California strong arm

[Enoch07]

15.6% is currently the percentage of the electoral vote controlled by the combination of NY and CA.

You are conflating the electoral vote with the population vote though.

If we took away the electoral college, and relied solely on the popular vote. CA and NY would have the power to elect every President.

The electoral college prevents us from being ruled by just these 2 states alone.

But now there is a new element.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

In which several states are trying to circumvent the electoral college system. I haven't spoke out because it's just a foolish idea by the DNC. With this system it makes it to where a typically blue state can go red. Which is hilarious, so I'm just hoping they get it done!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are conflating the electoral vote with the population vote though.

If we took away the electoral college, and relied solely on the popular vote. CA and NY would have the power to elect every President.

The electoral college prevents us from being ruled by just these 2 states alone.

But now there is a new element.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

In which several states are trying to circumvent the electoral college system. I haven't spoke out because it's just a foolish idea by the DNC. With this system it makes it to where a typically blue state can go red. Which is hilarious, so I'm just hoping they get it done!

It is pending in several "red" states as well. If it passes that will effectively end the electoral college. No need for a constitutional convention.

Tell us, how could we be ruled by California an New York? Your math skills appear to be rather questionable.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The GOP lost the popular vote in 2016, 2012, 2008, and 2000. That's 4 times in the last 5 elections. I don't care about election data from before the 60s, because the parties and political landscape were completely different.

In a discussion about the electoral college, the only thing that matters is Republican presidents losing the popular vote while simultaneously winning the electoral vote. Obama's wins don't serve your point.

As for the parties and political landscape being different, that may or may not be true. The fact that the numbers are still remarkably close to 50/50 means change or no change, they're just as evenly balanced if you go back to Cleveland as they are if you only go back to Kennedy.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You are conflating the electoral vote with the population vote though.

I am not. Add NY electors to CA electors. Divide by 538. Multiply by 100. You get 15.6%

If we took away the electoral college, and relied solely on the popular vote. CA and NY would have the power to elect every President.

How?

The electoral college prevents us from being ruled by just these 2 states alone.

How?

But now there is a new element.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

In which several states are trying to circumvent the electoral college system. I haven't spoke out because it's just a foolish idea by the DNC. With this system it makes it to where a typically blue state can go red. Which is hilarious, so I'm just hoping they get it done!

Believe it or not, I don't approve of the NPVIC. Because it doesn't really change the system... it maintains the system while merely changing how the end results are interpreted.

So far only blue states are part of this compact. If this sort of thing goes through, they will all be super embarrassed the next time a Republican wins the popular vote and NY, CA, and IL turn up red on the electoral maps despite their statewide votes going blue like they always do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not.

How?

How?



Believe it or not, I don't approve of the NPVIC. Because it doesn't really change the system... it maintains the system while merely changing how the end results are interpreted.

So far only blue states are part of this compact. If this sort of thing goes through, they will all be super embarrassed the next time a Republican wins the popular vote and NY, CA, and IL turn up red on the electoral maps despite their statewide votes going blue like they always do.

Yet if it goes through it will be exactly the same as if there were no electoral college. It turns the vote into a popular vote. If this were in place Trump would have lost. Bush would have lost.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are conflating the electoral vote with the population vote though.

If we took away the electoral college, and relied solely on the popular vote. CA and NY would have the power to elect every President.

The electoral college prevents us from being ruled by just these 2 states alone.

But now there is a new element.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

In which several states are trying to circumvent the electoral college system. I haven't spoke out because it's just a foolish idea by the DNC. With this system it makes it to where a typically blue state can go red. Which is hilarious, so I'm just hoping they get it done!

Thats pretty much what we have now witb Florida, the state that determines election after election. Very few states are actually competitive, and the EC means massive amounts of votes end up going for the candidate the individual did not vote for. At the very least, the winning candidate should get the states EC votes minus the percentage of the votes that went for other candidates (they should go to the one that was voted for).

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yet if it goes through it will be exactly the same as if there were no electoral college. It turns the vote into a popular vote. If this were in place Trump would have lost. Bush would have lost.

I feel like you're wrong on all three counts... but I'll deal with the last two for now.

When the rules are different, the way the game is played changes. If this compact were in effect, and if the people truly felt that this compact effectively turned the election into a true popular vote, then the campaigns would have been run very differently, and the candidates wouldn't have to be so strategic regarding whose states' electors they would win. They'd focus on winning every vote, and there's a chance Trump would have won anyway.

Given the fact that 12 out of the 13 last Republican presidents were able to win the popular vote at least once, Republicans have proven themselves capable of winning the popular vote.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I don't think it is constitutional. So there is nothing to worry about really. That's the reason the bill hasn't passed so far, because of the constitutional ramifications. It's just an empty bluff, more dramatics and stage play. You'd think after Jussie Smollett they'd learn that real life doesn't work like in their TV shows. /shrug

It is Constitutional because the Constitution allows for State to run elections by the laws and rules of the State.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Given the fact that 12 out of the 13 last Republican presidents were able to win the popular vote at least once, Republicans haven proven themselves capable of winning the popular vote.

Facts are the last two got a term despite America not voting fir them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I feel like you're wrong on all three counts... but I'll deal with the last two for now.

When the rules are different, the way the game is played changes. If this compact were in effect, and if the people truly felt that this compact effectively turned the election into a true popular vote, then the campaigns would have been run very differently, and the candidates wouldn't have to be so strategic regarding whose states' electors they would win. They'd focus on winning every vote, and there's a chance Trump would have won anyway.

Given the fact that 12 out of the 13 last Republican presidents were able to win the popular vote at least once, Republicans haven proven themselves capable of winning the popular vote.

They might have campaigned differently, but Trump lost the popular vote by quite a bit. I sincerely doubt that changing his strategy would have won him the election.

Why do you think that this initiative does not turn it into a popular vote? I thought that was not the case too at first. But that is not the case. Let's go over how it works. To go into effect first enough sates must enact it so that the electoral votes of the state total to a majority. California has passed this but because there is no a majority of elector votes behind it yet their state will not turn red even if the situation from last election was reversed. If a Democrat won the electoral contest but lost the popular vote as things stand right now California would still be "blue", if that was the way that they voted. Their state could only change color if enough states had passed it so that they did represent a clear majority of electoral votes. Then it would affect all states that had signed it so that as a block they would have to support the candidate that got a majority. There is no situation where only one party would be supported by this.

 

[Left Coast]

In a discussion about the electoral college, the only thing that matters is Republican presidents losing the popular vote while simultaneously winning the electoral vote. Obama's wins don't serve your point.

My point is that Reps have lost the ability to win a popular vote for President. So Dem popular vote wins do serve my point.

As for the parties and political landscape being different, that may or may not be true.

It is.

The fact that the numbers are still remarkably close to 50/50 means change or no change, they're just as evenly balanced if you go back to Cleveland as they are if you only go back to Kennedy.

The numbers are not 50/50. Since 1960, Dems have won 9 popular votes, Republicans 6. Again, since 2000, Dems have won 4, Reps have won once (and that was an incumbent who became President because of the electoral college loophole). The ability of Republicans to convince a majority of Americans that they should be trusted in the White House is dwindling to zero. Which is why they are clinging for dear life to the electoral college system.

But hey, if you want to convince them to abandon that because you think they don't need it, don't let me stop you. I think a national popular vote is more fair and democratic anyway, regardless of which party it benefits.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Facts are the last two got a term despite America not voting fir them.

You do realize that larger sample sizes are more meaningful than smaller sample sizes, right?

If you take an image of the American flag and crop it just right, 100% of the image is red.

 

[Poisonshady313]

My point is that Reps have lost the ability to win a popular vote for President. So Dem popular vote wins do serve my point.

You're resting the weight of your argument on something that has happened literally twice in 124 years.

It is.

We can save that for another thread.

The numbers are not 50/50. Since 1960, Dems have won 9 popular votes, Republicans 6. Again, since 2000, Dems have won 4, Reps have won once (and that was an incumbent who became President because of the electoral college loophole). The ability of Republicans to convince a majority of Americans that they should be trusted in the White House is dwindling to zero. Which is why they are clinging for dear life to the electoral college system.

But hey, if you want to convince them to abandon that because you think they don't need it, don't let me stop you. I think a national popular vote is more fair and democratic anyway, regardless of which party it benefits.

The electoral college is holding Republicans back. The first few direct national popular vote elections will probably swing to the right, and eventually it'll even itself out to be fair for everybody involved.

 

[Enoch07]

It is Constitutional because the Constitution allows for State to run elections by the laws and rules of the State.

Not if the state law interferes with Comatitutional rights. In that case it makes the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that states cannot place additional requirements on would-be candidates. FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

So yeah even if the Governor signs the bill it is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution and a violation of the residents of Californias civil rights.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Not if the state law interferes with Comatitutional rights. In that case it makes the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that states cannot place additional requirements on would-be candidates. FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

So yeah even if the Governor signs the bill it is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution and a violation of the residents of Californias civil rights.

What is unconstitutional about requiring financial disclosure?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not if the state law interferes with Comatitutional rights. In that case it makes the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that states cannot place additional requirements on would-be candidates. FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

So yeah even if the Governor signs the bill it is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution and a violation of the residents of Californias civil rights.

This initiative does not put additional requirements on candidates. It deals with how a state chooses its electors for the electoral college. That is within a state's rights. That case law does not apply.

EDIT: Oops, I see you are back to the OP.

 

[Left Coast]

You're resting the weight of your argument on something that has happened literally twice in 124 years.

No, I'm resting the weight of my argument on something that happens literally every four years.

The electoral college is holding Republicans back. The first few direct national popular vote elections will probably swing to the right, and eventually it'll even itself out to be fair for everybody involved.

Preach!

 

[Poisonshady313]

The numbers are not 50/50. Since 1960, Dems have won 9 popular votes, Republicans 6.

40% is closer to 50% than it is to "they can't legitimately win"

 

[Poisonshady313]

No, I'm resting the weight of my argument on something that happens literally every four years.

The inability for the Republican winner of the electoral vote to win the popular vote is something that has happened literally twice in the 124 years counting backwards from 2016.

In that same period of time, there have been 10 Democratic presidents, and 13 Republican presidents. 12 if you choose not to count Ford.

The point remains that Republicans are perfectly capable of winning the popular vote, and it is by no means the case that the EC is the obstacle to Democrats in the White House.

 

[Left Coast]

The inability for the Republican winner of the electoral vote to win the popular vote is something that has happened literally twice in the 124 years counting backwards from 2016.

I'm not merely talking about Republican electoral college winners who lost the popular vote. I'm talking about who wins the popular vote, in every election.

The point remains that Republicans are perfectly capable of winning the popular vote, and it is by no means the case that the EC is the obstacle to Democrats in the White House.

Fantastic, then let's get rid of the silly thing.