: Proportional EC better but not as good
AZPaul3 writes:
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.
Why?
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. 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.
When was the last time any candidate spent much time in Montana? Wyoming? South Dakota?
I DONT WANT TO KEEP ANYTHING RESEMBLING THE EC SYSTEM.
The EC system requires adjusting the number of electors every once in a while to correspond to the number of
Representatives according to the latest population statistics*, plus the hard-coded undemocratic 2 Senators per state.
A simple popular vote saves all the money spent on that and goes directly to democracy.
* i know we need to do population, but every 10 years isn't enough for the House which is every 2 years.
Goes out of date real fast. Maybe instead just make a threshhold and have all candidates run in their state At Large.
I dunno, maybe anyone who gets 100,000 votes goes to the House. That'll increase voter participation. and you get a
constant Representation ratio. And having them run at large eliminates jerrymandering issues.
Just proof of state residence (hello Texas Walker).
Yes, this increases the House to some 1550 Representatives in 2020, but that reduces the effect of the undemocratic
2 Senators per state. Wait! I'm still thinking subconsciously about the EC for each state - so nevermind that point.
Instead it makes the Senate more powerful relatively with its share of constitutional duties.
Maybe make the threshhold 250,000 votes, or a 2020 House of 620. ( Or 300,000 for a House of 517ish.)
In 2016 321,271 people of Alaska voted, so if they all voted for one person, they would have 1 Representative.
What about Wyoming? In 2016 there were 447,212 eligible voters of which 258,788 voted,
or grizzlybearly (barely) at most 1 possible Representative.
Holy shit: Number of Registered Voters by State 2022
Even if you combine Wyoming and Montana or North and South Dakota into single states, as I think Bill Mayer
suggested, you still have egregious inequalities by state boundaries. AGHH!
Maybe have all the Representatives and Senators elected in a national At Large election? Gack!

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 12:31 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 5:04 PM xongsmith has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7508
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023