• 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.

Democrats trying to bypass Electoral System with popular vote for 2020 election with Compact (12 states signed)

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960

Colorado is set to become the latest member of a group of states banding together to bypass the electoral college system.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact — which already has 11 states and the District of Columbia on board — would hand the 2020 presidential election to whoever wins the popular vote. But it would only take effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes pass the law.

Currently, the compact has 172 electoral votes from the 12 states that have enacted the legislation: Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California and the District of Columbia.
Colorado's House and Senate passed the bill, which is ready for Gov. Jared Polis, D, to sign, bringing the count to 181. New Mexico, whose House has passed the bill, too, is viewed as the next state to join on.
"When we hit 270, all these bills take effect simultaneously. Then there's a pool of 270 electoral votes that's going to go to whomever gets the most votes in all 50 states," Koza added.
But not everyone is as hopeful as Koza.
"The problem with the compact is getting another dozen states to sign on," said Reed Hundt, chairman and co-founder of Making Every Vote Count. The remaining states where it may pass are smaller and left-leaning. "Republican states haven't embraced it yet."

According to Hundt, who previously served as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, for the first time in American history, in reasonably close, non-landslide elections, 1 in every 3 presidential candidates who wins the popular vote will lose the Electoral College.
Due to changes in state demographics, elections are now fought in a tiny number of swing states, Hundt said. In the 2012, 2016 and 2020 elections, nearly 40 states, with about 80 percent of the country's population, were or will be ignored by both candidates, he said.
"This is a new American demographic, which shows that the electoral system of the 18th century doesn't work anymore," he said. "No one at the time the Constitution was written thought that 80 percent of the population would be irrelevant."

This is a travesty that no ones talking about and their excuses are lousy, the reason the electoral system was in place was to give other states a voice instead of people campaigning in 5 states, if Dems were smart and actually campaigned in fly over states they might be able to get those points, instead they tell Montana, and other middle states to go screw themselves and wonder why they keep voting red.

Their solution is to make it so that 270 electorates go to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, which means that state by state voters no longer have any say in the state electorate, and candidates no longer have to listen and address state concerns to gain their state votes (which is already by popular vote you morons!) and now all candidates can ignore all states and only aim to grab high populations states which will get them close to winning the PV.

This is stupid, and we wouldn't be even having this discussions if Hillary won, they are panicking because charts and polls are shaky form the dems 2020 prospects, and the DNC has failed to pull out a front-runner that has a high chance of winning. Plus, with several factual cases of voter fraud from illegals voting directly, to people using dead peoples names, to voting more than once among others, as well as the democrat claim that outside countries are interfering, it seems really dumb to even suggest a popular vote system.

This is nothing more than trying to rig the system so the democrats can't ever lose an election, a one party system based on screwing over small urban areas or rural areas and forcing them to the 4-5 big cities in every state and then redrawing the lines so that most of the votes come from certain locations, leading to a forever one party system.

Not sure why dems want a Banana Republic, they don't even have a good selection of clothes. :)

But seriously, if Hillary won such an idea would be laughed at, and the voters in these states participating want this because they aren't thinking, it's all about emotional reactions to things you don't like so you'll give up part of your democracy if it means your ideology will end up running things for a long time, even if it causes worse conditions and catastrophes.

With Colorado, they are at 181 electoral votes.

Again, the best part about this is, that these states are throwing their own residents under the bus because now candidates don't have to go to these states and address local issues. Because before, the candidate that gained the states trust would win the state popular vote and get all the electoral votes, now, you don't need to address local issues and in many cases, not even visit the state, because the one with the most votes gets those states votes anyway.

This is so poorly though out that the fact this isn't getting more negative coverage is amazing.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
Meh, I've always been salty that my state is decided whichever way I vote.

Granted, not saying this is a better system, but it gets frustrating that the EC negates your voting influence.
 

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960
Meh, I've always been salty that my state is decided whichever way I vote.

Granted, not saying this is a better system, but it gets frustrating that the EC negates your voting influence.

The reason why you're state goes one way is because the other side treats it as flyover. That's got nothing to do with EC and more to do with laziness and/or entitled stuck up people thinking some states are beneath them.
 

dolabla

Member
Oct 9, 2013
5,875
12,688
1,005
What a bunch of sore losers.

How about putting out an actual message instead of identity politics bullshit and you might win.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,431
1,215
Dems getting desperate. They know Mueller isn't going to "impeach that mother fucker" as Rashead Talib said.

If you can't win then just change the rules amrite LOL. They know that they have no chance against Trump with the sad sack of losers they have as candidates. Kamala the Ungadan nightmean? Corry assaultacis Booker? Bernie is the most hated democrat around for some reason. And if Hilldog runs again god save the democrats.

Why don't they just skip the formalities and just declare themselves the one party and the presidency. They have ran a 2 year witch hunt based on a false dossier paid for by the DNC. Just throw Trump in jail and take over like you guys want to.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,265
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
Thankfully our Constitution (Article 2 + 12th amendment) protects us from this kind of political meddling.

If it goes anywhere, it'll get challenged (and will lose) in court.
 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,562
36,243
885
39
It’s not going to happen. The Electoral College is essential to the union, given the geographical size and makeup of the country. They are better off adding new states. Keep dreaming.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
The reason why you're state goes one way is because the other side treats it as flyover. That's got nothing to do with EC and more to do with laziness and/or entitled stuck up people thinking some states are beneath them.

Sure. NYS being a flyover state seems strange to me. I get the mechanics behind it, it just makes it pointless for anyone in the state to bother voting for prez because even if it turned red the election would have been decided well beforehand.

You can understand why I think it is strange that it is pointless for those in the biggest states to vote, I am sure.
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
This is stupid, and we wouldn't be even having this discussions if Hillary won, they are panicking because charts and polls are shaky form the dems 2020 prospects, and the DNC has failed to pull out a front-runner that has a high chance of winning.

But seriously, if Hillary won such an idea would be laughed at, and the voters in these states participating want this because they aren't thinking, it's all about emotional reactions to things you don't like so you'll give up part of your democracy if it means your ideology will end up running things for a long time, even if it causes worse conditions and catastrophes.

yeah... this has been going since Maryland joined in 2007... and there were similar movements to switch to popular vote as far back as the 60s. Connecticut and Colorado are the only two states to have joined since 2014, and getting this passed in any particular state takes years (my decidedly blue state's been working on it for a decade). Reach harder; this is not the result of Hillary winning. If anything, one could credit Bush vs. Gore for getting this specific movement rolling, but the underpinnings have existed for much longer

Plus, with several factual cases of voter fraud from illegals voting directly, to people using dead peoples names, to voting more than once among others, as well as the democrat claim that outside countries are interfering, it seems really dumb to even suggest a popular vote system.

Why? Elections are currently decided by a handful states, who are controlled by partisan governance. Why do you suspect it is easier to rig a nationwide popular vote than it is to rig votes in specific strategic areas, where a shift of 13,000 votes (0.01% of the electorate) can result in a 6% gain in electoral votes. One of these methods is objectively easier to rig.
The only massive election fraud on the books from any recent election was an organized plot by Republicans to steal an election in North Carolina, complete with ongoing indictments...
 
Last edited:

take_it_easy

Member
Jan 31, 2018
181
190
290
I'm losing faith in our democracy. We're turning into the world idiocracy predicted. tryanny of the majority is getting closer with changes like this.
 

appaws

Banned
Jan 31, 2008
3,278
2,484
1,335
Taylorsville, Ky!
Technically, this is legal (IMO) because the states that sign onto it have every right to apportion their electoral votes however they please.

Of course as a practical matter, this is just nakedly partisan and pretty ugly. Most of the reforms of the past 120 years have been terrible, whether enacted by Congress or forced upon us by the Supreme Court in decisions like Baker and Reynolds. This is what "democracy" turns into guys...a zero-sum fight. Only postwar prosperity and the Cold War allowed us to maintain relative societal peace for an extra half-century.
 

mr_kittycat

Member
Jan 9, 2019
53
51
220
God, who cares about whoever wins the popular vote. This is just shitty dems trying to steal elections
 

Zangiefy360

Cross Forum Drama ..........Queen
Aug 30, 2018
1,934
4,353
530
No way do I want Los Angeles, San Francisco, and NYC decide who our next president is.

To show you how idiotic the popular vote is... you know what's the most popular Mexican restaurant in the country by popular vote? Taco Bell.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
The reason why you're state goes one way is because the other side treats it as flyover. That's got nothing to do with EC and more to do with laziness and/or entitled stuck up people thinking some states are beneath them.

In 2016, two-thirds of campaign events took place in just 6 states. 94% of events took place in 12 states:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016

The current method puts 38 states "beneath them"

Even worse, it puts 72% of the population "beneath them"

Sure. NYS being a flyover state seems strange to me. I get the mechanics behind it, it just makes it pointless for anyone in the state to bother voting for prez because even if it turned red the election would have been decided well beforehand.

You can understand why I think it is strange that it is pointless for those in the biggest states to vote, I am sure.

I assume NYS means the Yehat lover lives in New York State?
Yes, this is the problem the NPVIC seeks to address. If you are a conservative in NY, your vote is trashed. Nobody will campaign to claim it. It will be overshadowed by the majority of New York that votes blue, and all electoral votes will be awarded to them. The fact that 3 million of you voted Republican (greater than the population of 20 actual states!) will be completely ignored, never mind the fact that if your votes actually counted, campaigns would target you heavily (you know, because actual votes would be in play) and the demographics in your state would swing sharply right.

Republicans fear the popular vote, not because they can't win it, but because they purposefully abandoned it as part of their strategy over the past few decades. They allowed big urban hubs to fall completely blue, and doubled down on the "fly-overs" because the math worked out. Fewer people to convince for more electoral votes, and these were areas where they already had the advantage. By the same token, Democrats doubled down on the states with massive urban centers. The result is massive polarization state to state, with only a handful of "split" states contested in each election

The day Texas turns blue, you will see a massive shift of Republican states towards supporting the NPVIC (as well as this forum). Blue Texas will be a win by less than 1% for decades, but that less than 1% will give liberals a whole 38 EVs. Splitting the vote by population means Republicans would keep 19 of those "EVs", plus they'd grab a decent chunk of California and New York's "EVs". They'd also suddenly start campaigning in population centers (which will be much easier for them than liberals shifting to campaign throughout the vast rural sprawl). For this reason, the liberal push for NPVIC is actually kind of dumb (it's not going to hit the 270 vote threshold until we see some major blue shift, anyway). However, I still support it, because ultimately it's much more fair than weighting votes based on arbitrary state borders

I'm losing faith in our democracy. We're turning into the world idiocracy predicted. tryanny of the majority is getting closer with changes like this.

by what measure is tyranny of the minority better?
 
Last edited:

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
I assume NYS means the Yehat lover lives in New York State?
Who loves the Yehat? Their royalty just gave the Pkunk the treatment they deserved until the dishonorable revolution...
by what measure is tyranny of the minority better?
Tyranny of the minority is what this system seems to be giving us in practice. Let's be real here, any lobbyist's opinion matters exponentially more than an average person from any state.
 
Last edited:

weltalldx

Member
Feb 25, 2017
384
479
230
God, who cares about whoever wins the popular vote. This is just shitty dems trying to steal elections

The problem with the popular vote is that it can easily be manipulated. The founders knew the hedonistic majority would vote against the interest of the nation and perhaps even their own interest if given a compelling enough incentive/offer/lie. Promise to take wealth from the rich to give to the poor and you would likely get a popular vote consensus. Promise to ban gay marriage and you would get a popular vote consensus. Promise to cut social welfare and you would get a popular vote consensus. Obviously these examples would like to social chaos, and I'm sure you can think of examples where the popular vote would be disastrous to the nation. This was why our legislative body was created to be bicameral, for check and balances purposes. Letting the mob mentally win will lead the nation into ruins.
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
The problem with the popular vote is that it can easily be manipulated. The founders knew the hedonistic majority would vote against the interest of the nation and perhaps even their own interest if given a compelling enough incentive/offer/lie. Promise to take wealth from the rich to give to the poor and you would likely get a popular vote consensus. Promise to ban gay marriage and you would get a popular vote consensus. Promise to cut social welfare and you would get a popular vote consensus. Obviously these examples would like to social chaos, and I'm sure you can think of examples where the popular vote would be disastrous to the nation. This was why our legislative body was created to be bicameral, for check and balances purposes. Letting the mob mentally win will lead the nation into ruins.

Why? Elections are currently decided by a handful states, who are controlled by partisan governance. Why do you suspect it is easier to rig manipulate a nationwide popular vote than it is to rig manipulate votes in specific strategic areas, where a shift of 13,000 votes (0.01% of the electorate) can result in a 6% gain in electoral votes. One of these methods is objectively easier to manipulate rig.

The rich do not make up a majority of EVs, none the less a majority of the popular vote. How are EVs protecting the rich, beyond the fact that they need manipulate fewer people to protect their interests? And your other examples are
bizarre because they'll never have popular consensus anyway...
All you are doing is defending the opportunity for targeted minority areas to be manipulated, by pretending a majority will somehow make worse decisions. Manipulators will always find the easiest path to victory, a national popular vote makes that path less clear

the hedonistic majority

lol, this is too rich to digest before lunch
 
Last edited:

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960
In 2016, two-thirds of campaign events took place in just 6 states. 94% of events took place in 12 states:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016

The current method puts 38 states "beneath them"

Even worse, it puts 72% of the population "beneath them"

You're taking negative things out of NDC/RNC policits and blaming it on the Electoral college which is crack cocaine logic. That's not how this works.

There's many articles on this, if Hillary went to a few of the middle states like NASA, Wyoming, Montana, etc, she could have one just flipping those blue. It's the candidates and the party that writes things off. They actually start early enough since 2000 to actually go to many more states, instead they do nothing but raise money until the clock goes down and then goes after the swing and tilting states, and if there's an even match a couple more states can be involved.

That's a party issue not an electoral college issue, because the college allows you to flip those fly over states blue or red but no one bothers to do that. Electoral College is supposed to be a game of chess and appealing to the state you want to win by addressing issues, not a popularity contest, and that's where the problem is.

With this system there's no reason to campaign in more than 4-5 states because you're fighting for the population advantage and the other states are minuscule in comparison. Candidates also don't have to address local issues so local problems won't be resolved because the government of say, Colorado has already given their votes to the winner automatically so candidates don't have to do shit for Colorado.

You do what others do, you don't address the flaws in this platform, you just try to put the current system in a negative light without understanding how it works, putting flase blame on it, and doing it in a vacuum to make it seem like any other solution is better, except it isn't.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,597
9,403
940
A handful of states only seem to control the outcome of elections because too many states vote for parties over issues.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
12,320
22,352
1,885
This would be worth declaring martial law to overrule, imo.

The president was never meant to be completely democratically elected. Democracy in US government is supposed to be limited to Congress and partially the Senate, because people in one state were supposed to have minimal power over people in another state. We were never intended to be "one country", but a collection of strong independent state governments constrained by some central planning and limitations (which is why the Bill of Rights is supposed to apply at the state level).
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
You're taking negative things out of NDC/RNC policits and blaming it on the Electoral college which is crack cocaine logic. That's not how this works.

There's many articles on this, if Hillary went to a few of the middle states like NASA, Wyoming, Montana, etc, she could have one just flipping those blue. It's the candidates and the party that writes things off. They actually start early enough since 2000 to actually go to many more states, instead they do nothing but raise money until the clock goes down and then goes after the swing and tilting states, and if there's an even match a couple more states can be involved.

That's a party issue not an electoral college issue, because the college allows you to flip those fly over states blue or red but no one bothers to do that. Electoral College is supposed to be a game of chess and appealing to the state you want to win by addressing issues, not a popularity contest, and that's where the problem is.

With this system there's no reason to campaign in more than 4-5 states because you're fighting for the population advantage and the other states are minuscule in comparison. Candidates also don't have to address local issues so local problems won't be resolved because the government of say, Colorado has already given their votes to the winner automatically so candidates don't have to do shit for Colorado.

You do what others do, you don't address the flaws in this platform, you just try to put the current system in a negative light without understanding how it works, putting flase blame on it, and doing it in a vacuum to make it seem like any other solution is better, except it isn't.

Please define "crack cocaine logic", and while your at it, let me know how blaming a measure that began in 2007 on Hillary's 2016 loss relates...

And I understand the current system perfectly well, thank you.

The EC is absolutely responsible for the current designation of flyover states. As you mentioned, it has created a game of chess, the issue being that certain pieces have already been "captured". There's currently no point campaigning in a state you have no chance of "capturing" back. This changes if you count every vote in that state, because suddenly, marginal gains matter, whereas with the EC they were ignored if they didn't flip to a majority.

You are correct that parties can choose which states are currently "in play", and that Hillary chose poorly, but that doesn't change the fact that all campaigning is based around the EV value of targeted territories rather than the desire to win over the populace. I would much prefer the entire nation always be in play, so that all votes are equally worth courting, all perspectives are presented in all locations, marginal victories outside of the majority matter, and all opinions count. I'm not the only one

Campaigns are directed towards states not people in the current framework, and that is exactly the problem I'm illustrating. The number of "losing" votes ignored in California are higher than the population of 27 states. Why shouldn't those votes be fought for? Why should Ohio be considered infinitely more important? In a National vote system, the number of votes against democrats in Cali would be just as important as total number of votes in Ohio

By the same token that the EC allows you to 'flip' opposing states, a national popular vote allows you to 'flip' opposing votes. You aren't stating anything profound, here.
The reason you don't see effort put into 'flipping' most states in the current system is because doing so is high risk. There's no reward at all for attempting to flip a state and failing, even if you make a massive 25% gain in that sate. It's winner take all, so if you don't hit that majority threshold, all of your effort is lost. In a system where every vote is counted, incremental gains would be a major reward, each party would work towards (and be rewarded for) 'flipping' a populace over the course of multiple elections. Iterative gains would be valued, whereas currently they are 'wait and see' until an entire state finds itself within the swing zone. Parties would actively search for underrepresented issues in under-served areas because a 10% gain would be a 10% gain, regardless

And your response doesn't change the criticism I've lobbied towards two of you now (that has not been challenged) that it's much easier to game a system built around strategic minimal victories than it is to game the entire nation

You do what others do, you don't address the flaws in this platform, you just try to put the current system in a negative light without understanding how it works, putting flase blame on it, and doing it in a vacuum to make it seem like any other solution is better, except it isn't.

LOL, great, and tell me, what exactly are you doing???

re-read your OP, which is seeping with bias and villianizing support for an easily rationalized movement.

Where do I use the words 'travesty', 'stupid', accuse you of having 'lousy excuses', accuse you of 'crack cocaine logic' or accuse the Republicans of wanting a 'Banana Republic'? Where do I blame the actions of 10 years ago on a candidate I didn't like last election? Where do I spam a massive, unrelated image of a man screaming!? Heck, I even went out of my way to point out that pushing this measure will likely hurt the libs by the time it takes effect. It's going to be embarrassing watching them bitch about it in 2030, and watching some states try to pull out, more embarrassing than watching the conservatives suddenly support it, since the libs will be the ones backtracking on the moral high road.

Maybe if you consider my response lopsided, it's because I was responding in kind (and not 'in kind' enough, apparently)

But I'm perfectly willing to lay this all out rationally:
Campaigns can only afford to push messages to so many places, in so many ways.
We are discussing the merits/flaws of two systems:
1) votes are weighted based on State borders
2) each individual has a single, equally weighted vote.
If you go with option one, campaigns will focus on the specific states that provide the largest ROI
If you go with option two, campaigns will focus on the areas with the largest 'winnable' population
Either option creates 'flyovers', and many states remain 'flyovers' no matter which option is chosen... (what about them???)
Neither of these options are "fair"
Option one allows a minority of people to control the majority by virtue of happening to exist within borders that were drawn for arbitrary reasons
Option two enables areas of large population to overrule the desires of areas of small population
I prefer option 2, simply because it self corrects, provides the best result for the most people, puts governance in the hands of those who need governance, is more easily understood, and is less arbitrary
 
Last edited:

I_D

Member
Dec 22, 2007
4,457
751
1,390
the reason the electoral system was in place was to give other states a voice instead of people campaigning in 5 states,

When it was created, the electoral college was 100% necessary. In today's world, I would agree it's still necessary; but I just don't know for how long.

In theory, with proper access to technology, a pure popular vote would be the way to go, wouldn't it?
I don't have enough confidence in our current software and hardware to completely rely on it just yet. But, if we're talking pure ethical dilemmas here...
If every single vote is 100% accounted for, and access to the voting machines is easy enough, and the entire country has access to reliable and convenient internet to watch campaigns, I don't see the issue with the popular vote ruling over the electoral vote.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
When it was created, the electoral college was 100% necessary. In today's world, I would agree it's still necessary; but I just don't know for how long.

In theory, with proper access to technology, a pure popular vote would be the way to go, wouldn't it?
I don't have enough confidence in our current software and hardware to completely rely on it just yet. But, if we're talking pure ethical dilemmas here...
If every single vote is 100% accounted for, and access to the voting machines is easy enough, and the entire country has access to reliable and convenient internet to watch campaigns, I don't see the issue with the popular vote ruling over the electoral vote.
I don't trust black box voting machines at all, and I've read multiple research papers on how the voting totals are significantly off (basically, law of large numbers states that as the number of data points increase, the closer to a specific average they will reach, but in certain voting districts - and only certain voting districts - the numbers get higher the more people there are, and the greater the discrepancy there is with exit polls).

So, personally, I think breaking the voting up into blocs makes it harder for people to cheat (which they are absolutely doing already, especially in Florida), since their gains are more isolated and limited in damage. Instead of just cheating in California, they now have to cheat in a bunch of states, and in a bunch of individual counties too. A popular vote means that if they can just increase the votes in one district in California, they can basically erase the effect of multiple other districts in other states.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
A handful of states only seem to control the outcome of elections because too many states vote for parties over issues.

And one could argue this is a direct result of the EC

All votes in a single state are rewarded to a single party. Therefore, a vote only counts if it goes towards a party that has a chance of winning. Voting on 'issues' will result in a dead vote, unless those issues are supported by the party which wins that state.

If all votes were counted, you could vote for issues that run counter to your state's preference, and your vote could still have a national effect

This would be worth declaring martial law to overrule, imo.

The president was never meant to be completely democratically elected. Democracy in US government is supposed to be limited to Congress and partially the Senate, because people in one state were supposed to have minimal power over people in another state. We were never intended to be "one country", but a collection of strong independent state governments constrained by some central planning and limitations (which is why the Bill of Rights is supposed to apply at the state level).

this measure does not change how the president is elected. The president is still elected by the EC, precisely as was dictated by the founders. The populace of each state gets to decide how EC votes from that state are cast. Other states will not be dictating how votes from these states are cast, the states themselves have chosen to support the populace this way

remember, the current winner-takes-all system was not setup in the constitution. It was adopted state by state as each state tried to get a competitive advantage for their preferential candidates.

Thankfully our Constitution (Article 2 + 12th amendment) protects us from this kind of political meddling.

If it goes anywhere, it'll get challenged (and will lose) in court.

how so?
 
Last edited:

I_D

Member
Dec 22, 2007
4,457
751
1,390
I don't trust black box voting machines at all, and I've read multiple research papers on how the voting totals are significantly off (basically, law of large numbers states that as the number of data points increase, the closer to a specific average they will reach, but in certain voting districts - and only certain voting districts - the numbers get higher the more people there are, and the greater the discrepancy there is with exit polls).

So, personally, I think breaking the voting up into blocs makes it harder for people to cheat (which they are absolutely doing already, especially in Florida), since their gains are more isolated and limited in damage. Instead of just cheating in California, they now have to cheat in a bunch of states, and in a bunch of individual counties too. A popular vote means that if they can just increase the votes in one district in California, they can basically erase the effect of multiple other districts in other states.

But if there was no such thing as a district, and it was just an ID-based, or SSN-based, or whatever-based voting system, and there was no way to fake votes because the technology was sound, would that be doable?

I absolutely agree the tech isn't there yet. I'm talking about legality, and morality. Is a popular vote inherently worse than an electoral vote, other variables aside?

I kinda feel like a pure vote would be the way to go. That could possibly eliminate political parties entirely.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
I absolutely agree the tech isn't there yet. I'm talking about legality, and morality. Is a popular vote inherently worse than an electoral vote, other variables aside?
Personally, I think the votes should be geographically separated. A city with 2 million people is all going to vote similarly because they face the same issues every day, and I don't think it is fair for one city with a very limited world view is going to knock out all the votes from a hundred (or even a thousand) other cities that have different issues that are important to them.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
So, personally, I think breaking the voting up into blocs makes it harder for people to cheat (which they are absolutely doing already, especially in Florida), since their gains are more isolated and limited in damage. Instead of just cheating in California, they now have to cheat in a bunch of states, and in a bunch of individual counties too. A popular vote means that if they can just increase the votes in one district in California, they can basically erase the effect of multiple other districts in other states.

Why? Elections are currently decided by a handful states, who are controlled by partisan governance. Why do you suspect it is easier to rig manipulate cheat a nationwide popular vote than it is to rig manipulate cheat votes in specific strategic areas, where a shift of 13,000 votes (0.01% of the electorate) can result in a 6% gain in electoral votes. One of these methods is objectively easier to manipulate rig cheat.

Also, congrats for implying California is cheating, without acknowledging that the only prosecuted major election fraud in the past few years was perpetrated by Republicans in North Carolina, you know, one of those 12 important swing states where a focused rig manipulation cheat has a high ROI.

So. The Russia angle didn't pan out, did it?

This particular measure began in 2006. Was the Russian angle popular in 2006?

But if there was no such thing as a district, and it was just an ID-based, or SSN-based, or whatever-based voting system, and there was no way to fake votes because the technology was sound, would that be doable?

I absolutely agree the tech isn't there yet. I'm talking about legality, and morality. Is a popular vote inherently worse than an electoral vote, other variables aside?

I kinda feel like a pure vote would be the way to go. That could possibly eliminate political parties entirely.

yes, it would be doable, but there's definitely a lot of research still required. Starting on it now might mean a useful implementation in 10 years

There's at least one 2020 candidate pushing for this research: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/modernize-voting/

and I totally agree with your assessment concerning a pure vote being the way to go, and how it could break down political parties
 
Last edited:

I_D

Member
Dec 22, 2007
4,457
751
1,390
Personally, I think the votes should be geographically separated. A city with 2 million people is all going to vote similarly because they face the same issues every day, and I don't think it is fair for one city with a very limited world view is going to knock out all the votes from a hundred (or even a thousand) other cities that have different issues that are important to them.

While I agree that's an excellent point, I would also ask how you would compare that to rural towns which live in relative-isolation from the general population.

I feel like this will basically get down to "Should the majority-vote of a country win?" I'm not sure of my answer just yet, so I invite conversation.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,571
1,178
365
Even Trump himself has spoken against the electoral college in the past,

It should be reformed or abolished at some point. The question is how, but it wouldn't be a bad thing.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
8,387
7,538
1,710
This is actually unlawful and will be struck down in the supreme court. State law never supersedes federal law.

To overturn portions of the constitution you absolutely have to have a constitutional referendum so this is absolutely a non story. States cant band together to overturn the constitution, or federal law.

Utter nothingburger.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,750
19,834
705
Please define "crack cocaine logic", and while your at it, let me know how blaming a measure that began in 2007 on Hillary's 2016 loss relates...

And I understand the current system perfectly well, thank you.

The EC is absolutely responsible for the current designation of flyover states. As you mentioned, it has created a game of chess, the issue being that certain pieces have already been "captured". There's currently no point campaigning in a state you have no chance of "capturing" back. This changes if you count every vote in that state, because suddenly, marginal gains matter, whereas with the EC they were ignored if they didn't flip to a majority.

You are correct that parties can choose which states are currently "in play", and that Hillary chose poorly, but that doesn't change the fact that all campaigning is based around the EV value of targeted territories rather than the desire to win over the populace. I would much prefer the entire nation always be in play, so that all votes are equally worth courting, all perspectives are presented in all locations, marginal victories outside of the majority matter, and all opinions count. I'm not the only one

Campaigns are directed towards states not people in the current framework, and that is exactly the problem I'm illustrating. The number of "losing" votes ignored in California are higher than the population of 27 states. Why shouldn't those votes be fought for? Why should Ohio be considered infinitely more important? In a National vote system, the number of votes against democrats in Cali would be just as important as total number of votes in Ohio

By the same token that the EC allows you to 'flip' opposing states, a national popular vote allows you to 'flip' opposing votes. You aren't stating anything profound, here.
The reason you don't see effort put into 'flipping' most states in the current system is because doing so is high risk. There's no reward at all for attempting to flip a state and failing, even if you make a massive 25% gain in that sate. It's winner take all, so if you don't hit that majority threshold, all of your effort is lost. In a system where every vote is counted, incremental gains would be a major reward, each party would work towards (and be rewarded for) 'flipping' a populace over the course of multiple elections. Iterative gains would be valued, whereas currently they are 'wait and see' until an entire state finds itself within the swing zone. Parties would actively search for underrepresented issues in under-served areas because a 10% gain would be a 10% gain, regardless

And your response doesn't change the criticism I've lobbied towards two of you now (that has not been challenged) that it's much easier to game a system built around strategic minimal victories than it is to game the entire nation



LOL, great, and tell me, what exactly are you doing???

re-read your OP, which is seeping with bias and villianizing support for an easily rationalized movement.

Where do I use the words 'travesty', 'stupid', accuse you of having 'lousy excuses', accuse you of 'crack cocaine logic' or accuse the Republicans of wanting a 'Banana Republic'? Where do I blame the actions of 10 years ago on a candidate I didn't like last election? Where do I spam a massive, unrelated image of a man screaming!? Heck, I even went out of my way to point out that pushing this measure will likely hurt the libs by the time it takes effect. It's going to be embarrassing watching them bitch about it in 2030, and watching some states try to pull out, more embarrassing than watching the conservatives suddenly support it, since the libs will be the ones backtracking on the moral high road.

Maybe if you consider my response lopsided, it's because I was responding in kind (and not 'in kind' enough, apparently)

But I'm perfectly willing to lay this all out rationally:
Campaigns can only afford to push messages to so many places, in so many ways.
We are discussing the merits/flaws of two systems:
1) votes are weighted based on State borders
2) each individual has a single, equally weighted vote.
If you go with option one, campaigns will focus on the specific states that provide the largest ROI
If you go with option two, campaigns will focus on the areas with the largest 'winnable' population
Either option creates 'flyovers', and many states remain 'flyovers' no matter which option is chosen... (what about them???)
Neither of these options are "fair"
Option one allows a minority of people to control the majority by virtue of happening to exist within borders that were drawn for arbitrary reasons
Option two enables areas of large population to overrule the desires of areas of small population
I prefer option 2, simply because it self corrects, provides the best result for the most people, puts governance in the hands of those who need governance, is more easily understood, and is less arbitrary
This is a bullshit argument because you're solution only puts certain cities, in certain states in play.

Seriously, who the hell are you trying to fool? This is not being done for flyover states or conservatives in New York? Fuck outta here. This is being done to give more power to urban centers that heavily lean blue.
 

Derekloffin

Member
Jun 17, 2013
610
263
555
This is actually unlawful and will be struck down in the supreme court. State law never supersedes federal law.

To overturn portions of the constitution you absolutely have to have a constitutional referendum so this is absolutely a non story. States cant band together to overturn the constitution, or federal law.

Utter nothingburger.

I actually think this would stand as presented, save I don't think they'll get the support they need for it to actually work.

What they are doing isn't bypassing the constitution, but exploiting it. States are allowed to delegate their electoral college voters however they please. In fact, you already have a few states doing a proportional delegation rather than all or nothing. Technically they don't have to follow the local popular vote at all. All this proposition does is say that the states agree to use the national popular vote as an override to how they will assign their delegates.

As many have no doubt said though, this just hands the presidency to the party that is popular in major urban centers, and for that reason is unlikely do get the necessary support as many states aren't represented well by such.
 

take_it_easy

Member
Jan 31, 2018
181
190
290
by what measure is tyranny of the minority better?

Tyranny of minority is avoided with the house of reps and the system of checks and balances. It's much easier to stall our government than to make changes. In this way the power is limited. Shifting this in favor of majority rule is worse. Additionally it's not minority rule, its decentralized rule.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
This is a bullshit argument because you're solution only puts certain cities, in certain states in play.

Seriously, who the hell are you trying to fool? This is not being done for flyover states or conservatives in New York? Fuck outta here. This is being done to give more power to urban centers that heavily lean blue.

wow, I really hit a nerve here, didn't I?

I don't see you refuting anything I've suggested, just a lot of swearing. Why not actually engage?

I laid out both options rationally in that quote, where specifically do you disagree with my assessment?

My solution does not only put certain cities in certain states in play any moreso than the existing system only puts certain states in play. Prove otherwise
Flyover states exist when either method is used, with significant overlap. How is this incorrect?
Conservatives in New York would have more effect on national politics if National Popular Vote determined the president. This seems obvious
The existing system gives more power to rural states which heavily lean red. By what measure is this fair?
The existing system allows a minority of people to control the majority by virtue of happening to exist within borders that were drawn for arbitrary reasons. How is this superior?

I agree that NPVIC would give more power to populous urban centers, I stated as much in the post you quoted:
Option one allows a minority of people to control the majority by virtue of happening to exist within borders that were drawn for arbitrary reasons
Option two enables areas of large population to overrule the desires of areas of small population
I did not try to fool you here. If you were fooled anyway, that's on you ;)

Who is the OP trying to fool?

to borrow a phrase: "Fuck outta here."

Spare me the adolescent sophistry. We all know why it was popular in 2006, too.

agreed, and we all know it had nothing to do with Russia
If you're not a fan of sophistry, why is it the only dish you brought to the party?
85% of those supporting the NPVIC were signed up before "Russian meddling" was a thing, the other 15% were already working towards support
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
While I agree that's an excellent point, I would also ask how you would compare that to rural towns which live in relative-isolation from the general population.
San Francisco’s greater metropolitan area has about 8.8 million people. The entire state of New Hampshire has 1.3 million. Montana has 1.1 million. Utah has 3.3 million. One city in California has greater voting power than several other states COMBINED. And LA has 18 million people. Between those two cities, you’ve basically cancelled out the majority of the US.
 
Last edited:

wzy

Member
Dec 29, 2018
541
599
385
agreed, and we all know it had nothing to do with Russia
If you're not a fan of sophistry, why is it the only dish you brought to the party?
85% of those supporting the NPVIC were signed up before "Russian meddling" was a thing, the other 15% were already working towards support

Stop being thick. The wrong president won was the problem then, and its the problem now.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
8,387
7,538
1,710
I actually think this would stand as presented, save I don't think they'll get the support they need for it to actually work.

What they are doing isn't bypassing the constitution, but exploiting it. States are allowed to delegate their electoral college voters however they please. In fact, you already have a few states doing a proportional delegation rather than all or nothing. Technically they don't have to follow the local popular vote at all. All this proposition does is say that the states agree to use the national popular vote as an override to how they will assign their delegates.

As many have no doubt said though, this just hands the presidency to the party that is popular in major urban centers, and for that reason is unlikely do get the necessary support as many states aren't represented well by such.
I honestly dont believe that it would and would absolutely end up in the supreme court.

It would be a very fine line in a bypass and I would not understand how to could pass muster when it's a national election, and the rules are very simply put when relying to change a portion of the constitution.



"Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States."


https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html


There is no way this would pass muster. This system is part of the original constitution.

3/4 of the states after a bill passed thru congress(good luck with that)have to vote in lock step which would never happen.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
Stop being thick. The wrong president won was the problem then, and its the problem now.
You seem really determined to fight this straw man. It's kinda crazy to watch somebody insult his opponent for not having the argument he expected of him.
Good show.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
Tyranny of minority is avoided with the house of reps and the system of checks and balances. It's much easier to stall our government than to make changes. In this way the power is limited. Shifting this in favor of majority rule is worse. Additionally it's not minority rule, its decentralized rule.

The House of Representatives cap means that smaller states have a disproportionate amount of power greater than what was originally granted them (on top of the disproportionate amount of power they were legitimately granted via the Senate). At the very least, the 'Wyoming Rule' could be adopted to make the balance of power match what was originally intended. As it stands, states that attract more people are actually punished, which seems counter intuitive, from a governance perspective. Why would you want areas people are abandoning setting the rules for those they are flocking to?

And I can just as easily ask "Why should we accept the tyranny of 'decentralized rule'?"
How is majority rule objectively worse? Yes, it is measurably worse for some, but it is measurably better for others (and proportionally more so). Who arbitrates the overall worth of each system?

And bare in mind, I am not against decentralized rule.
My issues with the current system is that the decentralization is arbitrary by today's standards.
State borders are arbitrary and heavily favor the areas that were settled as the country was founded. As it stands, power is slanted towards those with history (the East), which really doesn't benefit a forward looking nation. The USA has massive economic and cultural engines on the West Coast (and in Texas) that suffer minimal influence simply because they were late to the party.

Decentralization could mean anything. Granting 20 electoral votes to each NBA team would be 'decentralization'. Is what we have what's best for the nation?

The distinction between North and South Dakota at a national power scale may have mattered when the territory split, but why does it matter now? Why do we have two Dakotas with a total population of 1.4 million, yet only one California at 40 million, one Texas at 30 million. In all respects (population, land mass, GDP, cultural imprint) both Dakota's are dwarfed by California and Texas.
Rhode Island is smaller than most major cities, via both population and land mass. Why does it get four votes, but not Dallas, or LA, or Chicago?
It's painfully obvious that what we've ended up with isn't right. It's a system that doesn't self correct, and therefore it is a system that can be played
I'd say that no matter which side NPVIC benefits (and note above, I legit believe the NPVIC will favor conservatives by the time it's implemented)

If States were evenly sized blocks of land, I would be more willing to agree with you that what we have accurately represents 'decentralization' of power. But given the haphazard nature by which power has been decentralized, I'm not sure I agree that it's better than majority rule. Surely there are better ways to decentralize

Stop being thick. The wrong president won was the problem then, and its the problem now.

I'm not being thick
I was the first post in this thread to acknowledge exactly what you're finally correcting to:
If anything, one could credit Bush vs. Gore for getting this specific movement rolling, but the underpinnings have existed for much longer

This is the sophistry I replied to:
So. The Russia angle didn't pan out, did it?
This measure has nothing to do with Russia, and little to do with the recent election, so I criticized your post in kind

I have no complaints tying this to Bush vs. Gore.
Your new post describes precisely what the NPVIC is attempting to correct, the "wrong" president winning
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
There's only so far you can push farmers before those 50lbs bags of salt start looking more and more attractive.

If the EC was designed to protect farmers, it's failing. Compare food output to voting power.

If the purpose of the EC were to protect farmers, California, Texas and Illinois are being short changed. And Wyoming, Alaska, and Rhode Island wouldn't enjoy such power. Also, we would adjust EVs as agricultural trends change, not as populations change.

Perhaps a system that decentralizes based on production of certain good would be valuable? I'm not sure that's the right solution either, as food production will continue to be automated, and will consolidate in the big industry states.