The electoral college is such a stupid concept, anyway. We're the only country to have such a dumb system. It's about time for everyone's vote to have equal weight.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump: Against the Electoral College; For National Popular Vote
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
You mean like when conservatives voted to ban gay marriage and then whined when the Supreme Court struck down those bans?
Both Clintons opposed gay marriage.You mean like when conservatives voted to ban gay marriage and then whined when the Supreme Court struck down those bans?
So did Obama.
But Dick Cheney favored it.
Things weren't 100% conservative v liberal.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Most states are ignored and neglected with what we currently have, as well as waste thousands upon thousands of votes being wasted and counted for nothing meaningful because of states that have a plurality of voters voting for a certain party that effectively silences those in that state who voted otherwise.
I wonder how this remotely possible scenario would be received......
- States cooperate to all vote for whomever wins the popular vote.
- This puts Trump in office for a 2nd term, despite Oprah's having
won more EC votes under the old system.
- States cooperate to all vote for whomever wins the popular vote.
- This puts Trump in office for a 2nd term, despite Oprah's having
won more EC votes under the old system.
Agree completely. In fact, insofar as resolving the problems of districting, I'm not sure we are even on the path yet. Several states have instituted bipartisan committees, but ultimately a bipartisan committee with an odd number of members can draw a district map that is just as partisan or racist as the Texas legislature can. A few states have adopted other measures such a multi-member districts and ranked-choice voting, which I enthusiastically endorse, but it would require federal legislation to change the number of representatives in the House. I don't see that happening any decade soon.
I'm not sure that any of these measures overcome the problem created by compactness of districts as a required goal and the natural geographic and community distributions of people. Several states specify compactness in their constitutions, and the Court has repeatedly endorsed compactness as a sign of fair district-drawing. And the fact is that abandoning compactness altogether as a criterion leaves open the possibility of creating those freakish salamander districts, stretching for hundreds of miles in 2 directions and is one-house wide in some places.
Just the opposite. That's why I cited a few facts in the OP about small states and the ways they are ignored by the current system. Since you have no facts that substantiate your baseless claims, you could further inform yourself by reading the information at the links I provided, e.g.:
MYTH: The small states would be disadvantaged by a national popular vote.
QUICK ANSWER:
• The small states (the 13 states with only three or four electoral votes) are the most disadvantaged and ignored group of states under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. The reason is that political power in presidential elections comes from being a closely divided battleground state, and almost all of the small states are non-competitive states in presidential elections.
• The small states are not ignored because of their low population, but because they are not closely divided battleground states. The 12 small non-battleground states have about the same population (12 million) as the closely divided battleground state of Ohio. The 12 small states have 40 electoral votes—more than twice Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. However, Ohio received 73 of 253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none.
• The current state-by-state winner-take-all system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-sized states to voters in a handful of big states that happen to be closely divided battleground states in presidential elections. • The fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system has long been recognized by prominent officials from those states. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly small states in suing New York (then a closely divided battleground state) in the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get state winner-take-all statutes declared unconstitutional
• Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, a vote for President in Wyoming is equal to a vote in California—both are politically irrelevant.
QUICK ANSWER:
• The small states (the 13 states with only three or four electoral votes) are the most disadvantaged and ignored group of states under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. The reason is that political power in presidential elections comes from being a closely divided battleground state, and almost all of the small states are non-competitive states in presidential elections.
• The small states are not ignored because of their low population, but because they are not closely divided battleground states. The 12 small non-battleground states have about the same population (12 million) as the closely divided battleground state of Ohio. The 12 small states have 40 electoral votes—more than twice Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. However, Ohio received 73 of 253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none.
• The current state-by-state winner-take-all system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-sized states to voters in a handful of big states that happen to be closely divided battleground states in presidential elections. • The fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system has long been recognized by prominent officials from those states. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly small states in suing New York (then a closely divided battleground state) in the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get state winner-take-all statutes declared unconstitutional
• Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, a vote for President in Wyoming is equal to a vote in California—both are politically irrelevant.
Other than these facts, it is inarguable that it is ultimately people who vote, and it is people, not states, who should be afforded equal voting power. Again, the current system subverts this, as demonstrated by professor Miller:
. . . the present winner-take-all manner of casting state electoral gives a substantial advantage to voters in the largest states . . . Direct popular election of the President uniquely maximizes and equalizes individual voting power.
A Priori Voting Power and the U.S. Electoral College
False.
Myths about Big Cities
MYTH: Big cities, such as Los Angeles, would control a nationwide popular vote for President. QUICK ANSWER:
• Under a national popular vote, every vote would be equal throughout the United States. A vote cast in a big city would be no more (or less) valuable or controlling than a vote cast anywhere else.
• Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in California and therefore is hardly in a position to dominate a nationwide election. The fact that Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in its own state is evidenced by the fact that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected Governor in recent years without ever winning Los Angeles.
• The origins of the myth about big cities may stem from the misconceptions that big cities are bigger than they actually are, and that big cities account for a greater fraction of the nation’s population than they actually do. In fact, 85% of the population of the United States lives in places with a population of fewer than 365,000 (the population of Arlington, Texas—the nation’s 50th biggest city).
MYTH: Big cities, such as Los Angeles, would control a nationwide popular vote for President. QUICK ANSWER:
• Under a national popular vote, every vote would be equal throughout the United States. A vote cast in a big city would be no more (or less) valuable or controlling than a vote cast anywhere else.
• Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in California and therefore is hardly in a position to dominate a nationwide election. The fact that Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in its own state is evidenced by the fact that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected Governor in recent years without ever winning Los Angeles.
• The origins of the myth about big cities may stem from the misconceptions that big cities are bigger than they actually are, and that big cities account for a greater fraction of the nation’s population than they actually do. In fact, 85% of the population of the United States lives in places with a population of fewer than 365,000 (the population of Arlington, Texas—the nation’s 50th biggest city).
No, nothing I've said or argued gives a good reason to oppose electing the President by national popular vote. If you fear that you will be exposed to too many political ads when the NPVIC goes into effect, you can always turn off the TV, ignore what you see on the internet, go read a book, or, better yet, go volunteer to walk dogs or change the litter boxes at your local animal shelter.
You're right. That possibility is so remote it's hardly worth pondering, especially since Trump says that under a popular vote system, he would campaign in just 3 states, 2 of which are extremely blue and where he lost big, and one of which he barely won.
Who would have won under the state-winner-take-all electoral system is entirely irrelevant when electing the President by national popular vote.
Vast majorities of survey respondents in every state support electing the President by national popular vote. Such a method of electing the President uniquely maximizes and equalizes voting power for individuals. That's what's important.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I will agree that the electoral college is a dinosaur whose time has past. I doubt if it will be changed since the winner takes all strategy appears to help the side that is in power in any state. Party self interest will keep this from occurring.
The following are the percentages of respondents in various state polls who support electing the President by national popular vote:
AK: 70%
AZ: 78%
AR: 80%
CA: 70%
CO: 68%
CT: 74%
DE: 75%
DC: 76%
ID: 77%
FL: 78%
GA: 74%
IA: 75%
KY: 80%
ME: 77%
MA: 73%
MI: 73%
MN: 75%
MS: 77%
MO: 75%
MT: 72%
NE: 74%
NV: 72%
NH: 69%
NM: 76%
NY: 79%
NC: 74%
OH: 70%
OK: 79%
OR: 76%
PA: 78%
RI: 74%
SC: 71%
SD: 75%
TN: 74%
UT: 70%
VT: 75%
WA: 77%
WV: 81%
WI: 71%
WY: 69%
The consistency in support of the national popular vote is just astounding. On what other issue can one find such agreement among Americans?
AK: 70%
AZ: 78%
AR: 80%
CA: 70%
CO: 68%
CT: 74%
DE: 75%
DC: 76%
ID: 77%
FL: 78%
GA: 74%
IA: 75%
KY: 80%
ME: 77%
MA: 73%
MI: 73%
MN: 75%
MS: 77%
MO: 75%
MT: 72%
NE: 74%
NV: 72%
NH: 69%
NM: 76%
NY: 79%
NC: 74%
OH: 70%
OK: 79%
OR: 76%
PA: 78%
RI: 74%
SC: 71%
SD: 75%
TN: 74%
UT: 70%
VT: 75%
WA: 77%
WV: 81%
WI: 71%
WY: 69%
The consistency in support of the national popular vote is just astounding. On what other issue can one find such agreement among Americans?
None of the 11 states that have already adopted the NPVIC (representing 61% of the needed 270 electoral votes to effectuate the compact) are battleground states.
Among the 12 additional states in which the NPVIC has been voted on and passed by one House (representing 96 more electoral votes), only 2 are battleground states.
See: National Popular Vote
It's entirely conceivable that the NPVIC will be in effect for the 2020 election (especially given that Trump was elected in 2016 without the popular vote).
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I don't doubt your figures. Unfortunately it is perceived by parties as a lose of power and is unlikely to happen.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If there was a way to bet I would bet against that. Not that I oppose the change. I am too pessimistic when it comes to political parties.
You would bet against what? I bet your pessimism is not deduced from facts.
Where did you get that idea?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I would bet against a popular vote for the next election. I
Sidenote, autocorrect keeps changing "bet" to"get" on my tablet.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It I rather obvious. If a particular party controls a state they have more power if they can deliver all of that state's electoral votes.
To change all states would take an amendment. And I do not see too many states doing the right thing.
This was my statement:
"It's entirely conceivable that the NPVIC will be in effect for the 2020 election (especially given that Trump was elected in 2016 without the popular vote)."
No, there is nothing "obvious" about your claim that "[electing the President by national popular vote] is perceived by parties as a lose of power". That's why you are unable to substantiate that your claim is true.
As already noted, none of the 11 states that have already adopted the NPVIC are battleground states, and among the 12 additional states in which the NPVIC has been voted on and passed by one House, only 2 are battleground states.
Your problem is that you lack information. You need to inform yourself. In order to ensure that the President will be the winner of the national popular vote, only enough states need to adopt the NPVIC to total 270 electoral votes. See the Explanation page here: Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote