Woah, could this really happen!? :w00t:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/04/national-popular-vote-new-york-state-climbs-aboard.html
QuoteNational Popular Vote: New York State Climbs Aboard
Posted by Hendrik Hertzberg
On Tuesday, the State of New York took a baby step—or maybe a giant leap!—toward making the United States of America something more closely resembling a modern democracy: Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill joining up the Empire State to the National Popular Vote (N.P.V.) interstate compact.
As I've explained many times (fifty-one, to be exact), N.P.V. is a way to elect our Presidents the way we elect our governors, our mayors, our senators and representatives, our state legislators, and everybody else: by totting up the voters' votes—all of them—and awarding the job to whichever candidate gets the largest number. And it does this without changing a word of the Constitution.
Impossible, you say? No. Quite possible—even probable—and in time for 2020, if not for 2016.
Here's how it works: Suppose you could get a bunch of states to pledge that once there are enough of them to possess at least two hundred and seventy electoral votes—a majority of the Electoral College—they will thenceforth cast all their electoral votes for whatever candidate gets the most popular votes in the entire country. As soon as that happens, presto change-o: the next time you go to the polls, you'll be voting in a true national election. No more ten or so battleground states, no more forty or so spectator states, just the United States—all of them, and all of the voters who live in them.
Unless you've been following this pretty closely, it will surprise you to learn that, before this week, ten states (counting D.C.) had already signed on. Now it's eleven, and between them they have a hundred and sixty-five electoral votes—sixty-one per cent of the total needed to bring the compact into effect.
When the framers were doing their framing, they had a hell of a time trying to figure out how to elect the "Chief Magistrate." They ended up punting the job back to the states. The only guidance they provided was this (Article II, Section 1, italics mine): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors," the number being equal to the state's congressional delegation.
A state legislature can "direct" this in any old manner it likes. It can decree an election, or it can decree a coin flip. It can "appoint" its electors itself, or it can pass a law leaving the choice to the people. It can direct that all its electors must go to the statewide winner—only three states did it that way in the first elections, but now forty-eight do, mainly because the party that controls the legislature seldom feels like sharing—or it can direct that all its electors go to the national winner. Of course, that would be a supremely dumb move for any one state to make all by itself. It would be tantamount to unilateral partisan disarmament. But, if a lot of states do it together, it's a different story.
N.P.V. is a good idea for all sorts of high-minded civic reasons. When an election is for a single office and only one candidate can win, it's obviously outrageous when the candidate who gets more votes somehow loses to the one who gets fewer. But that doesn't happen very often—"only" four of our thirty-nine elected Presidents, including "only" one of the two most recent, made it to the White House despite the citizenry's preference for somebody else. What's more outrageous is what happens every time: four-fifths of the states are ignored in the general election.
If you live in one of those states, you see neither hide nor hair of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees, scarcely even in television commercials. Grassroots politics does not exist in your state as far as the Presidential campaign is concerned, because there's no point in ringing your neighbors' doorbells if the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. The relative power of money vs. people is magnified, because while campaign cash is raised everywhere, including your state, it gets funnelled exclusively into places like Ohio and Florida. And, between elections, states like yours get measurably less federal attention and federal money, per capita, than is lavished on the swingin' few.
But it's not just the voters in those spectator states who are ignored. It's also the politicians, including the state legislators—no matter which party they belong to, no matter whether their state is red or blue, no matter whether the sure winner in their state is the candidate of their party or the other party. Either way, they're nobodies. The National Popular Vote plan would make them somebodies—and that, perhaps more than the high-minded stuff, is why N.P.V. has a pretty good chance of actually happening.
A lot of people labor under the misapprehension that the Electoral College status quo is good for small states, or rural states, or states that don't have big cities in them. Actually, the only states it's good for, qua states, are swing states. The jurisdictions that have approved N.P.V. so far come in all sizes. Four are small (Rhode Island, Vermont, and Hawaii, plus the District of Columbia), three are medium-sized (Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts), and four are large (New Jersey, Illinois, California, and now New York).
The discerning reader will have noticed that all eleven, besides being spectator states, are also blue states. The absence of red states from the roster is due largely to to a suspicion among Republican politicians and operatives that N.P.V. is somehow an attempt to get revenge for 2000. In opinion polls, Republican rank-and-filers, as distinct from Party professionals, strongly favor the idea of popular election. And a nontrivial number of Republican pros favor the plan itself.
Which brings us back to New York. When the state legislature approved N.P.V., last month, it drew the support of a majority of Republicans as well as of Democrats. In the Assembly, where the total vote was a hundred and two to thirty-three, the Republicans broke twenty-one to eighteen in favor. What was truly astounding, though, was the vote in the state Senate: fifty-seven to four. Just two senators from each party voted no, while twenty-seven Republicans and thirty Democrats voted yes.
Admittedly, New York is something of a special case. New York Republicans are a lot more conservative than they were in the era of Rockefeller, but many of them still prefer a nice tall gin-and-tonic to a Dixie cup of tea-flavored Kool-Aid. Also, the vote in New York wasn't just bipartisan. It was quadripartisan, if that's a word. New York's election laws allow third parties to cross-endorse major-party candidates if they are so inclined. As a result, New York has a Working Families Party that can marshal votes and organizing muscle to nudge the Democrats to the left, while a statewide Conservative Party performs a similar service for the Republicans on the right. Both the W.F.P. and the Conservative Party endorsed the National Popular Vote bill. The Conservatives even "scored" the issue, meaning that they made it a factor in deciding whether or not to endorse particular Republicans.
As for Cuomo, he was always a good bet to sign the bill, but he did so a lot more quickly, and a lot more enthusiastically, than he had been expected to. No doubt he was partly motivated by the hope of mollifying reformers in general and the Working Families Party in particular, whose ire he has lately raised by torpedoing meaningful campaign-finance legislation and closing down a special commission investigating political corruption. But there's no reason to doubt his sincerity. As the statement that his office issued argues, N.P.V. is good for New York, good for the country, and good for democracy.
Next stop: Connecticut.
I fear that if the total ever gets close to 270, our Supreme Court will find something unconstitutional about it in a 5-4 decision.
:lmfao:
This guy doesn't understand politics or logic, does he? Modern democracies don't elect their heads of government by national popular vote, they do so in party elections and caucuses, by electoral district.
It is true that reforms could make the EC more transparent and reduce the odds of a quirk changing the outcome of the presidential election, but those reforms don't need anything so complicated and unlikely as states voting to follow some weird new sets of rules as soon as some other states agree to do so. The only reform needed is for states to agree to distribute their electoral votes according to the proportion of votes gained by each candidate in their state. Presto-chango! The electoral count will closely follow popular votes, with the slight weighing in favor of the small states that was established by the constitution. Every state can do this on its own, and it won't matter if other states waver or change their minds (which in this wacky scheme means back to square one).
Mostly, though, this looks like a solution in desperate search of a problem. Of all the woes of the US, those posed by electing presidents without the candidate having the most popular votes are so small as to be invisible.
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2014, 12:58:21 PM
It is true that reforms could make the EC more transparent and reduce the odds of a quirk changing the outcome of the presidential election, but those reforms don't need anything so complicated and unlikely as states voting to follow some weird new sets of rules as soon as some other states agree to do so. The only reform needed is for states to agree to distribute their electoral votes according to the proportion of votes gained by each candidate in their state. Presto-chango! The electoral count will closely follow popular votes, with the slight weighing in favor of the small states that was established by the constitution. Every state can do this on its own, and it won't matter if other states waver or change their minds (which in this wacky scheme means back to square one).
You are missing the biggest problem that is being addressed by the compact. Any individual action by a single state would hurt the interests of the dominant party in the state. Blue states wouldn't enact anything that would give EVs to Republican candidates, and red states wouldn't enact anything that would give EVs to Democrats. What you are proposing to is akin to volunteering to pay more taxes because you believe that the government should provide more services; sure, you'll pay more in taxes, but you aren't really going to accomplish anything by that.
QuoteMostly, though, this looks like a solution in desperate search of a problem. Of all the woes of the US, those posed by electing presidents without the candidate having the most popular votes are so small as to be invisible.
Have you read the article? The problem isn't really the fact that a president can be elected with a minority vote, but rather that the few battleground states have a drastically disproportionate influence on the election.
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 01:08:26 PM
The problem isn't really the fact that a president can be elected with a minority vote, but rather that the few battleground states have a drastically disproportionate influence on the election.
That's just cuz we're awesome :punk:
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 01:08:26 PM
Have you read the article? The problem isn't really the fact that a president can be elected with a minority vote, but rather that the few battleground states have a drastically disproportionate influence on the election.
:yes:
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2014, 12:58:21 PM
:lmfao:
This guy doesn't understand politics or logic, does he? Modern democracies don't elect their heads of government by national popular vote, they do so in party elections and caucuses, by electoral district.
How is that logical? In any case we do it by popular vote to elect our heads of governments for our state governments and so do any other countries that have national elections for heads of government. But maybe only the Presidency is a elected in the modern democratic way.
QuoteIt is true that reforms could make the EC more transparent and reduce the odds of a quirk changing the outcome of the presidential election, but those reforms don't need anything so complicated and unlikely as states voting to follow some weird new sets of rules as soon as some other states agree to do so. The only reform needed is for states to agree to distribute their electoral votes according to the proportion of votes gained by each candidate in their state. Presto-chango! The electoral count will closely follow popular votes, with the slight weighing in favor of the small states that was established by the constitution. Every state can do this on its own, and it won't matter if other states waver or change their minds (which in this wacky scheme means back to square one).
Yeah and he is the guy ignorant of modern politics. California and Texas are just going to hand over a ton of votes to the opposing party and just trust everybody else to follow suite? Please. Everybody does it or nobody significant will.
QuoteMostly, though, this looks like a solution in desperate search of a problem. Of all the woes of the US, those posed by electing presidents without the candidate having the most popular votes are so small as to be invisible.
True it has only happened at least three times. But that is hardly the only problem with the EC.
Quote from: derspiess on April 23, 2014, 01:11:20 PMThat's just cuz we're awesome :punk:
Any group of states that include Florida can never be awesome.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 01:17:35 PM
Any group of states that include Florida can never be awesome.
Not sure I understand the knock on Florida around here.
QuoteThe only reform needed is for states to agree to distribute their electoral votes according to the proportion of votes gained by each candidate in their state.
I think this could be a good idea. In states constantly dominated by one or the other party, those who vote in the minority party might as well not count their votes since all EC votes go only to the candidate with the most votes.
Valmy is still upset about Trayvon.
Quote from: derspiess on April 23, 2014, 02:16:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 01:17:35 PM
Any group of states that include Florida can never be awesome.
Not sure I understand the knock on Florida around here.
It is like God created Hell but that was not terrible enough so then he created a state that combines all the worst qualities of the South and the North of the US and then added humidity and crocodiles.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 01:16:19 PM
True it has only happened at least three times. But that is hardly the only problem with the EC.
Is that really fair? I mean politicians would campaign differently if they were going for popular vote and not electoral math.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 02:37:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 23, 2014, 02:16:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 01:17:35 PM
Any group of states that include Florida can never be awesome.
Not sure I understand the knock on Florida around here.
It is like God created Hell but that was not terrible enough so then he created a state that combines all the worst qualities of the South and the North of the US and then added humidity and crocodiles.
:yes:
How common are crocodiles in Florida?
I don't think they have many crocodiles in Florida. Plenty of alligators, of course :smarty:
Someone ought to kick you guys in the pedanticles. <_<
Quote from: Jacob on April 23, 2014, 02:44:01 PM
I don't think they have many crocodiles in Florida. Plenty of alligators, of course :smarty:
2000 vs a couple million or so.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 02:37:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 23, 2014, 02:16:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 01:17:35 PM
Any group of states that include Florida can never be awesome.
Not sure I understand the knock on Florida around here.
It is like God created Hell but that was not terrible enough so then he created a state that combines all the worst qualities of the South and the North of the US and then added humidity and crocodiles.
You almost described Texas there.
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 01:08:26 PM
Have you read the article? The problem isn't really the fact that a president can be elected with a minority vote, but rather that the few battleground states have a drastically disproportionate influence on the election.
So?
Is there a democracy in the world that doesn't have battleground states or marginal constituencies or key regions?
Those normally exist because they're politically and demographically relatively moderate. I don't see how it's a bad thing that parties want to appeal to them rather than getting the base excited and racking up massive majorities elsewhere.
I don't get the problem with Electoral College at all. Personally I prefer the Maine/Nebraska Congressional District distribution but I doubt that'd make a massive change. As it is this looks like a solution in search of a problem.
Quote from: derspiess on April 23, 2014, 03:20:16 PM
You almost described Texas there.
Nah, Texas has the worst qualities of South and West.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2014, 03:22:37 PMIs there a democracy in the world that doesn't have battleground states or marginal constituencies or key regions?
Those normally exist because they're politically and demographically relatively moderate. I don't see how it's a bad thing that parties want to appeal to them rather than getting the base excited and racking up massive majorities elsewhere.
Our battleground states, at least the major two, are not very demographically representative of the country as a whole.
How so?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2014, 04:15:48 PM
How so?
Much whiter and older, I think.
EDIT: Oh, I'm talking about the battleground states for the primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire. You're talking about the Ohio, Florida, Colorado gang.
Ah yeah. The primaries are just quirks of timing. But they serve a purpose too.
Quote from: Jacob on April 23, 2014, 02:44:01 PM
I don't think they have many crocodiles in Florida. Plenty of alligators, of course :smarty:
They exist, but are endangerment.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 23, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
Someone ought to kick you guys in the pedanticles. <_<
They are different animals with different eating habits and temperaments. Crocodiles are apparently much more vicious than alligators.
Is the author of this piece likely to get a 10 minute slot on RT, to help demonstrate why American democracy is broken or a charade ?
Tangential, but seeing the WFP mentioned in that article has reminded me of the surreal NY election ballots, where a dozen or so parties are listed but you only have half that amount of actual candidates :D
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 01:08:26 PM
Have you read the article? The problem isn't really the fact that a president can be elected with a minority vote, but rather that the few battleground states have a drastically disproportionate influence on the election.
That would happen even if this idea was implemented. It's just it would be California and Texas with disproportionate influence instead of Ohio and Florida.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:38:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 01:08:26 PM
Have you read the article? The problem isn't really the fact that a president can be elected with a minority vote, but rather that the few battleground states have a drastically disproportionate influence on the election.
That would happen even if this idea was implemented. It's just it would be California and Texas with disproportionate influence instead of Ohio and Florida.
The influence would be roughly proportional to population, and not more so. This is certainly better than having all the influence go to the states that by luck of demographics happen to be evenly split on party allegiance.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:38:24 PM
That would happen even if this idea was implemented. It's just it would be California and Texas with disproportionate influence instead of Ohio and Florida.
I think it still depends on how many swing voters there are. Most Texans and Californians are pretty set in their ways. Ohio or New Mexico might still be the places to be. Or not, Texas has pretty low turnout rates, this might inspire the political machines to get more of us out voting. Right now we are a deep red state that does not influence much so nobody really cares.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 05:45:39 PM
I think it still depends on how many swing voters there are. Most Texans and Californians are pretty set in their ways. Ohio or New Mexico might still be the places to be. Or not, Texas has pretty low turnout rates, this might inspire the political machines to get more of us out voting. Right now we are a deep red state that does not influence much so nobody really cares.
If it's based on national popular vote then it'd probably just lead to a more extreme version of the current system. I imagine you'd spend your time, especially as a state government, trying to depress the turnout of the other side as much as possible and you'd saturate with negative advertising (which I think I read turn off swing voters) and rally the base.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2014, 05:49:54 PM
If it's based on national popular vote then it'd probably just lead to a more extreme version of the current system. I imagine you'd spend your time, especially as a state government, trying to depress the turnout of the other side as much as possible and you'd saturate with negative advertising (which I think I read turn off swing voters) and rally the base.
I have a hard time imagining them spending more time doing that. That might not be physically possible.
The thing about the EC/battleground status quo is that it forces politicians to appeal to the center. If we go full-on popular vote they will all bolt for the fringes and we'll get even more polarized than we already are.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 05:45:39 PM
Most Texans and Californians are pretty set in their ways.
Are they?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:51:31 PM
The thing about the EC/battleground status quo is that it forces politicians to appeal to the center. If we go full-on popular vote they will all bolt for the fringes and we'll get even more polarized than we already are.
Why? The fringes already show up and always vote the same way.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:51:31 PM
The thing about the EC/battleground status quo is that it forces politicians to appeal to the center. If we go full-on popular vote they will all bolt for the fringes and we'll get even more polarized than we already are.
I don't see how that follows.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:51:31 PM
The thing about the EC/battleground status quo is that it forces politicians to appeal to the center. If we go full-on popular vote they will all bolt for the fringes and we'll get even more polarized than we already are.
Exactly. You could, naively, believe that this would lead to a great battle for every vote and Republicans campaigning in New York. But I think it would exacerbate existing trends in American politics and lead to even more polarisation.
QuoteThe jurisdictions that have approved N.P.V. so far come in all sizes. Four are small (Rhode Island, Vermont, and Hawaii, plus the District of Columbia), three are medium-sized (Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts), and four are large (New Jersey, Illinois, California, and now New York).
All sizes but one party, which just so happens to be the last one to have won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 05:54:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:51:31 PM
The thing about the EC/battleground status quo is that it forces politicians to appeal to the center. If we go full-on popular vote they will all bolt for the fringes and we'll get even more polarized than we already are.
Why? The fringes already show up and always vote the same way.
Because elections will be more about getting your own base fired up than appealing to others.
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2014, 05:51:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 05:45:39 PM
Most Texans and Californians are pretty set in their ways.
Are they?
In Cali it seems you are either out in the interior somewhere voting Republican or on the coast where you vote Democrat.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2014, 05:55:00 PM
All sizes but one party, which just so happens to be the last one to have won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
Yes however the electoral college math is totally on their side now. The last election was a massacre by EC but rather close if we just go by popular vote.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:55:23 PM
Because elections will be more about getting your own base fired up than appealing to others.
Then the Democrats will always win since their base is a bit bigger and it seems nobody else is ever going to vote. Ah well that seemed to be where we were going with the EC anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:55:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 05:54:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:51:31 PM
The thing about the EC/battleground status quo is that it forces politicians to appeal to the center. If we go full-on popular vote they will all bolt for the fringes and we'll get even more polarized than we already are.
Why? The fringes already show up and always vote the same way.
Because elections will be more about getting your own base fired up than appealing to others.
I still don't see how that follows. You just restated exactly the same thing you said earlier.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2014, 05:55:00 PM
Exactly. You could, naively, believe that this would lead to a great battle for every vote and Republicans campaigning in New York. But I think it would exacerbate existing trends in American politics and lead to even more polarisation.
Both sides believe the other is satan incarnate and Hitler personified. How could it possibly be more polarized?
I suspect the percentage of undecided voters across most states is pretty consistent.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 06:00:24 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:55:23 PM
Because elections will be more about getting your own base fired up than appealing to others.
Then the Democrats will always win since their base is a bit bigger and it seems nobody else is ever going to vote. Ah well that seemed to be where we were going with the EC anyway.
You see to labor under the fallacy that party identity is fixed, and not a function of issues championed by parties. The equilibrium may move if moving away from EC benefits the people that are currently Democrats, but the paradoxical thing in politics is that success is self-defeating. You lose votes by accomplishing what you champion.
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 06:05:09 PM
You see to labor under the fallacy that party identity is fixed, and not a function of issues championed by parties.
Well outside of a few cultural issues I fail to see significant differences so...yeah. It all seems pretty tribal these days to me.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 06:06:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 06:05:09 PM
You see to labor under the fallacy that party identity is fixed, and not a function of issues championed by parties.
Well outside of a few cultural issues I fail to see significant differences so...yeah. It all seems pretty tribal these days to me.
:bleeding: Good God.
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 06:07:37 PM
:bleeding: Good God.
Dude you are practically a poster child. Obama basically does the same things as Bush did but suddenly it does not bother you that much.
Both parties hate freedom, but there are significant differences in the way they spend money.
Now we just need someone to explain green and purple drazi.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 06:12:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 06:07:37 PM
:bleeding: Good God.
Dude you are practically a poster child. Obama basically does the same things as Bush did but suddenly it does not bother you that much.
Outside of "counter-terrorism" stuff, Obama has been a notable departure from Bush, for better of worse. Obamacare, economy, foreign policy, Supreme Court appointments, you name it. He isn't nearly as radical as the morons make him out to be, but to say that he isn't significantly different from Bush is either crazy or stupid. You're either a "pox on both houses" nihilist, or you're so far away on the fringe that it does become hard to see the distinguishing features.
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 06:00:42 PM
I still don't see how that follows.
Right now, people have to sometimes take positions that are a turnoff to the crazies back home because they need the votes from more moderate states to win. Without that pressure, going full-on crazy to get as many crazies to the polls as you can would be just as viable a tactic.
:lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 06:21:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 06:00:42 PM
I still don't see how that follows.
Right now, people have to sometimes take positions that are a turnoff to the crazies back home because they need the votes from more moderate states to win. Without that pressure, going full-on crazy to get as many crazies to the polls as you can would be just as viable a tactic.
Couldn't you easily say - most people aren't crazies...so running towards the crazies won't get you most of the popular vote?
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2014, 06:22:46 PM
Couldn't you easily say - most people aren't crazies...so running towards the crazies won't get you most of the popular vote?
Yep.
You never know. The EC math does give us a bit of a guarantee of sorts though.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 06:21:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2014, 06:00:42 PM
I still don't see how that follows.
Right now, people have to sometimes take positions that are a turnoff to the crazies back home because they need the votes from more moderate states to win. Without that pressure, going full-on crazy to get as many crazies to the polls as you can would be just as viable a tactic.
States aren't "moderate" or "fringe", nor do they have feelings. States are heterogeneous aggregations of individuals, and individuals inside of them vary in their levels of extremism. The battleground states aren't more "moderate", they just happen to get the demographic sums close. Upstate New York isn't very liberal, it just happens to be in the same state as New York City.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 05:58:19 PM
Yes however the electoral college math is totally on their side now. The last election was a massacre by EC but rather close if we just go by popular vote.
Temporarily. But that happens. I remember in the early 2000s when the GOP were on the verge of a permanent majority with all the Sunbelt states and the South growing at the expense of old Democratic states.
Demographics change, but so does politics and the parties as they try to reflect the shifts in the electorate. The only way the electoral college math stays totally on the Democrats side is if neither they nor the Republicans do anything in response to that.
And all the EC massacre v close popular vote shows is that you've got a two party system. The results are bound to be exaggerated in one way or the other. In 2008 the national vote was roughly the same as in 1988, but then Bush won over 400 electoral votes.
QuoteBoth sides believe the other is satan incarnate and Hitler personified. How could it possibly be more polarized?
Most Latin American countries elect their Presidents directly. They're not renowned as models of non-partisan cooperation.
The only country I know that does all elections based on national vote is Israel. Again I think that's a contributing factor in the growing extremism of their politics.
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2014, 06:22:46 PM
Couldn't you easily say - most people aren't crazies...so running towards the crazies won't get you most of the popular vote?
So you try and depress their turnout in your states - suddenly a few thousand Democrats voting in Alabama is more of an issue - and you scorched earth election to encourage swing voters in their apathy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2014, 06:31:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2014, 06:22:46 PM
Couldn't you easily say - most people aren't crazies...so running towards the crazies won't get you most of the popular vote?
So you try and depress their turnout in your states - suddenly a few thousand Democrats voting in Alabama is more of an issue - and you scorched earth election to encourage swing voters in their apathy.
:huh:
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2014, 06:32:17 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2014, 06:31:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2014, 06:22:46 PM
Couldn't you easily say - most people aren't crazies...so running towards the crazies won't get you most of the popular vote?
So you try and depress their turnout in your states - suddenly a few thousand Democrats voting in Alabama is more of an issue - and you scorched earth election to encourage swing voters in their apathy.
:huh:
In addition to running towards crazies :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2014, 05:55:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:51:31 PM
The thing about the EC/battleground status quo is that it forces politicians to appeal to the center. If we go full-on popular vote they will all bolt for the fringes and we'll get even more polarized than we already are.
Exactly. You could, naively, believe that this would lead to a great battle for every vote and Republicans campaigning in New York. But I think it would exacerbate existing trends in American politics and lead to even more polarisation.
Surely there are millions of Republicans in states like New York and California who don't bother to vote because it's pointless as well as millions of Democrats in states like Texas and Georgia who do the same. Why wouldn't the candidates chase after those votes?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2014, 03:22:37 PM
As it is this looks like a solution in search of a problem.
The problem is how to attract more election spending.
As a Georgia resident who had the experience of living in Florida during elections, I'm in favor of whatever system keeps me from being in a contested area.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2014, 07:00:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2014, 05:55:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2014, 05:51:31 PM
The thing about the EC/battleground status quo is that it forces politicians to appeal to the center. If we go full-on popular vote they will all bolt for the fringes and we'll get even more polarized than we already are.
Exactly. You could, naively, believe that this would lead to a great battle for every vote and Republicans campaigning in New York. But I think it would exacerbate existing trends in American politics and lead to even more polarisation.
Surely there are millions of Republicans in states like New York and California who don't bother to vote because it's pointless as well as millions of Democrats in states like Texas and Georgia who do the same. Why wouldn't the candidates chase after those votes?
I'm quite fine as a Republican in New York who is ignored by campaigning politicians (well apart from Staten Islander candidates).
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 01:16:19 PM
[How is that logical? In any case we do it by popular vote to elect our heads of governments for our state governments and so do any other countries that have national elections for heads of government. But maybe only the Presidency is a elected in the modern democratic way.
The argument that we should elect the head of government by popular vote because some countries do so is not compelling. Especially because most do not.
QuoteYeah and he is the guy ignorant of modern politics. California and Texas are just going to hand over a ton of votes to the opposing party and just trust everybody else to follow suite? Please. Everybody does it or nobody significant will.
That argument works precisely as well against his proposal. The difference is that his proposal requires an enormous change and mine a small change.
Quote from: grumbler on April 24, 2014, 08:43:55 AM
That argument works precisely as well against his proposal. The difference is that his proposal requires an enormous change and mine a small change.
It doesn't work nearly as well at all. The difference is that the compact system eliminates free-riding, whereas your system doesn't. The compact ensures that enough other states give up something as well, so that in return they all get more than they gave away.
Quote from: DGuller on April 24, 2014, 08:57:53 AM
It doesn't work nearly as well at all. The difference is that the compact system eliminates free-riding, whereas your system doesn't. The compact ensures that enough other states give up something as well, so that in return they all get more than they gave away.
The compact system requires that the states that are dominated by a single party give up electoral votes for their party, which is against their own interests. If the argument is that these states won't won't sign up for a proportional distribution of electoral votes, that same argument applies against the compact; why give up something you don't have to?
If those states won't join the reform, then either the reform works without those states, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then neither the compact nor proportional distribution will work. If it does, then either will work. If both will work, the least cumbersome and faster-acting one is preferred, which has to be the state-by-state model.
If the single-party states do join the reform, then they can do so on their own terms. If California lawmakers want to make sure Texas distributes proportionally when California does, they write the law that way. If Texas declines, then everyone knows why CA declines as well. But their decisions don't affect Maryland.
The important thing is that the battleground effect is diminished because fighting it out all summer along these lines in Virginia only gains one or two electoral votes, rather than 13. The solid states aren't going to be much affected anyway.
I wish I had time to get into this debate deeper, and maybe I will in a day or two. It's an interesting analytical exercise. That said, grumbler, I think you are failing to appreciate the game theory implications of the compact (which is the genius of it, and why it may very well work absent Supreme Court meddling), and are thus failing to see the crucial difference between the compact and your proposal.
So assuming they get a bunch of states..enough for a majority... What's to stop a state suddenly turning around at electoral vote time and going "no, we want the other guys"
Quote from: Tyr on April 24, 2014, 09:52:27 AM
So assuming they get a bunch of states..enough for a majority... What's to stop a state suddenly turning around at electoral vote time and going "no, we want the other guys"
Nothing whatever. Which is a problem I pointed out in my first response.
IIRC some states have enacted laws voiding votes that go against the state pledge. Dunno how effective that would be, but I suppose members of the compact could enact those.
Quote from: celedhring on April 24, 2014, 11:54:22 AM
IIRC some states have enacted laws voiding votes that go against the state pledge. Dunno how effective that would be, but I suppose members of the compact could enact those.
I don't know quite what this means, but no state can have laws that bind an elector once elected. The issue of faithless electors is, I believe, pretty well established.
The fact of the matter, though, is that states whose legislators see the election going against them with this system can just pull out without consequence. Under my system, states that pulled out would trigger other state pull-outs from the opposite camp, so there wouldn't be the gain and thus the incentive to withdraw.
Quote from: grumbler on April 24, 2014, 12:50:31 PM
I don't know quite what this means, but no state can have laws that bind an elector once elected. The issue of faithless electors is, I believe, pretty well established.
Wiki states that in Michigan/Minnesota that a faithless elector's vote is considered void.
Quote from: garbon on April 24, 2014, 12:54:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 24, 2014, 12:50:31 PM
I don't know quite what this means, but no state can have laws that bind an elector once elected. The issue of faithless electors is, I believe, pretty well established.
Wiki states that in Michigan/Minnesota that a faithless elector's vote is considered void.
But Michigan and Minnesota don't get to decide whether their electors' votes are valid. They'd have to persuade the House to reject those electoral votes.