• 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)

Torrent of Pork

Gold Member
Aug 29, 2018
4,275
9,044
600
36
Bartow, Florida, USA
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.

My point was that when the country is governed by those ellected solely from major urban centers who despise rural America, they will treat those rural Americans like shit. Major cities will starve in a manner of days without rural America to feed them, and disenfranchising people with access and knowledge of both chemistry and military grade small arms is a bad idea when you rely on them to feed you.
 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,562
36,242
885
39
we need to fix out electoral system as it is before even starting with EC. if you want to make things more democratic, allow more than 2 parties to run, allow for ranked voting, focus on fixing gerrymandered districts, etc. all of these are common sense solutions that would need to be implemented anyways, before you even start considering a hail mary pass that will never in a million years happen. if you allow a popular vote, yet you can only choose from two parties, and private voting machines remain easily hackable, things will remain shit.

this idea that the internet magically solves everything is silly as well. the internet is mostly the realm of the wealthy & the bourgeois. people that live in cities with great infrastructure that attract tech giants. i guess we are just going to hand them the keys to our electoral system? lol what a great idea.
 
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,562
36,242
885
39
My point was that when the country is governed by those ellected solely from major urban centers who despise rural America, they will treat those rural Americans like shit. Major cities will starve in a manner of days without rural America to feed them, and disenfranchising people with access and knowledge of both chemistry and military grade small arms is a bad idea when you rely on them to feed you.

forget farms, most of the military volunteers come from rural areas. these are the people fighting and dying for the country. the very people the media despises. they may not have the privilege to sit and write a lifestyle blog for a living. their economies are trashed -- largely due to the pillage of these wealth centers. they are stuck in these small towns and military service is often the only way out. if you remove their agency, if you lessen their voice, it would be a huge shame.
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
My point was that when the country is governed by those ellected solely from major urban centers who despise rural America, they will treat those rural Americans like shit. Major cities will starve in a manner of days without rural America to feed them, and disenfranchising people with access and knowledge of both chemistry and military grade small arms is a bad idea when you rely on them to feed you.

and my point is that rural america's feelings being hurt shouldn't be what grants them inflated voting power. Nor should their threats
This argument is a non-starter. At this point you are using empty threats as an excuse to keep a favorable power imbalance in place. Go you

You are not the only right winger I see fetishizing civil war. Such a war would benefit nobody in this country, despite what your propagandists assure you (it sure would benefit our international rivals, though, I wonder if that's why they push for it??)

Yeah, rural america has guns, great. Good luck mounting a coordinate assault on dense cities, where all of your money, medicine, and technology comes from. Even if you somehow win, take down your economic and knowledge centers and you've cut off your nose to spite your face. Good luck keeping immigrants out when there's no more economy or development to foster a government and military. Good luck treating that cancer. Good luck playing a sequel to your favorite video game (this is a Gaming forum after all, I'm surprised you're openly suggesting attacking us...)
Never mind that the US military has technology that makes your little gun collections all but useless, and they are most likely to side with the law
Never mind the faltering rural population (numbers matter): https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-wave...fting-regional-patterns-of-population-change/
Never mind that cities are only becoming increasingly more self sufficient as technology improves (we will be manufacturing meat before NPVIC reaches 270 votes, and rural communities will be even sparser)

Anyway, what you are describing does not happen in California, Illinois, and Minnesota. Somehow, the farmers there manage to continue producing food at rates that place them in the top six, despite the fact that their states are blue. Somehow, the urban centers in these states don't treat the farmers like shit. Somehow, nobodies starving.
Also, consider that many farming states actually gain more power with the NPVIC (including red ones). Just in the top 10, Texas, Indiana, and North Carolina benefit. Why wouldn't they want equal voting power? Also worth noting, your own voting power in FL would increase, significantly. So maybe you can answer that question...
Once again, this has little to do with farming. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of weighted votes are the North East, others are massive voids like Wyoming, Montana and Alaska.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those farmers actually vote blue (just as some folks in the city vote red), go figure! Maybe that's why we should count everybody's votes. So we can encourage minority opinions in majority areas, and break partisanship. I do like, however, that you frame being treated equally as being treated 'like shit' and automatically assume that urban voters would somehow tank rural interests. Every progressive policy I support has these economically ailing rural communities in mind

we need to fix out electoral system as it is before even starting with EC. if you want to make things more democratic, allow more than 2 parties to run, allow for ranked voting, focus on fixing gerrymandered districts, etc. all of these are common sense solutions that would need to be implemented anyways, before you even start considering a hail mary pass that will never in a million years happen. if you allow a popular vote, yet you can only choose from two parties, and private voting machines remain easily hackable, things will remain shit.

this idea that the internet magically solves everything is silly as well. the internet is mostly the realm of the wealthy & the bourgeois. people that live in cities with great infrastructure that attract tech giants. i guess we are just going to hand them the keys to our electoral system? lol what a great idea.

I am 100% in favor of ranked voting, and would also prioritize it over removing the EC
The issue here is that chances of circumventing the EC via NPVIC are infinitely higher than the chances of getting national ranked vote for the president. The NPVIC only requires that half of states commit.

Concerning internet voting, the keys to electoral systems are already in the hands of God knows who via voting machines (as you point out above). My advocacy for internet voting is only under the condition that it is implemented properly. I know it's currently en vogue to trash blockchain voting, I don't believe that means a future system won't work (I certainly don't think what we have today should be used). There are far too many benefits to developing a fully audited system that can be used from any device, it's something we should actively strive for

forget farms, most of the military volunteers come from rural areas. these are the people fighting and dying for the country. the very people the media despises. they may not have the privilege to sit and write a lifestyle blog for a living. their economies are trashed -- largely due to the pillage of these wealth centers. they are stuck in these small towns and military service is often the only way out. if you remove their agency, if you lessen their voice, it would be a huge shame.

And yet, if you are truly implying these are the people whose voting power would be reduced by a fair vote, you are suggesting that they are the ones who have enabled their economies to be trashed... That they are the ones who keep themselves in their current state
Why, again, do they support tax policies which dis-proportionally help the media that "despises" them, the massive corporations that will never bring jobs to their towns, etc?
And why is making their voice equal a huge shame, even if in some cases equality means losing something?
 
Last edited:

I_D

Member
Dec 22, 2007
4,457
751
1,390
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.

But is that true with a popular vote?
I get that they live in essentially the same area. But does that mean they're similar enough in their beliefs to essentially cancel-out any other populations?
Wouldn't a popular vote, which is based solely on a per-person selection, cancel out any type of electoral/district/state advantage?

I've questioned this for years. How is a representative inherently better than my actual vote?
 

Torrent of Pork

Gold Member
Aug 29, 2018
4,275
9,044
600
36
Bartow, Florida, USA
and my point is that rural america's feelings being hurt shouldn't be what grants them inflated voting power. Nor should their threats
This argument is a non-starter. At this point you are using empty threats as an excuse to keep a favorable power imbalance in place. Go you

You are not the only right winger I see fetishizing civil war. Such a war would benefit nobody in this country, despite what your propagandists assure you (it sure would benefit our international rivals, though, I wonder if that's why they push for it??)

Yeah, rural america has guns, great. Good luck mounting a coordinate assault on dense cities, where all of your money, medicine, and technology comes from. Even if you somehow win, take down your economic and knowledge centers and you've cut off your nose to spite your face. Good luck keeping immigrants out when there's no more economy or development to foster a government and military. Good luck treating that cancer. Good luck playing a sequel to your favorite video game (this is a Gaming forum after all, I'm surprised you're openly suggesting attacking us...)
Never mind that the US military has technology that makes your little gun collections all but useless, and they are most likely to side with the law
Never mind the faltering rural population (numbers matter): https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-wave...fting-regional-patterns-of-population-change/
Never mind that cities are only becoming increasingly more self sufficient as technology improves (we will be manufacturing meat before NPVIC reaches 270 votes, and rural communities will be even sparser)

Anyway, what you are describing does not happen in California, Illinois, and Minnesota. Somehow, the farmers there manage to continue producing food at rates that place them in the top six, despite the fact that their states are blue. Somehow, the urban centers in these states don't treat the farmers like shit. Somehow, nobodies starving.
Also, consider that many farming states actually gain more power with the NPVIC (including red ones). Just in the top 10, Texas, Indiana, and North Carolina benefit. Why wouldn't they want equal voting power? Also worth noting, your own voting power in FL would increase, significantly. So maybe you can answer that question...
Once again, this has little to do with farming. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of weighted votes are the North East, others are massive voids like Wyoming, Montana and Alaska.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those farmers actually vote blue (just as some folks in the city vote red), go figure! Maybe that's why we should count everybody's votes. So we can encourage minority opinions in majority areas, and break partisanship. I do like, however, that you frame being treated equally as being treated 'like shit' and automatically assume that urban voters would somehow tank rural interests. Every progressive policy I support has these economically ailing rural communities in mind



I am 100% in favor of ranked voting, and would also prioritize it over removing the EC
The issue here is that chances of circumventing the EC via NPVIC are infinitely higher than the chances of getting national ranked vote for the president. The NPVIC only requires that half of states commit.

Concerning internet voting, the keys to electoral systems are already in the hands of God knows who via voting machines (as you point out above). My advocacy for internet voting is only under the condition that it is implemented properly. I know it's currently en vogue to trash blockchain voting, I don't believe that means a future system won't work (I certainly don't think what we have today should be used). There are far too many benefits to developing a fully audited system that can be used from any device, it's something we should actively strive for



And yet, if you are truly implying these are the people whose voting power would be reduced by a fair vote, you are suggesting that they are the ones who have enabled their economies to be trashed... That they are the ones who keep themselves in their current state
Why, again, do they support tax policies which dis-proportionally help the media that "despises" them, the massive corporations that will never bring jobs to their towns, etc?
And why is making their voice equal a huge shame, even if in some cases equality means losing something?

You claim that I'm fetishising a civil war, and that my pointing out an individual's ability for destruction with basic chemistry knowledge and access to industrial fertilizer is a "threat". Trust me, I think every single scenario I'm describing will turn out to be an absolute shit-show, and I hope it never comes to pass. You claim to have rural American's interests at heart, yet you support removing the only political influence they have in a nation who's legislature has cowardly ceeded more and more power to the Executive Branch year after year. Funny you talk about automated, industrial agriculture, do you really think real people are just going to meekly accept being forced to go on the dole by an all-powerful executive they had virtually no say in electing? The only peaceful solution to our upcoming automation crisis will be the entire country coming together to solve it, not a bunch of pampered city-folks who think the USA starts and ends with NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, and Boston.

As to your point about Florida's increased electoral votes under your scheme, I don't want that to happen. Not only do I already get bombarded with unavoidable political advertisements every two years already, I don't want to take away what little political power my fellow countrymen in the middle of our nation has.

I'm trying to force this country to solve its impending problems as a unified nation, not turn us into a tyranny of the concentrated majority.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
While I too fear the tyranny of the majority you should remember that you are arguing for a republic which kinda mostly has the exact same issue.

If you wanted like, a dictatorship or something then complaining about majority rule makes sense. Otherwise it's just a matter of degrees.
 

Sejan

Member
Sep 28, 2018
789
959
490
This idea simply replaces one problem (elections are decided by a very few states) with another problem (elections are decided by only a few cities. On top of this, it becomes a huge advantage to Democrats—it is significantly easier to get out the vote in these few cities. While the rural votes technically count, they are significantly more expensive and time consuming to round up. It is clearly and nakedly politically advantageous for democrats.

I do believe that it will be challenged in court. I also believe that it may not be constitutional. While it may technically not break the letter of the law, it very clearly goes against the intentions of the law.

Imagine the young boy caught with a stolen candy bar. He tells his parents, “I didn’t steal this candy bar. I just told my baby sister how great it would be if we had some candy.”
 

wzy

Member
Dec 29, 2018
541
599
385
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

Russia and the standard post-election EC griping are both cynical ploys to oppose Trump without having to change anything about their politics, so that they don't have to admit the politics are the problem. We can't even argue about the electoral college on the merits of the question, because it isn't being pursued disinterestedly. Like I refuse, utterly refuse, to believe the people who have spent the past two years bitching about populism give even the tiniest whiff of a shit about whether the electoral college is fair.
 
Jan 25, 2018
5,459
7,319
700
31
Southeastern USA
The Dems want a Civil War?

The fact that they're reacting this way to Trump instead of just sucking it the fuck up and accepting the fact that he's our President says it all, illegal immigrants mean that damn much to them? Why?

We're going to replace a system that depends on a handful of swing states with a system that depends on a handful of blue states.

That's exactly why they want this.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,715
19,743
675
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?

Because this argument is fucking dumb, and quite frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing people whine whenever they lose an election. The Electoral college exists for the same reason we have a senate and a house. Our country isn't ran by popular vote anywhere. That literally runs counter to the spirit of a lot of the constitution, which goes out of it's way to dilute and decentralize power

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.

Is this a joke? States are not in or out of play because of the EC. That is determined by the districting and voting habits of the state. You can actually compete and turn a state over time.

California used to be a ruby red state, now it's solid blue. Did all the republicans die? Did they evaporate into a fucking mist?.....or did the democrat rally around failed republican leaders and capture house seats. Swing states change over time, depending on the politics of the state. Even the most ruby red or deep blue state can see different parties coming into power every once in a while. Hell Virginia could potentially be a purple state right now, and the democrats had just entered 2019 and 2020 thinking they had sewed up.

Now how often do cities change PkunkFury? Looking at political parties pretty much fucking never. When was the last time San Francisco went red? Or Los Angeles, Detroit, Miami, Seattle, Chicago, must I go on. You are more likely to see reformers and infighting in party than to see a minority party win in votes. We are literally seeing this right now in New York. To bring that rigidity to the national level and somehow assert this will lead to a more robust and fluid voting system is madness.

Flyover states exist when either method is used, with significant overlap. How is this incorrect?
You're solution will not increase campaigning in flyover states. It will do the exact opposite. Why would I want to waste my time and money campaigning for areas with a smaller multiplier? It's common sense
Conservatives in New York would have more effect on national politics if National Popular Vote determined the president. This seems obvious
No they wouldn't. They are dwarfed in the state.
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?
Because a candidate has to design a strategy that forces them to deal with the different parts of the country. Every voice is heard at the table, even if their voice is small. Even little rhode island matters PkunkFury?

The funny thing is we have a model to look at. 2016 is a decent example of what the two different approaches mean. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, despite ignoring certain states. Now Donald trump also ignored certain states he knew he would have trouble carrying, but doubled down on the states that gave him a path, which ironically led to him traveling around to more of the country, despite speaking to less people.

So just to be clear, under your preferred model PkunkFury, the candidate who campaigned less, the candidate who spent more time rallying her base than appealing to those outside of it, the candidate who spent more time fundraising amongst her base, the candidate who spent more time in new york and california, not exactly flyover country, that is the candidate who would have won under your preferred model, a model you propose is more fair to those who are currently ignored?


I agree that NPVIC would give more power to populous urban centers, I stated as much in the post you quoted:
So you do see why this a stupid idea. Good moving on...

Oh no we might have a democracy.

We have a constitutional republic. Go back to high school please
 

DaForest

Banned
Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
My point was that when the country is governed by those ellected solely from major urban centers who despise rural America, they will treat those rural Americans like shit. Major cities will starve in a manner of days without rural America to feed them, and disenfranchising people with access and knowledge of both chemistry and military grade small arms is a bad idea when you rely on them to feed you.

Instead of what paranoia leads you to suspect, maybe the urban rulers of the rural areas will implement policy that addresses the plummeting quality of life in their regions. Most of the politicians in the urban areas believe in medicare for all, free college tuition, lower taxes for the working class, investment in green technology, greater attention to the infrastructural disrepair our nation is suffering from, and other areas of concern that they would benefit from. The politicians from their regions, both state and Federal, do nothing but serve the interests of corporate interests who have left us teetering over the edge. Do you believe the country would be in worse shape had Hillary - who the majority of Americans wanted to be President - won in 2016?

BTW, I hated Hillary as a candidate. But there's no denying that Trump has been a disaster and her victory would not see us plagued by the madness that Trump has pushed since entering office.
 
Last edited:

gohepcat

Banned
Jul 12, 2004
3,134
282
1,525
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.

Yes all those entitled people who think everyone’s vote should count the same.
 

Dada55000

Member
Oct 24, 2018
467
584
295
Oh no we might have a democracy.
Oh look one of those people that doesn't know a democracy is. Hi. 'Murica is the premier democracy of the world. Don't let the word "republic" confuse you, democracy refers to a different thing in that context, since it's arguing semantics about the naming conventions of the implemented democracy. Do they not teach you this in grade school?

Yes all those entitled people who think everyone’s vote should count the same.
And here's a 4yo's idea of democracy. Headcount voting is prone to functionally fuck itself if there is a high concentration of voters in small areas. 60% of the US lives in 5% of the landmass, that being cities. Edge case where the system fails is present. You'd need a huge correction prior to going with equal voting power, otherwise the system collapses in on itself. Short of deporting people from cities and spreading them out across other locations, taking away more voting power from cities(dense states rather) would be the correction necessary in this case, to balance out the lopsidedness. The EC's effect on voting power is a normalisation effect between the value of votes per state on the extreme ends, but the normalisation is not nearly strong enough for todays population disparity.

Blow your mind dodn't it?
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
Why
If the EC was designed to protect farmers, it's failing. Compare food output to voting power.

No it wasn't. Why do people say dumb shit like this without even stopping for a quarter of a second to think if it's vaguely coherent?

The EC does not protect rural areas, nor was it designed to. In fact, in states that have a couple of large cities, like New York, Illinois, or California, it completely disenfranchises the rural regions.

Yes, the EC designotes a minimum vote for a couple rural states below the population threshold but these states have never decided an election in US history. Meanwhile, assigning the rather substantial rural vote of a large state like California could.

The EC also does not skew in the favor of Republicans, at least not reliably so. Obama had an EC advantage in both elections, it just wasn't controversial because he also won the popular vote.

The EC was designed to do one thing and one thing only: Serve as a safeguard to override the popular vote in case they elected an unqualified idiot based on his popular appeal. And it failed at that job, so why the fuck would we need it?
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
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.
It's not unlawful, a couple states already assign delegates proportionally. It doesn't eliminate the Electoral College, it just assigns electors in a way that better reflects the vote.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240






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.
Why would you post this if you literally don't know what the EC is, how it works, or why we have it? This wouldn't give an advantage to the democrats. The Democrats have had an advantage in the EC as often as a disadvantage. All it does is make it so the person with the most votes wins.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
46,642
94,167
1,380
This idea simply replaces one problem (elections are decided by a very few states) with another problem (elections are decided by only a few cities. On top of this, it becomes a huge advantage to Democrats—it is significantly easier to get out the vote in these few cities. While the rural votes technically count, they are significantly more expensive and time consuming to round up. It is clearly and nakedly politically advantageous for democrats.

I do believe that it will be challenged in court. I also believe that it may not be constitutional. While it may technically not break the letter of the law, it very clearly goes against the intentions of the law.

Imagine the young boy caught with a stolen candy bar. He tells his parents, “I didn’t steal this candy bar. I just told my baby sister how great it would be if we had some candy.”

They can sign as many signatures as they want, it's etched in the Constitution. The Supreme Court would strike it down as quickly as they would if they had signatures to appeal the First Amendment.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
One side of this discussion seems really agitated that people are trying to have this conversation.

I tend to find people who insult others and try to shut down conversations less convincing than those who wish to conduct a discussion.

I don't know that either side is correct. I just know one has been... shockingly aggressive with their tone.
 
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
I sometimes feel like Democrats are using Trumps election win in 2016 to destroy democracy in blue states. We have anti-life clinics, bids to remove privacy and security, gun control, pro-socialism, reversing democracy policies that have been with the country for ages, government control of property and marketing, heavy business regulations, speech regulations, etc.

I mean if someone says "I'm against trump" blue state voters basically GIVE their freedom away which is baffling.
 
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
Why would you post this if you literally don't know what the EC is, how it works, or why we have it? This wouldn't give an advantage to the democrats. The Democrats have had an advantage in the EC as often as a disadvantage. All it does is make it so the person with the most votes wins.

This is a dumb post, OP said what many others are saying, including government professionals:

1. BY doing this you don't have to put much effort into campaigning.

2. The popular vote would be decided by a few large cities in a few states.

3. Drawn territory lines would be even more screwed up.

4. No protection from a "real" Hitler scenario.

The issue is those that support this compact are not looking at the negatives. They take the EC, the thing they don't agree with, and then trash it but acting like this new popular vote thing has no issues. This is what you guys do with every subject:

"OH I don't like that guy or organizations opinion" "OH I don't like this policy let's replace it with this one as I trash the policies I don't like without looking at the issues witht he one I was media trained to like."
 

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960
I don't know why there are people defending this when it can't possibly work. The two complaints I hear the most are that Rural areas have too much "power" or that candidates don't go around the country enough.

You solve neither of those problems with this change, in fact, the last complaint gets worse. How can you possibly defend a change to popular vote if your goal is to be "fair" at all?
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
1. BY doing this you don't have to put much effort into campaigning.
Meaning that an out-sized electoral weight is given to states who, by virtue of arbitrary drifts in demographics across regions, happen to be close in a given cycle, while the needs of the vast majority of country go neglected. Why is this a good thing?

2. The popular vote would be decided by a few large cities in a few states.
Stop for one second and think about this sentence. It makes no sense.

The popular vote would assign one person one vote, and rural areas would no longer have their electors reassigned because they happen to be in a state with a big city. The EC does not promote or protect the rural vote. More often it marginalizes it.

3. Drawn territory lines would be even more screwed up.
Drawn territory lines have no bearing on a popular vote election. Do you actually not know what the popular vote is? You can't gerrymander the popular vote, that's literally the point.

4. No protection from a "real" Hitler scenario.
What protections are offered now that wouldn't if it electors were assigned proportionally?

You're parroting talking points you heard someone else say, but you literally haven't bothered to stop and think if a single one of them are actually true.


I don't know why there are people defending this when it can't possibly work. The two complaints I hear the most are that Rural areas have too much "power" or that candidates don't go around the country enough.
No one with a working brain thinks that this is about the rural vote counting too much. This is just inverting the goofy right wing talking point that the EC empowers the rural vote by design, but that's clearly untrue.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
46,642
94,167
1,380
I don't know why there are people defending this when it can't possibly work. The two complaints I hear the most are that Rural areas have too much "power" or that candidates don't go around the country enough.

You solve neither of those problems with this change, in fact, the last complaint gets worse. How can you possibly defend a change to popular vote if your goal is to be "fair" at all?

"Because "our side" is the "right side"!" *stomps feet*

Have your candidates do better? I know, hell of a concept.
 

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960
No one with a working brain thinks that this is about the rural vote counting too much. This is just inverting the goofy right wing talking point that the EC empowers the rural vote by design, but that's clearly untrue.

Ignoring that you avoided the other thing I said and focused only one one part of the post for your agenda.

Yes, people do think that, there are videos of democrats, voters and politicians, saying this, it's time for you to stop posting just to attack and come back to reality.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
Ignoring that you avoided the other thing I said and focused only one one part of the post for your agenda.

Yes, people do think that, there are videos of democrats, voters and politicians, saying this, it's time for you to stop posting just to attack and come back to reality.
Well the people that think that are wrong and dumb, regardless of party. The Senate is designed to protect the interests of rural states. The Electoral College is not, and doesn't. I think people literally don't understand how the EC works or why it's different than the popular vote.

This is not a partisan issue. The EC does not benefit republicans or democrats, rural or urban. It benefits swing states. Which are random and change all the time. There's no point to it. Just because the EC benefitted Trump doesn't mean it "usually" benefits Republicans. It doesn't. It's basically random.

Regarding your "other" point, forcing candidates to focus almost entirely on swing states actually is a problem and changing the EC will motivate candidates to campaign in places they generally don't.
 
Last edited:

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960
This is not a partisan issue. The EC does not benefit republicans or democrats, rural or urban. It benefits swing states. Which are random and change all the time. There's no point to it. .

But yet you prefer an option that benefits only a few cities in blue-states? The swing/random system seems like a better option doesn't it?
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
But yet you prefer an option that benefits only a few cities in blue-states? The swing/random system seems like a better option doesn't it?
It doesn't benefit the cities at all. Please, please use your brain and think about it for a minute and I'm sure you can recognize that state borders have nothing to do with urban versus rural.

You are just repeating this because you heard someone say it. But think about it for a second. California has HUGE swaths of ruby-red rural country that essentially get no vote because of the EC. Who does that benefit? Most counties in New York State are rural and Republican. They get no vote because of the EC. Who does that benefit?

A popular vote gives all these people in states with a big city a reason to vote. Those people don't even show up to vote a lot of times because they know it doesn't matter. Giving them an equal vote will help them.
The EC sucks. It discourages participation in the system, and it's un-democratic. This isn't about helping Republicans or Democrats, it's about getting everyone to vote and letting the best man win.
 
Last edited:

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
They can sign as many signatures as they want, it's etched in the Constitution. The Supreme Court would strike it down as quickly as they would if they had signatures to appeal the First Amendment.
The constitution doesn't dictate how electors are assigned, and in fact different states do it differently. This is perfectly legal. It doesn't eliminate the electoral college, or even undermine its function as intended by its architects, it simply fixes a problem that has arisen organically and grown more apparent with the polarization of the coutnry where a handful of swing states by virtue of where their borders happen to be drawn get to decide the elections for everyone else.

I get why people in Florida and Ohio might like the electoral college, but anyone else defending this shit probably doesn't have a great concept of how it works or who it benefits. Obama had a bigger EC advantage than Trump, but he won the popular vote AND the EC so it wasn't controversial. But imagine if he didn't, and he was elected by the EC. Would Republicans still be yelling made up nonsense about how the EC protects farmers? I wonder...

I don't know why Republicans think they can't win on the popular vote. With two exceptions (2000 and 2016) every election the Republicans have ever won had a popular vote majority. I feel like you all have some bad self esteem or something.
 
Last edited:

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960
It doesn't benefit the cities at all. Please, please use your brain

The reason why you think I'm not using mine is because you're not using yours.

A popular vote count for population benefits blue-state cities, this is an undeniable fact and you have yet to address i or debunk it, because it's not possible. You'll also have LESS reason to visit MORE states then they do already.

California has HUGE swaths of ruby-red rural country that essentially get no vote because of the EC.

It's huge only because of the size of CA's population, you should be smart enough to know this. That doesn't mean there's a comparable popular vote base there for the GOP when over 70% of the votes are blue. That red swatch will do nothing in a popular vote.

You're using very unintelligent flawed logic thinking that there's enough red in heavy blue-states, that if we switch to popular vote, it'll get those people to vote and it will help the over

A popular vote gives all these people in states with a big city a reason to vote.
.

It literally doesn't. Population counts throw that theory out in the water. Most campaigning will be in some cities in some states. ALL the other 45 states won't matter because the count advantage will be to high to whoever gets it. Since heavily blue cities have a major advantage in the highest states, this effectively makes the democrats a forever party with some states local elections being a small exception. But election wise it won't work.

You think that having more red vote in California will do things, but that's not how numbers work, because i will also encourage more blues to vote as well.

You are incapable of taking the idea you agree with and looking at the flaws and only able to attack the thing you don't agree with which is a common problem with the side more likely to support this change. Just like how you were incapable of looking at the details of my post and immediately jumped back to "rural vs. City" even though I wasn't talking about that this time. You trains yourself to attack things you don't like and get confused when I point out the flaws in what you support.
 

ChuckeRearmed

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,032
1,807
415
Popular voting with two-party system? They went bonkers.
One vote per state and popular voting inside the state. Maybe then, dems will campaign in more than handful of states.

I know, that dems like stuff like when a person living in the city says that let's ban vehicles for everybody. Then he is surprised while people in urban areas don't support him.
 
Last edited:

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
The reason why you think I'm not using mine is because you're not using yours.

A popular vote count for population benefits blue-state cities, this is an undeniable fact and you have yet to address i or debunk it, because it's not possible.
Except it's not. The EC favored democrats in 2008 and 20012. It has nothing to do with this at all.

I explained very simply, that the electoral college completely erases the rural vote of blue states, and gives states like California and New York a guaranteed huge portion of blue votes, even though these states alre mostly rural. A popular vote is objectively a disadvantage to blue-state cities (although it does help red state cities who are marginalized now)

There is, of course a SLIGHT advantage for rural states with a very low population, like Wyoming. But this would still be the case if electors were assigned proportionally, and it also isn't really important because the number of electors these states have is still so small that they've never decided an election. It's not the part of the EC people have a problem with.

You'll also have LESS reason to visit MORE states then they do already.
But again, this is the opposite of true. You'd have to campaign in every population center, not just swing states.

It's huge only because of the size of CA's population, you should be smart enough to know this.
WOW, YOU MEAN EC ADVANTAGES ARE BECAUSE OF ARBITRARY BULLSHIT? I WISH SOMEONE POINTED THIS OUT IN THEIR FIRST POST AND 9 TIMES SINCE.

That doesn't mean there's a comparable popular vote base there for the GOP when over 70% of the votes are blue. That red swatch will do nothing in a popular vote.
So 30% is the same as zero percent? Gotcha. *writes notes*

It literally doesn't. Population counts throw that theory out in the water. Most campaigning will be in some cities in some states. ALL the other 45 states won't matter because the count advantage will be to high to whoever gets it.
Why do you think there are more people in 5 cities than the rest of the country? That's just not true.

Yoy also keep taking for granted that the EC benefits rural areas. It doesn't. It disadvantaged them in 2008 and 2012, for example. The advantage is pretty random and just has to do with which way the swing states happen to tilt. If populations shifted and Florida and Ohio became just a couple percent more democrat, Republicans would never be able to win, and they'd be crying to eliminate the EC.

Since heavily blue cities have a major advantage in the highest states
That's the whole point, dude. A popular vote means the states don't matter anymore. People will campaign to population centers and demographics, it woun't be about arbitrary things like which side of a state line a place is on. A popular vote gets rid of any skewing of the vote due to a big city population dominating a state. That's literally the point.

It literally doesn't. Population counts throw that theory out in the water.
Giving every person a vote takes away their reason to vote, eh? Wow, you're on fire today.
 
Last edited:

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960
Except it's not. At all. And you haven't explained why you think it is.

I explained very simply, that the electoral college completely erases the rural vote of blue states, and gives states like California and New York a guaranteed huge portion of blue votes, even though these states alre mostly rural. .

This doesn't mean anything, you keep swapping back to rural comparisons because the media has trained you to associate rural with RED. So you basically ignored what I wrote which even said I wasn't talking about rural.


But again, this is the opposite of true. You'd have to campaign in every population center, not just swing states.

No you wouldn't. CA can take out several states by population by itself and that's one state. You can easily look up a map instead of acting like you understand state populations, you would need only campaign in a few areas with a couple maybe slid in, during an unlikely event where it's close, which can't happen.


So 30% is the same as zero percent? Gotcha. *writes notes*

I see you have proven yourself to be an aggressive moron and not even slightly interested in discussion, so I'll just let you go and continue with your lack of real contributions and rapid attacking alone.
 
Last edited:

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
This doesn't mean anything, you keep swapping back to rural comparisons because the media has trained you to associate rural with RED. So you basically ignored what I wrote which even said I wasn't talking about rural.
Population density is the #1 predictor of a population's vote, so it's not exactly irrelevant to the argument at hand, here... But more importantly, it's also how votes get erased in an EC system.

No you wouldn't. CA can take out several states by population by itself and that's one state
Which is why we want to count the votes by people and not what state they're in. Once again, that is the WHOLE POINT of a popular vote election.

You can easily look up a map instead of acting like you understand state populations,
STATE POPULATIONS AREN'T RELEVANT TO A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE. You'd have to campaign everywhere, because the popular vote totals up the votes from everywhere equally.

Jesus fucking Christ, dude.
 
Last edited:

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960
STATE POPULATIONS AREN'T RELEVANT TO A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE. You'd have to campaign everywhere, because the popular vote totals up the votes from everywhere equally.

.

It's like you're completely out of touch with reality. Numbers actually matter, if one state can replace many states populations how is it not relevant? You're trying so hard to attack this system we have you ignore all the flaws with the one you want.

You don't have to campaign everywhere you'd only have to campaign in high populated states, which is lopsided toward democrats. This isn't hard to comprehend.
 

Sejan

Member
Sep 28, 2018
789
959
490
The problem is that states should matter. There are significant reasons that the US was never intended to be a true democracy. The EC demands that states matter and purposely gives a slight advantage to smaller states that diminishes with increased population. This advantage helps prevent the tyranny of the majority.

To see the problems with Tyranny of the majority you can look to states like California. The large rural areas of California effectively have no voice of any sort in their state congress because of the supermajority of the Democrats. As such the cities of California completely dominate rural areas politically.

The EC works to balance these issues, but has other benefits. The EC simplifies the results of elections. The 2000 presidential election is a good example of the potential nightmare that a national popular vote could entail. The results in Florida were close enough that many demanded a recount of the vote. The bigger problem is that the popular vote was also incredibly close—a half percent or a little over 500,000 votes. Whereas Florida famously scrambled for a recount, imagine the entire country scrambling for a recount. It could be a nightmare scenario that could take months to certify a final vote tally.

Ridiculously close elections are more common than we generally believe, but the EC helps alleviate this problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results

While the EC creates the possibility of a minority elected president, this risk is balanced by Congress with the house and senate. The house ensures that the star of the country as a whole is represented in every election by demanding that the entire house is reflected every two years. While the senate demands that wild shifts are balanced out with time. The senate ensures that wild swings in the house such as those of 2010 and 2016 are not overly impactful.

Sure the EC is not a perfect system, but I believe that it had less weaknesses than a direct popular vote. In my opinion the hurdles of campaigning in rural areas compared to the comparative advantages of compaigning in urban areas would cause these urban areas to be overly represented in the total vote count. I believe that a direct popular vote would overly represent urban America at the expense of rural America.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
It's like you're completely out of touch with reality. Numbers actually matter, if one state can replace many states populations how is it not relevant? You're trying so hard to attack this system we have you ignore all the flaws with the one you want.
You know that electors in the current system are assigned based on population, right? So right now, big states are HUGE unified elector blocs, much more powerful than if they were split up as would be the case in a popular vote.

I feel like there's something really basic here that you're not understanding. Do you think that states all have equal numbers of electors or something? Like with Senators? That's not how it works. It's still based on population, the key difference is that under the current system, ALL of the electors go to the victor, essentially erasing the minority vote in each state.


The problem is that states should matter. There are significant reasons that the US was never intended to be a true democracy. The EC demands that states matter and purposely gives a slight advantage to smaller states that diminishes with increased population. This advantage helps prevent the tyranny of the majority.
That's the purpose of the Senate though. The EC isn't designed to do that, and doesn't really accomplish it very well, except for swing states. There's no reason Florida should have more of a say than Texas, but that's what the EC does.
 
Last edited:

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960
You know that electors in the current system are assigned based on population, right? .

No the current system uses the popular vote by state, not nationwide. If it's a nationwide popular vote, than you only have to go around big cities as that's were most of the populartion is. If you use a population map you'll find you get over more than half the countries population with only several few states.

The issue is you aren't comprehending basic math. The biggest population areas are blue areas, thus, a popular vote system gives democrats an advantage unless like 30-40 states start bumping up their babies then in 18 years we might be able to have more than one party winning elections.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
The problem is that states should matter. There are significant reasons that the US was never intended to be a true democracy. The EC demands that states matter and purposely gives a slight advantage to smaller states that diminishes with increased population. This advantage helps prevent the tyranny of the majority.
The Senate is the way it is for this reason, but not so much the EC. The EC tends to just inflate the importance of swing states, not states with small populations. And it wasn't meant to either. If you read what Hamilton wrote in the federalist papers, representation underpopulated states wasn't a motivating factor in why the EC was designed the way it is, it was more about giving the elite power structures a safeguard in case the popular vote goes to someone clearly unqualified.

But If you had a system whereby electors were assigned proportionally in each state (a couple states do it already, but if all of them did), you would essentially have a system that still allows Wyoming and Delaware their slightly inflated representation, BUT still counts every vote and encourages participation in every state, because states would no longer be winner-take-all.

Would you support such a reform? If so, then I think we're on the same page.
 
Last edited:

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
No the current system uses the popular vote by state, not nationwide.
But I mean California get 55 electors, and Wyoming only gets 3, so the fact that those 55 are winner-take-all means that the millions of Republican voters in California have their votes stolen and assigned to the Democrats. Likewise for the millions of Democrats in Texas.

If it's a nationwide popular vote, than you only have to go around big cities as that's were most of the populartion is.
Only about 29% of the population lives in cities. The rest is suburban, semi-urban, or rural.

Not that anyone spends much time in the countryside when they campaign now. They just pick their cities to campaign in strategically based on their likelihood to tilt a swing state, which isn't a great example of representative democracy in action.

If you use a population map you'll find you get over more than half the countries population with only several few states.
This is a very poor argument to disenfranchise voters in those states.

The issue is you aren't comprehending basic math.
You might want to think about whose math is the issue here...

The biggest population areas are blue areas, thus, a popular vote system gives democrats an advantage unless like 30-40 states start bumping up their babies then in 18 years we might be able to have more than one party winning elections.

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about...? What does state population have to do with a national popular vote? Or even "areas?" And why do you think Republicans can't win a popular vote? What about this concept are you not getting?
 
Last edited:

Sejan

Member
Sep 28, 2018
789
959
490
You know that electors in the current system are assigned based on population, right? So right now, big states are HUGE unified elector blocs, much more powerful than if they were split up as would be the case in a popular vote.

I feel like there's something really basic here that you're not understanding. Do you think that states all have equal numbers of electors or something? Like with Senators? That's not how it works. It's still based on population, the key difference is that under the current system, ALL of the electors go to the victor, essentially erasing the minority vote in each state.



That's the purpose of the Senate though. The EC isn't designed to do that, and doesn't really accomplish it very well, except for swing states. There's no reason Florida should have more of a say than Texas, but that's what the EC does.

I wouldn’t be opposed to a system like Maine and Nebraska use which gives an electoral vote to each of it electoral districts and gives the remaining two to the winner of the majority of the state. Unfortunately, that plan is not ever going to happen. If California or Texas changed to a system like that it would make the presidential election significantly harder to win for Democrats or Republicans respectively. Such a change would require a constitutional amendment.

Other than the impossibility of this plan coming to fruition, I believe it would be more meaningfully representative of the country as a whole.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,715
19,743
675
Well the people that think that are wrong and dumb, regardless of party. The Senate is designed to protect the interests of rural states. The Electoral College is not, and doesn't. I think people literally don't understand how the EC works or why it's different than the popular vote.

This is not a partisan issue. The EC does not benefit republicans or democrats, rural or urban. It benefits swing states. Which are random and change all the time. There's no point to it. Just because the EC benefitted Trump doesn't mean it "usually" benefits Republicans. It doesn't. It's basically random.

Regarding your "other" point, forcing candidates to focus almost entirely on swing states actually is a problem and changing the EC will motivate candidates to campaign in places they generally don't.
No they are not.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
I wouldn’t be opposed to a system like Maine and Nebraska use which gives an electoral vote to each of it electoral districts and gives the remaining two to the winner of the majority of the state. Unfortunately, that plan is not ever going to happen. If California or Texas changed to a system like that it would make the presidential election significantly harder to win for Democrats or Republicans respectively. Such a change would require a constitutional amendment.

Other than the impossibility of this plan coming to fruition, I believe it would be more meaningfully representative of the country as a whole.
One strategy that has been proposed is to pass conditional laws that only kick in if all the other states also sign them. Which doesn't seem like it would be too difficult if there were some education on the subject, but when you do it after a huge EC upset, you end up with a lot of people out there that think the EC helps them, rather than it being more or less a product of the winds.

So now this proposal is a sort of compromise to get it done where you don't need every state to sign, just enough to essentially render the rest moot. This is easier to get done, but it's also kind of dangerous because the number of states and the number of electors can change.
No they are not.
Look, if you want to be pedantic about it, "random" may not be technically correct but it's arbitrary, ever-changing, and bearing no particular allegiance to any party or demographic, which, for the purpose of this conversation, is essentially random.
 
Last edited: