• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Al Gore rocks an awesome beard while calling for an end of the Electoral College

Status
Not open for further replies.

ghostmind

Member
Jul 11, 2005
17,017
0
1,370
Can't unsee.

EDIT: Who in the democratic party looks like Picard?





"Make it so, number one."
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
May 21, 2006
17,232
4
0
The "interesting movement" he refers to will be a clusterf*ck that will make Bush v. Gore look like a schoolyard slap fight.

Not at all; the interstate compact is very logical. States can determine how to award their votes; Nebraska, for example, does it proportionately. If states worth 270 electoral votes decide to award their electoral votes on the basis of the national popular vote rather than their state popular vote, the electoral college becomes defunct.

Doesn't sound legal for states to make treaties with other states.

It may or may not be constitutional, but the constitutional issue would be sidestepped if Congress chose to consent to the compact. Here's Connecticut's summary on the existing case law in the matter.
 

Arrowgigantic

Member
May 11, 2005
10,539
0
0
Austin, TX
www.truemeaningoflife.com
Popular polling shows Obama mid-40's% to Romney mid-40's%.
fivethirtyeight has it 50.8% to 48.0% currently. If turnout is comparable to 2004 & 2008, that means Obama wins by over 3.1-3.3 million votes. Closer than last time when he won by 9.5 million, but still a large number.

And that's just the current polling. I really don't think "Other" is going to get just 1.2% of the vote this year. 2008, it was 1.4%. There's no way that doesn't go up. And I guarantee you that's all going to come out of Romney's 48%. There's the Paulestinians, who will either write in Ron Paul or vote Gary Johnson, and then there's these guys:

http://votingforjesus.com/

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a 5th generation member and a priest in the satanically inspired Mormon cult. He and others in his cult LIE when they claim to be Christians, since Mormon doctrine is 100% inconsistent with Biblical Christianity and a Mormon is no more a Christian than a Muslim is.

This is not as extreme a view as you might think when it comes to Evangelicals' view of Mormons, in my experience. They've got 365,000 people ready to write in Jesus Christ, how many more do you think may have never heard of this group but are of a similar mindset?
 
Oct 27, 2011
880
0
0
The super evangelical radio station I listen to for lulz in the car has a talk show that openly endorses Romney every single day, followed immediately by a show called "Defending the Truth" that has had segments devoted to proving the Mormon church is a cult. It's so good
 

gwarm01

Member
Apr 5, 2006
2,229
0
975
Miami
Imagine a world where this man was our president. I'm almost moved to the point of wanting to write a novel set in an alternate timeline.

I also agree with his stance on the electoral college. It seems like an antiquated system which is unnecessary and unfair.
 

knitoe

Member
Feb 22, 2006
8,117
0
1,435
No way either party will get rid of the EC. Right now, they only have to focus on a few states, but going with a poplar vote, it would put every state into play since every vote would be just as important. The amount of time and money needed would blow away what's being spent now.
 
Oct 8, 2004
8,996
111
1,535
Not at all; the interstate compact is very logical. States can determine how to award their votes; Nebraska, for example, does it proportionately. If states worth 270 electoral votes decide to award their electoral votes on the basis of the national popular vote rather than their state popular vote, the electoral college becomes defunct.
I'm not saying it's not logical, I'm saying it's not constitutional and that liberals are going to flip out once they see the compact will actually do.

While the electoral college becomes de facto defunct once the compact gets 270, because of the way it's structured, de jure the non-compact states are still choosing their electors however they want. So a non-compact WY voter (for example) will technically get counted more than a compact-state CA voter. Once by their own state, and again by each state that's a compact member (1+X times, where X=# of compact member states.) Mean while, a compact state voter only get counted be each state that's a compact member (X times.)

And I suspect that the first time a solidly D state (say CA) goes R due to the pact (and vice versa,) there will be huge protests.

fivethirtyeight has it 50.8% to 48.0% currently. If turnout is comparable to 2004 & 2008, that means Obama wins by over 3.1-3.3 million votes. Closer than last time when he won by 9.5 million, but still a large number.
I went off pollingreport.com and just eyeballed a rough average of the last few major polls, but whatever, it doesn't change that the popular vote is going to be a lot tighter than the EC. With the EC, Romney might as well pack it in, with a popular vote, it's still a race.

No way either party will get rid of the EC. Right now, they only have to focus on a few states, but going with a poplar vote, it would put every state into play since every vote would be just as important. The amount of time and money needed would blow away what's being spent now.
No state would be "in play," they'd just focus on populous regions. The Midwest and much of the south west would be even more "flyover country" than they are now. But you're right on track in terms of costs. If you want money to play a larger role in presidential politics, support a national popular vote for president. If you want money to be all-encompassing, front load the nomination process with big states like CA, TX, FL, and NY.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
May 21, 2006
17,232
4
0
I'm not saying it's not logical, I'm saying it's not constitutional and that liberals are going to flip out once they see the compact will actually do.

While the electoral college becomes de facto defunct once the compact gets 270, because of the way it's structured, de jure the non-compact states are still choosing their electors however they want. So a non-compact WY voter (for example) will technically get counted more than a compact-state CA voter. Once by their own state, and again by each state that's a compact member (1+X times, where X=# of compact member states.) Mean while, a compact state voter only get counted be each state that's a compact member (X times.)

Sorry, I can't tell if you're arguing here that this perceived imbalance is the source of its unconstitutionality, or if you're arguing that it's the source of the anger.

Also, I'm not sure it matters de jure what the other states do. 270+ is the same as 538 in effect; the president is elected. No formal powers extend from running up the margin. Insofar as there is "political capital", it's a function of actual voters on the ground and their support for the presidential bully pulpit, not the scoreboard.

Admittedly, if the media failed to adequately contextualize subsequent reporting in light of the change, that could be problematic, because if Wolf Blitzer announces that President Ferraro Jr. wins a 400 EV supermajority when in reality it was a 51-49 popular vote split and 270 of the EVs were off the table because of the compact, that would be irresponsible.

And I suspect that the first time a solidly D state (say CA) goes R due to the pact (and vice versa,) there will be huge protests.

I think the compact states will make the argument that they didn't go "R" or "D", no matter what the technical outcome is. The country went "R" or "D". I find it hard to believe states would bother to make such a substantive change but fail so utterly at explaining it.

In a reality where the compact activates and California is a member, California instantly ceases to be a blue or a red state at the electoral college level. Californian popular vote will continue being Democratic, but this will no longer be a meaningful measure of anything.

If you want money to play a larger role in presidential politics, support a national popular vote for president. If you want money to be all-encompassing, front load the nomination process with big states like CA, TX, FL, and NY.

You are correct when you say this, but is this the point where I point out that the solution to the issue of representation in presidential selection isn't tweaking the formula that elects a president, it's neutering the presidency and making the US a parliamentary democracy, and taking districting out of the hands of partisans and into the hands of technocrats? No? No one cares about Canada and Europe? :(
 

WillyFive

Member
Sep 17, 2009
28,623
1
0
If he rocked that beard during the election he would have won (and gotten mad White House pussy).

No, public facial hair is political suicide; because as cool as it looks to some, to others it might look as if he's a hobo or doesn't have it all together in his head.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
May 21, 2006
17,232
4
0
No, public facial hair is political suicide; because as cool as it looks to some, to others it might look as if he's a hobo or doesn't have it all together in his head.

The beard stopped with Garfield and the mustache with Taft :( Literally no US senator has facial hair today.

Canada's last leader of the opposition had a mustache, but if you want awesome facial hair in politics, it's basically the Muslim world or bust :(
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
Oh, I'm pretty sure that part's legal. It's the part where member states count non-member states voters twice that is going to be the sticky wicket.

Since it only applies if the national vote through the agreement is sufficient to decide the entire election it doesn't disenfranchise anyone, in or out of the state.

I'm not saying it's not logical, I'm saying it's not constitutional and that liberals are going to flip out once they see the compact will actually do.

Can you point to what in the constitution would make it unconstitutional?
 
Oct 8, 2004
8,996
111
1,535
Sorry, I can't tell if you're arguing here that this perceived imbalance is the source of its unconstitutionality, or if you're arguing that it's the source of the anger.
I apologize for being unclear. One thing that I do want to be very clear about is that you can support electing the President by popular vote while recognizing that The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an awful way of trying to reach that goal. The Compact is a bad idea for a number of reasons, primarily:

1) It's an unconstitutional violation of the principle of one person one vote.
2) It has a very low profile and once it hits its trigger point, a lot of people are going to be caught unaware of the change and lead to political instability.
3) It has all of the same disadvantages of electing the president by a popular vote.

Also, I'm not sure it matters de jure what the other states do. 270+ is the same as 538 in effect; the president is elected. No formal powers extend from running up the margin. Insofar as there is "political capital", it's a function of actual voters on the ground and their support for the presidential bully pulpit, not the scoreboard.
By the design of the compact, you're right it doesn't matter what the non-compact states do. Constitutionally, however, it does. The non-member states may be functionally moot, but they are still on the books.

As an analogy, copyleft doesn't abolish copyright, instead it uses copyright to achieve its goals. Similarly, the Compact doesn't abolish the Electoral College, it uses the EC to achieve its goal. So when the Compact is challenged in court (and it will be challenged,) the courts have to look at how it works de jure. The way it works is that member states allocate their electors by national popular vote, including (and importantly) the non-member states. Non-member states allocate their electors by their own state's popular vote, effectively counting their voters one more time than the member states' voters. Since it's the member states that are counting voters more than once, it's them that are going to be found in violation of the Constitution.

One potential way around that Constitutional question would be for the Compact to only count the popular vote in the member states.

I think the compact states will make the argument that they didn't go "R" or "D", no matter what the technical outcome is. The country went "R" or "D". I find it hard to believe states would bother to make such a substantive change but fail so utterly at explaining it.
I would bet that a poll would show that voters in states that have already passed the Compact are almost completely ignorant of it. Anecdotally, I live on the border of one of the states and I have yet to meet someone in person who knows what it is even though I run in some fairly political circles.

You are correct when you say this, but is this the point where I point out that the solution to the issue of representation in presidential selection isn't tweaking the formula that elects a president, it's neutering the presidency and making the US a parliamentary democracy, and taking districting out of the hands of partisans and into the hands of technocrats? No? No one cares about Canada and Europe? :(
At that point, you're making such a fundamental change to the American federal infrastructure that you're better off having a Constitutional Convention.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
One potential way around that Constitutional question would be for the Compact to only count the popular vote in the member states.

Wow. Unlike the current compact, which de jure does not disenfranchise a single person, this proposal would disenfranchise potentially half the country or more. I sure hope you're not suggesting the current compact wouldn't pass judicial review while this would.


I would bet that a poll would show that voters in states that have already passed the Compact are almost completely ignorant of it. Anecdotally, I live on the border of one of the states and I have yet to meet someone in person who knows what it is even though I run in some fairly political circles.

I bet that same poll would show that most of them already think the president is elected by popular vote and that they don't understand the electoral college to begin with.

I'm serious, where are you getting this idea that anything about this compact is unconstitutional? You state it so unequivocally, but nothing in the constitution guarantees anything about how the states allocate their electors. It talks about how representatives are to be allocated. Even the fourteenth amendment makes no claims so bold as you're making now, and far less democratic situations have existed in elections in the US in the past without any constitutional challenge afaik.
 

neoemonk

Member
Jun 7, 2011
3,799
0
600
I'm curious what the fallout would look like if Romney won the popular vote this year and lost the election.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
Same as the fallout when Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Oh wait, there wasn't any. :O

Might have been more if the recount/hanging chad brouhaha hadn't made people think that Gore lost the popular vote but was trying to steal it.
 

Aaron Strife

Banned
Oct 10, 2006
26,804
3
0
Wonder what event might have caused Al Gore to come out in support of this.

I don't care what party it benefits, the fact that that's even for discussion is kind of bullshit.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Jun 8, 2004
35,824
2
1,720
That's one handsome beard.
 

Fugu

Member
Jan 25, 2009
7,831
0
1,020
Toronto
I'm surprised that one of the most geopolitical democracies in the world is pushing to centralize their vote into a single, homogeneous blob. The Midwest might as well separate.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
I'm surprised that one of the most geopolitical democracies in the world is pushing to centralize their vote into a single, homogeneous blob. The Midwest might as well separate.

It's not as if there isn't a rather substantial weighting towards regional interests in the senate, for which California enjoys the same representation as Vermont. The current process for presidential election is basically proportional with a margin of error, which is just about the least ideal option.
 

Fugu

Member
Jan 25, 2009
7,831
0
1,020
Toronto
It's not as if there isn't a rather substantial weighting towards regional interests in the senate, for which California enjoys the same representation as Vermont. The current process for presidential election is basically proportional with a margin of error, which is just about the least ideal option.
Congress already serves as a counterbalance to this by being proportionately represented.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
Congress refers to the House and Senate together, fyi.

The house, however, is no more proportional than any first past the post single member legislature. Which is to say not very much at all. The members represent the interests of their constituents, not those of the nation as a whole. The president is supposed to be representative of the entirety of the people. Having that position be anything but proportional doesn't really achieve that goal.

This is all ignoring the problems that would arise given a viable third party.
 

Angry Fork

Member
Jun 12, 2010
13,448
33
850
The beard stopped with Garfield and the mustache with Taft :( Literally no US senator has facial hair today.

Canada's last leader of the opposition had a mustache, but if you want awesome facial hair in politics, it's basically the Muslim world or bust :(

If I ever run for senate and win I promise I will change this.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
The beard stopped with Garfield and the mustache with Taft :( Literally no US senator has facial hair today.

Canada's last leader of the opposition had a mustache, but if you want awesome facial hair in politics, it's basically the Muslim world or bust :(

Canada's current leader of the opposition has a full on lumberjack beard.



Actually, I think maybe Al Gore is trying to look like Mulcair.


That's an awesome beard? He looks like Al Borland

And Al Borland was awesome. What's the issue?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.