-
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.
Al Gore rocks an awesome beard while calling for an end of the Electoral College
- Thread starter injurai
- Start date
- Status
Huevos de Oro
Member
Seeing Al Gore's beard made me feel manlier.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
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.
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.
SteveWinwood
Member
I saw this article the other day.
Was reading some more stuff about it and stumbled upon this article from gaf favorite Nate Silver: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ve-won-in-2000-without-the-electoral-college/
A really good read.
Was reading some more stuff about it and stumbled upon this article from gaf favorite Nate Silver: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ve-won-in-2000-without-the-electoral-college/
A really good read.
Oppo
Member
James Carville
Arrowgigantic
Member
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/
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?
Lazy Man's Wallpaper
Member
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
Bolt Vanderhuge
Member
Commander Rip Swanson.
elrechazado
Banned
The funny thing is some models forecast romney winning the popular vote and obama winning the EC.
I don't think he wants to, but I also don't think he would win. We'd have to re-live all the "clever" Al Gore invented the internet remarks again.
Fenderputty
Banned
"Make it so, number one."
This is amazing.
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.
SteveWinwood
Member
He also looks so much better with a beard.
So much better.
So much better.
HAL_Laboratory
Member
He's preparing for the ice age.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Perhaps Bams should grow a beard...
Squirrel Killer
Member
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.
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 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.
Beards are for chumps.
Except when they're not but internet users fill the role of chump.
Baconsammy
Banned
Would have been cool to have a genius nerd as President instead of the guy that couldnt eat a pretzel without nearly choking to death.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
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.
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.
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?
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.
Mr. Blonde
Member
hardly. maybe a .5% boost at most. check out 538.com.
spiderman123
Member
Now that's a beard that can end global warming
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
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
People should listen about How the Electoral College Works.
The mp3 is here, Josh and Chuck really break it down piece by piece, That said we should get rid of the electoral college, its a dated system.
The mp3 is here, Josh and Chuck really break it down piece by piece, That said we should get rid of the electoral college, its a dated system.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction was a great show.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
I must admit, that's a good look on him.
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.
Can you point to what in the constitution would make it unconstitutional?
Squirrel Killer
Member
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.
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 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.
At that point, you're making such a fundamental change to the American federal infrastructure that you're better off having a Constitutional Convention.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?
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 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.
Same as the fallout when Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Oh wait, there wasn't any. :O
Maybe it's just me, but it just seems like conservatives are a little more rabid nowadays. You're probably right though.
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.
No doubt they're infinitely more rabid than they were then, but all Dems would have to do it say the same thing happened in 2000 for Gore and move on.
Aaron Strife
Banned
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.
I don't care what party it benefits, the fact that that's even for discussion is kind of bullshit.
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.
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.
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
The beard stopped with Garfield and the mustache with Taft
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.
Ninja Scooter
Member
That's an awesome beard? He looks like Al Borland
The beard stopped with Garfield and the mustache with Taft
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.
And Al Borland was awesome. What's the issue?
- Status