Trump: Against the Electoral College; For National Popular Vote

[tytlyf]

As already noted once, Republicans in Congress do not need to be "on board with the NPVIC." Neither the NPVIC's passage by states nor its constitutionality is contingent on Republicans in Congress.

There's nothing dumber than blind, staunch partisanism, is there?

They'll find a way to keep it from being implemented. Wouldn't want to shoot yourself in the foot now.

 

[Nous]

They'll find a way to keep it from being implemented. Wouldn't want to shoot yourself in the foot now.

Everything you've said on this thread is utter nonsense. There's nothing dumber than blind, staunch partisanism, is there?

 

[tytlyf]

Everything you've said on this thread is utter nonsense. There's nothing dumber than blind, staunch partisanism, is there?

I understand what's going on more than some. You may think it's fake news, I know it's not.

 

[Nous]

I understand what's going on more than some.

Then why do you keep saying stuff about Republicans in Congress?

 

[columbus]

They'll find a way to keep it from being implemented. Wouldn't want to shoot yourself in the foot now.

As @Nous keeps pointing out, Congress has no say, nor is it a Constitutional issue.
But I do think that the 1%, who really run this country, like the status quo. And so they will oppose democratic presidential elections, preferring that fewer of the little people get involved.
Tom

 

[Shad]

And what is the system of electing the President by electors intended to accomplish?

Cut the legs out of a direct democracy which in abstract could destroy the nation or a group of people merely become of majority rule. Toss in a heavy dose of human flaw which DD can exploit. Read the Federalist papers to see how many hated DD.

 

[columbus]

Cut the legs out of a direct democracy which in abstract could destroy the nation or a group of people merely become of majority rule.

As opposed to a rigged system designed to make minority rule the easiest way for the elite to keep control of the White House?

You think that's better, now in the 21st century?
Tom

 

[Shad]

As opposed to a rigged system designed to make minority rule the easiest way for the elite to keep control of the White House?

The elite can still control a democracy by use of the some of same methods and systems available to an electorate system. The electorate system provides an easy to detect incident of corruption as it can be legislated.

You think that's better, now in the 21st century?
Tom

As opposed to a DD? Yes.

 

[Akivah]

Cite the facts by which you have drawn your conclusions here.

It is simple math and logic. It is a fact that advertising dollars are finite. Obviously the parties want to spend their finite advertising dollars to get the best results with the fewest dollars. Advertisements (TV, radio, newspaper) are purchased on a geographical basis. As you point out, CA was largely ignored since it was a forgone conclusion that its electoral votes were going to the Dems. And therefore, any advertising dollars spent there by either party would be a waste.

I'm merely continuing this logic to the preposition of a straight popular vote. Using this population chart http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/ we can see that the top 4 states have a third (33.44%) of the US population and the 9 most populous states have 51.19% (i.e. over half) of the US population. Conversely, the bottom 5 states have 1.02% of the US population. It is obvious that advertising dollars spent in AK, ND, DC, VT, WY would be wasteful since their populations are so small. The parties will get the most bang for the buck by concentrating on the largest population states. A party that spends the same amount of advertising dollars on each person in the nation is spending inefficiently.

 

[columbus]

The elite can still control a democracy by use of the some of same methods and systems available to an electorate system.

What do you mean, specifically? I am not seeing how.
Of course, it's always still possible. But giving everyone an equal vote and then needing to appeal to the majority doesn't make the current methods easier.

The electorate system provides an easy to detect incident of corruption as it can be legislated.

Like what? Please be specific. As far as I can see you just need to get the EC vote, by hook or by crook. Corruption is not the issue if the delegates are going to vote according to the state law.
For example, there's many reasons to believe that Putin arranged for a bunch of fake news to influence the election. How did the Electoral College "detect", or respond to, this corruption?
Tom

 

[Nous]

And what is the system of electing the President by electors intended to accomplish?

Cut the legs out of a direct democracy which in abstract could destroy the nation or a group of people merely become of majority rule. Toss in a heavy dose of human flaw which DD can exploit. Read the Federalist papers to see how many hated DD.

The Framers were concerned that an uneducated, uninformed electorate would put an unqualified person into the executive office, and election by a slate of electors was supposed to defend against this. But the system of political parties arose and became entrenched within just a few years. Voters and electors alike aligned themselves with party ideologies. As the Time article elucidates, by 1800 the electoral system functioned as nothing more than a means for giving slave states (Virginia especially) more electors as a result of counting slaves as three-fifths persons.

This cannot be the intended purpose for the electoral system today. And the complete absence of any rational reason for this system today is precisely why misguided supporters resort to incoherent and readily refuted claims about the current electoral system giving small states “a voice” in the election of the President, whereas to the extent that such a claim is meaningful at all, the evidence demonstrates that just the opposite is the case. See the paper by Miller above.

. . . a direct democracy which in abstract could destroy the nation or a group of people merely become of majority rule.

The principles expressed in the Constitution, the protection of these principles by the Court, federalism, and republican methods of legislation approved by (at least) two branches of government are the instruments that safeguard against the so-called “tyranny of the masses.” The electoral system of electing the President serves no such purpose whatsoever.

 

[Nous]

Cite the facts by which you have drawn your conclusions here.

It is simple math and logic.

These were your claims for which I asked you to cite the facts by which you have concluded them.

At least 30 states will be mostly ignored in a straight popular vote. The 20 states with less than 1% will be courted far less than if they had 3 electoral votes.
​

Provide your calculations, and state your deductions. Be sure to show that your premises are true propositions.

Don't forgot my request to:

Show that the votes cast by the 16% of the US population who live in the smallest states "will not matter to a victory" for the winner of the national popular vote. That is, cite the fact(s) by which you have deduced that conclusion.​

 

[columbus]

It is a fact that advertising dollars are finite. Obviously the parties want to spend their finite advertising dollars to get the best results with the fewest dollars.

I am not even talking about advertising dollars.
As long as urban voters have a small fraction of the voting power rural voters have, they aren't going to get the attention.
Not because they are more important, but because they are cheaper to buy. Urban voters tend to be educated and sophisticated and informed. More diverse and representative of the country as a whole.
When individual states, who aren't representative of the country as a whole, have outsized clout you wind up with a distorted government. Less about the People, and more about what the politicians can sell to white rural voters with below average education.
You don't have to win over everyone in Wyoming to get all the EC delegates. Just the 51% who will get you the EC delegates.
Tom

 

[Shad]

What do you mean, specifically? I am not seeing how.

My first comment was about the electoral systems being setup to avoid a direct democracy and popular voting. So I as talking in reference to the line of thought; a comparison

Of course, it's always still possible. But giving everyone an equal vote and then needing to appeal to the majority doesn't make the current methods easier.

Less controllable

Like what? Please be specific. As far as I can see you just need to get the EC vote, by hook or by crook. Corruption is not the issue if the delegates are going to vote according to the state law.

Winner takes all is a problem.

Sure as I said the current system is more controllable

For example, there's many reasons to believe that Putin arranged for a bunch of fake news to influence the election. How did the Electoral College "detect", or respond to, this corruption?
Tom

It does not need to respond. That isn't it's role.

 

[Shad]

The Framers were concerned that an uneducated, uninformed electorate would put an unqualified person into the executive office, and election by a slate of electors was supposed to defend against this. But the system of political parties arose and became entrenched within just a few years. Voters and electors alike aligned themselves with party ideologies. As the Time article elucidates, by 1800 the electoral system functioned as nothing more than a means for giving slave states (Virginia especially) more electors as a result of counting slaves as three-fifths persons.

It was already a method of the slave states before 1800. The EC and House of Representatives were created with a level of favoritism, bribery, for the slave states in order to get them to join the new nation in 1787. The 3/ 5 compromise was not want the slave states wanted. They want slaves to be full people for HoR and property for taxes.

This cannot be the intended purpose for the electoral system today. And the complete absence of any rational reason for this system today is precisely why misguided supporters resort to incoherent and readily refuted claims about the current electoral system giving small states “a voice” in the election of the President, whereas to the extent that such a claim is meaningful at all, the evidence demonstrates that just the opposite is the case. See the paper by Miller above.

Could you provide a link? I skimmed through the threads but didn't see the specific link

The principles expressed in the Constitution, the protection of these principles by the Court, federalism, and republican methods of legislation approved by (at least) two branches of government are the instruments that safeguard against the so-called “tyranny of the masses.” The electoral system of electing the President serves no such purpose whatsoever.

The same branches of government that tolerated slavery and Jim Crow for decades? Hahaha.

It servers a purpose. Maybe one that you do not agree with but to claim there is no purpose is to play ignorant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These were your claims for which I asked you to cite the facts by which you have concluded them.

At least 30 states will be mostly ignored in a straight popular vote. The 20 states with less than 1% will be courted far less than if they had 3 electoral votes.
​

Provide your calculations, and state your deductions. Be sure to show that your premises are true propositions.

Don't forgot my request to:

Show that the votes cast by the 16% of the US population who live in the smallest states "will not matter to a victory" for the winner of the national popular vote. That is, cite the fact(s) by which you have deduced that conclusion.​

If this concept gets passed it will change how people campaign. It would make sense to campaign heavily where the largest gains could be found. Ironically that might mean campaigning more heavily in areas that are the stronghold of the opposing party. A small change of a large number can be larger than a small number. In a state that has an opposition rate of over 60% that means one would be targeting 60% of that population with ads. The opponent would be forced to spend money defending that 60% since the gain from the 40% it could reach would be less important.

That would mean that in my state I would probably have seen quite a few pro-Trump ads. And a few defensive ads by Clinton if that was the case in the last election. Battleground states will still be important but they will lose much of their power since one would be protecting one's base in "sure states" and trying to recruit from the opponents states.

It would be worth it just to see the changes in strategies that will arise.

 

[Nous]

It was already a method of the slave states before 1800. The EC and House of Representatives were created with a level of favoritism, bribery, for the slave states in order to get them to join the new nation in 1787. The 3/ 5 compromise was not want the slave states wanted. They want slaves to be full people for HoR and property for taxes.

You didn't address the point that the Time article made, i.e., that by 1800 the electoral system functioned as nothing more than a means for giving slave states (Virginia especially) more electors per free person as a result of counting slaves as three-fifths persons.

Could you provide a link?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.736.3651&rep=rep1&type=pdf

It servers a purpose.

How? Electors merely vote for the candidate whom the majority of voters in each state have voted for. Winning the state majority is exactly how Senators and Governors are elected to their offices. Winning the majority of votes in a district is how Representatives win their seats in respective Congressional and state districts.

The question I asked was: And what is the system of electing the President by electors intended to accomplish?

In the majority of elections, the Presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote wins the majority of electoral votes. The fact that once every 45.6 years on average (to date), the presidential candidate who did not win the national popular vote wins the Electoral College vote has not accomplished and does not accomplish anything laudatory. You obviously cannot provide any evidence that such a system of electing the President has benefited the country in any way or has prevented the “destruction of the nation”. All you have are empty bromides and fearmongering about the dangers of “majority rule,” a phrase that you undoubtedly cannot define in any meaningful way.

As the plethora of facts cited by National Popular Vote demonstrate, the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes disadvantages all states except a few large battleground states, and thereby skews the candidates' and the President's priorities and campaign spending toward these few large states. The state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes results in giving greater a priori voting power to individuals in large states than in small states. In contrast, electing the President by direct popular vote “uniquely maximizes and equalizes individual voting power” (Miller, 2009). There is no substitute for maximum equality in individual voting power.

 

[Nous]

If this concept gets passed it will change how people campaign. It would make sense to campaign heavily where the largest gains could be found. Ironically that might mean campaigning more heavily in areas that are the stronghold of the opposing party. A small change of a large number can be larger than a small number. In a state that has an opposition rate of over 60% that means one would be targeting 60% of that population with ads. The opponent would be forced to spend money defending that 60% since the gain from the 40% it could reach would be less important.

That would mean that in my state I would probably have seen quite a few pro-Trump ads. And a few defensive ads by Clinton if that was the case in the last election. Battleground states will still be important but they will lose much of their power since one would be protecting one's base in "sure states" and trying to recruit from the opponents states.

It would be worth it just to see the changes in strategies that will arise.

Interesting points. It is possible that election of the President by national popular vote could change campaign strategies in ways that we cannot currently anticipate. I'm not sure whether we any surprising campaign strategies in the election of the chief executive in other countries. By and large I suspect we will see campaign strategies analogous to what gubernatorial and senatorial candidates use within a state and lower House candidates use within a district.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting points. It is possible that election of the President by national popular vote could change campaign strategies in ways that we cannot currently anticipate. I'm not sure whether we any surprising campaign strategies in the election of the chief executive in other countries. By and large I suspect we will see campaign strategies analogous to what gubernatorial and senatorial candidates use within a state and lower House candidates use within a district.

At any rate the strategy of pouring almost all of the campaign budget into battleground states will end. They at least will be a bit relieved.

 

[Shad]

You didn't address the point that the Time article made, i.e., that by 1800 the electoral system functioned as nothing more than a means for giving slave states (Virginia especially) more electors per free person as a result of counting slaves as three-fifths persons.

Yes I did. I pointed it, like the House of Reps, had more or less bribes to get the slaves states on board with forming a nation. I said it happened in 1787 before the article claims. I pointed out the 3/5 compromise was not a proposal by the slave states. The slave states wanted slaves to be property for taxes. They wanted slaves to be full people for population based systems. The history you are bring up is flawed.

Thanks for the link.

How?

Do you not read what you post? You put forward a reason which you seem to ignore. Besides your point it on paper it was meant to prevent a democracy created from a union of sovereign states.

Electors merely vote for the candidate whom the majority of voters in each state have voted for.

Yet there is state legislation that do not follow this. A few electors in 2016 election voted according to their conscience so-called faithless electors.

Winning the state majority is exactly how Senators and Governors are elected to their offices. Winning the majority of votes in a district is how Representatives win their seats in respective Congressional and state districts.

States are not the Fed

In the majority of elections, the Presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote wins the majority of electoral votes.
The fact that once every 45.6 years on average (to date), the presidential candidate who did not win the national popular vote wins the Electoral College vote has not accomplished and does not accomplish anything laudatory. You obviously cannot provide any evidence that such a system of electing the President has benefited the country in any way or has prevented the “destruction of the nation”. All you have are empty bromides and fearmongering about the dangers of “majority rule,” a phrase that you undoubtedly cannot define in any meaningful way.

Heard of tyranny of the majority before? Heard of preemptive action? Have you looked at what a majority elect has done in some states namely Jim Crow?

As the plethora of facts cited by National Popular Vote demonstrate, the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes disadvantages all states except a few large battleground states, and thereby skews the candidates' and the President's priorities and campaign spending toward these few large states.

A popular vote would just swing things to the most populous states with an urban focus.

The state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes results in giving greater a priori voting power to individuals in large states than in small states. In contrast, electing the President by direct popular vote “uniquely maximizes and equalizes individual voting power” (Miller, 2009). There is no substitute for maximum equality in individual voting power.

Maximum equality in voting does not mean much if the voter bases are idiots or have been conned. A point you agreed with. The only difference is that you seems to believe that the voter base are more "educated" thus better qualified to make an informed vote compared to the past. I disagree with that view considering the 2016 election.