• 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)

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,261
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
The electoral college is bullshit. Trump proved it was without a doubt. He lost by 3 million votes. Bush lost by 500k votes and a questionable SCOTUS ruling. Trump was elected by the least educated, least productive, and racist hateful people. It's gross people who have authoritarian inclinations who support him the most. It will eventually be changed. Trump's election is what will set it all in motion.


If this was any other landmass (say... Europe, or North Africa, or Asia), people would say this shows a very diverse population supporting the Red candidate and a very narrow, coastal population supporting the Blue candidate.

The only difference is that this is the United States, not a unified collection of countries, but our culture and our needs as individual states is as diverse as Europe or Asia, if for no other reason than climate and topography. This map says all that needs to be said about the election. People can warp it as they please and cry about how the "majority" lost, but that is exactly how our country functions.

For some reason, some Left-wingers are screeching that their efforts in highly-concentrated megacities didn't pay off, so they insult the vast diversity of Americans across this vast continent to make themselves feel superior.

You live in a bubble. You've confused "majority" with "diversity of perspectives", which is what should rule the day anyway for a Leftist.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
Perhaps trying to force such diverse people to all have the same ruleset is inevitably gonna cause strife. Perhaps allowing more autonomy would be wise given the current division in the country... but lol that's not gonna happen.

Everyone needs to look at their arguments cuz I see people saying stuff like "entire states would be ignored under a purely democratic system" and I'm just like "yo umm... like... but..." and I kinda feel that this debate is entirely broken.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
The electoral college is bullshit. Trump proved it was without a doubt. He lost by 3 million votes. Bush lost by 500k votes and a questionable SCOTUS ruling. Trump was elected by the least educated, least productive, and racist hateful people. It's gross people who have authoritarian inclinations who support him the most. It will eventually be changed. Trump's election is what will set it all in motion.
Admit it. You think red state people are dumb and don't deserve to vote.

(I should also point out that Trump's loss of 3 million votes is accounted for by only two California cities. Los Angeles had about 2 million more votes for Clinton and San Francisco had about 1 million more.)

(Edit: Despite the national voter turnout rate being at 55% nationwide in 2016, California has an astounding 77% voter turnout rate among registered voters, with SF casting more votes in the 2016 election than ever before in recorded history.)
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,707
19,715
675
Perhaps trying to force such diverse people to all have the same ruleset is inevitably gonna cause strife. Perhaps allowing more autonomy would be wise given the current division in the country... but lol that's not gonna happen.

Everyone needs to look at their arguments cuz I see people saying stuff like "entire states would be ignored under a purely democratic system" and I'm just like "yo umm... like... but..." and I kinda feel that this debate is entirely broken.
Interesting how that bothers you but comments like

Trump was elected by the least educated, least productive, and racist hateful people. It's gross people who have authoritarian inclinations who support him the most.
get a pass
 

Baruch.S

Banned
Oct 31, 2018
18
16
90
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

Jesus fuck, this what happened when you tell kids they're special and their opinions matter. They go online arguing against informed people. PKunk pulling an Azincourt on 'dem asses with facts and logic. Doing the lawd work.
 
Jan 9, 2018
1,451
2,444
470
The electoral college is bullshit. Trump proved it was without a doubt. He lost by 3 million votes. Bush lost by 500k votes and a questionable SCOTUS ruling. Trump was elected by the least educated, least productive, and racist hateful people. It's gross people who have authoritarian inclinations who support him the most. It will eventually be changed. Trump's election is what will set it all in motion.

This is a uniquely horrific post, one for the bookmarks.

There's a lot to say about the way you simply call an enormous proportion of the nation (and every nation, going by populism's widespread results in Europe lately) "gross" (a tell; you find them vulgar, and that sentiment is 99% of what drives the "Left" today, which is little more than a social class now) and "authoritarian" (this one truly being a self-own, given the dramatic managerial/authoritarian motivations of the Clinton crowd).

But above all I find this GDP article link (under "least productive") to perfectly reveal the Progressive attitude of today, and the absurdity when progressivism purports to be somehow revolutionary or driven at all by a love of the economically disadvantaged. Yes, GDP is hyper-concentrated in a few industries and few urban hotspots, mainly in services, while the vast majority of careers that drove the remainder of the country have been systematically exported or soaked up by these urban black holes through unfettered "disruption", acquisition, and generally through the self-protection and promotion of the new managerial class through its institutions of higher learning, etc. But if you have even the slightest honesty about being a Left-driven, capital skeptic, or worker's party on any level, this "lol GDP is with us" bit is absolutely damning to credibility. And voters won't put up with it anymore, which is why we have Brexit, Trump, and much more--all fully deserved by the ruling classes, who are honestly getting off easy, compared to historical precedents, if we don't see a physical revolution tearing up the cities and new protected classes where they live.
 

Horns

I drop hot takes hoping you'll argue with me. Just ignore me.
Jun 23, 2010
4,588
884
965
Admit it. You think red state people are dumb and don't deserve to vote.

(I should also point out that Trump's loss of 3 million votes is accounted for by only two California cities. Los Angeles had about 2 million more votes for Clinton and San Francisco had about 1 million more.)

(Edit: Despite the national voter turnout rate being at 55% nationwide in 2016, California has an astounding 77% voter turnout rate among registered voters, with SF casting more votes in the 2016 election than ever before in recorded history.)

Flawed logic that Snopes has previously covered.

It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
 

Horns

I drop hot takes hoping you'll argue with me. Just ignore me.
Jun 23, 2010
4,588
884
965
It saddens me you think this. Like, its disgusting. You're calling other people racist and just judging entire regions of the country on their education, assuming the worst about them. No, they just don't agree with you.

Besides, If we had a popular vote we would have a different turn out. Right now voters don't turn out in full force in opposition strongholds. You can't change the rules and then use the old counts to judge the winner.

I'd you knew a damn thing about the Electoral College you'd understand it forces politicians to reach out for minority support. It helps the communities [both geographically and figuratively] with low populations and keeps their voice heard.

The new narrative that it's somehow racist is completely counter to how it actually works and is a pile of horseshit spread by sore loser politicians that should know better. Every minority group, be it a racial minority, or rural farmers, is helped by an electoral system.

You do realize this is literally how every election works in this country, right? Congress is voted by everyone in their district? Senate is everyone in the state. State and local elections are the same. The presidential election should be no different. The minority of the country should never have this power over the majority.

About your racism comment....you do realize these people elected Trump who openly uses racism and bigotry, right? These are stats. If you're saddened or disgusted by statistics I don't know what to tell you.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
Interesting how that bothers you but comments like

get a pass
Yeah, so interesting that I would say everyone needs to look at their arguments and then not call out everyone I have a problem with.

You are right though, I did explicitly call out a viewpoint that seemed less extreme in hopes of finding common ground as opposed to people who I'd be wasting my time with. I tend to earn less e-points this way, but I usually have better discussions.
 

wzy

Member
Dec 29, 2018
541
599
385
You do realize this is literally how every election works in this country, right? Congress is voted by everyone in their district? Senate is everyone in the state. State and local elections are the same. The presidential election should be no different. The minority of the country should never have this power over the majority.

About your racism comment....you do realize these people elected Trump who openly uses racism and bigotry, right? These are stats. If you're saddened or disgusted by statistics I don't know what to tell you.

If you have to ask "you do realize" twice in the same post it's a pretty good sign that you're citing received wisdom and are more interested in the posturing than the politics. Make a fucking argument if you have one, but this is completely pathetic. "Trump who openly uses racism and bigotry" is a moron's hedge, and it's not even the standard view of the sort of Trump-deranged pedant who keeps politifact on speed dial. Your media-assigned role here is to argue breathlessly that Trump-era racism is not at all out in the open, which is what makes it dangerous. The symbolic content of the red trucker hat is presumed rather than articulated. Stay in character, please.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
First of all, Snopes? Yikes.

Second of all, I said two CITIES, not states. If you removed LA and SF, Clinton probably would've still taken California and its electoral college votes, not making a lick of difference to the outcome of the election, but without those two CITIES, Clinton would not have won the popular vote. And as I also pointed out, these two CITIES had a considerably higher voter turnout than the rest of the country by a huge percentage, even breaking records in SF. That means her popular vote lead was caused primarily by an anomalous group of overachievers that live wholly within 700 square miles of California (which has 163,000 square miles of land).
 

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
8,036
4,401
1,230
steamcommunity.com
You do realize this is literally how every election works in this country, right? Congress is voted by everyone in their district? Senate is everyone in the state. State and local elections are the same. The presidential election should be no different. The minority of the country should never have this power over the majority.

About your racism comment....you do realize these people elected Trump who openly uses racism and bigotry, right? These are stats. If you're saddened or disgusted by statistics I don't know what to tell you.

Leaving out all the racism crap and 'your too dumb to vote' crap your spewing, your basics are also wrong. You only vote on a federal level via a regional representative. So you choose a regional representative for house, and senate. You don't vote directly for judicial or executive branches of government. Originally, congress was to appoint the president, but it created an imbalance of power between the 3 branches, although it did preserve state rights. So they basically took the structure of congress (every state gets a vote/senate model and the population weighted/house model) and created the electorate which had no power outside of the executive appointment. States can individually select on how their electorate is submitted (all or nothing states/vs splitting up by %). Straight popular vote would exempt states completely exclude many states from having a voice in an entire branch of government. A federal government that was established for governing interactions between states, not individuals. It also has a smoothing effect on voter turnout percentage, which helps also (voter turnout can vary from mundane none political stuff such as distance between polls, which is a problem in rural areas and even the weather in that area of the country)
It is also designed to keep points of view like your "the mid-west are just stupid , unproductive, racist , dumbasses that don't deserve a vote" bullshit contained to your region
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040
You do realize this is literally how every election works in this country, right? Congress is voted by everyone in their district? Senate is everyone in the state. State and local elections are the same. The presidential election should be no different. The minority of the country should never have this power over the majority.

About your racism comment....you do realize these people elected Trump who openly uses racism and bigotry, right? These are stats. If you're saddened or disgusted by statistics I don't know what to tell you.

The only racism I'm seeing is coming from you.

And, of course I'm aware of that, which is why state politics are often dominated by the will of large cities to the detriment of the rest of the state.

Majority rule by definition excludes the will of the minority. The doublespeak in your position is frightening. Ensuring that small states, that rural communities, that the will of minorities in general is taking into consideration is the entire purpose of the Electoral College. We wouldn't even have a United States without it because smaller States would never put up with such lack of recognition.

The population of California is 40 million. That single state accounts for over 12% of the nations votes. New York has 20 million.

Rhode island has one million. By signing on to this compact, Rhode Island is literally giving away their voice. Their vote no longer has any meaning whatsoever. The sneeze of a cricket in California affects the popular vote more than RI. The only thing that gave them a voice was the Electoral College.

Politicians on the national stage no longer would need to spend a single dime talking to people from Rhode Island, rural areas, or other small states. Only the big cities would matter. The party that promises the most beneficial packages and policies for the regional hotspots of population would garner the most votes, because we all know politicians like to pander to voter base. The Electoral College forces them to talk to everyone. For someone so concerned with race, you should consider that perhaps it's not a good idea to set up a system which rewards pandering to the majority.

The unintended consequences of this compact are so dire that it requires you to be mathematically illiterate even possibly suggest it's a good idea. It absolutely silences minorities. The only reason it is being pushed via political propaganda is because Clinton lost and Democratic Party is trying to sell trumps win as a theft. This on its face is a blatant lie since if we had a popular vote with different rules we'd have had a different vote tally to begin with. This is nothing but a short sighted attempt at a power grab.

But hey, you think Republicans are racist by definition so there's not really much point in convincing you. I can simply hope someone else reading this has some common sense and sees through the reductionist argument that majority rule is in any way good.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,519
1,610
He/him
The electoral college is bullshit. Trump proved it was without a doubt. He lost by 3 million votes. Bush lost by 500k votes and a questionable SCOTUS ruling. Trump was elected by the least educated, least productive, and racist hateful people. It's gross people who have authoritarian inclinations who support him the most. It will eventually be changed. Trump's election is what will set it all in motion.

Let me get this straight. You’re saying that people were least educated, least productive, and most racist at the beginning of Trump’s term(s)? Whose fault is that? 🤔
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
so just to be clear...

You guys are against 1 person, 1 vote?
Would you be okay with all the white people voting that all the black people should be slaves again? Surely you can not be suggesting that you are okay with a majority bullying the needs and interests of minorities?
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,519
1,610
He/him
so just to be clear...

You guys are against 1 person, 1 vote?

Answer the question first: what kind of democracy are you talking about?

Can you explain the difference between a constitutional republic and a direct democracy?
 
Feb 22, 2018
3,940
5,166
815
China
If you're for open borders and at the same time pining for direct democracy, then you're clearly either supremely deluded, or a conscious rebel with an alien allegiance, hell bent on destroying the country you're in, and the lives of all those in it.

Say no to stupid, kids.

Ignoring the stupidity of promoting proportional representation in such a union for a moment; as stated above, two Californian cities excluded, the majority in the US voted for Trump. Now the residents of those two cities want to dictate to the rest of the states and the other 100+ cities how they should live? This would simply break the balance of an already unbalanced Union in a severe way.

One can thus only conclude that this is a calculated attempt to destabilize and destroy the Union by runaway fringe elements.
 
Last edited:

Super Mario

Banned
Nov 12, 2016
3,479
5,929
655
It's pretty scary how much Democrats completely disregard our entire voting system, all for their gain. So much for the party of "morality".
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
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

I know why the EC exists, thank you. The NPVIC is not about removing the EC. It is about the 'winner takes all' method by which most states distribute their electoral votes. The NPVIC works within the confines of the EC. Power is still decentralized and diluted since EVs are proportional to population. All this changes is how states allocate their EVs, in an attempt to correct the drift towards 'winner take all' which occurred in 1824

Note that a 'winner take all' system for awarding EVs is not in the spirit of the constitution, as confirmed by Madison: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example. ... The States when voting for President by general tickets or by their Legislatures, are a string of beeds: When they make their elections by districts, some of these differing in sentiment from others, and sympathizing with that of districts in other States, they are so knit together as to break the force of those Geographical & other noxious parties which might render the repulsive too strong for the cohesive tendencies within the political System."
If your state has a presidential favorite, it would behoove you to place all your EVs towards that president. Thus, the first state to change to 'winner take all' both gained an advantage in the National election, and quelled the voice of their minority constituents with a single, anti-constitutional stroke. As soon as one state garnered this advantage, the others had to change their own rules to keep up.

Remember, there was a time when senators were not directly elected, but instead appointed by state legislators. We now accept that direct election of senators enables more voices to be heard. This is a similar situation to current 'winner takes all' EVs

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.

No, it's not a joke...
I went over this in the post you quoted but apparently didn't actually read:
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
"out of play" means the threshold for flipping the state is high. Yes, you can be pedantic and insist every state can be flipped, but if you were running a campaign, you wouldn't divide your resources based on that philosophy. The effort it would take to flip Hawaii red would be monumental, as would flipping Utah blue. And in each case, the rewarded EV is minimal.

In a popular vote, areas with lower population are also not 'out of play', despite your claims. The difference between the two methods is that with a popular vote, any effort, no matter how small, that results in someone changing their mind is rewarded with a vote. With the current winner takes all system, efforts in states that don't meet the majority threshold are wasted. Thus, unchallenged partisanship is ingrained in the system, and leads to the division we see today

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.

I am not pretending swing states and partisanship of states remain static, quote where I am.
I even mentioned otherwise, that the support for the NPVIC will change as state allegiances change.

If NPVIC had always existed, California still would've changed from red to blue, the difference being that as it changed incrementally, the minority factions would still have influenced national politics. Thus, Dems would have targetted the flip more agressively, as they would have been rewarded for incremental gains when in the minority. And Reps would have continued to defend the state after losing majority, as a large minority in Cali would still have a massive national effect. The end result is a more purple California.

This is what I mean when I say the NPVIC will ensure the entire nation is always in play, and will reduce partisanship. The current system encourages parties to abandon lost causes, whereas a different system would reward small gains and make people feel less marginalized

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.

Now this is 'fucking dumb'
You just got done explaining to me that states can flip from blue to red in the most patronizing way possible.
Now you are going all in on the idea that for some reason cities can't flip?

Why, oagboghi2, do you think there is some magical property that prevents cities from turning red, yet when Democrats can't flip blood red states like Oklahoma and Alabama, well, that's on them. There are hundreds of cities that vote red (Birmingham, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Nashville, Indianapolis, etc.)

The biggest obstacle Republicans face concerning major metro areas is the fact that they don't bother trying to win them (because in the current system, winning these territories has a low ROI)

Never mind that none of this has anything to do with the NPVIC. Once again you fail to grasp what is being argued for.
NPVIC is not about 'flipping' cities. It is about counting every vote in those cities.

Los Angeles county went %72.7 for Clinton, San Francisco a whopping %85.5, San Diego only %56.1. Even in a state as liberal as California, the spread for a Clinton victory across cities is large. Look at cities in Texas, and Clinton's victory margin in urban centers is limited to the 50s and 60s, with Houston and San Antonio in 'flip' range.
Compare that to margins Republicans enjoy in rural counties. This article claims Trump got over %80 of the vote in 371 counties, vs. Clinton's 17. Partisanship is massively more one sided in rural red areas than in any of the liberal enclaves you spend all day bitching about. And I don't see you complaining about how hard it will be for Democrats to flip those.
As I mentioned before, once NPVIC passes, it will heavily benefit conservatives in the current landscape. Conservatives will be able to go to a handful of targeted populous districts and change some (but not a majority) of minds in order to get enough of a share to flip nationally. Liberals, however, will have to make inroads into 371 counties, sprawled out across the middle of the continent that consider 'Democrat' a swear word.

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

I admitted that each method produces 'flyovers'. Surely you can as well.
In each system, there are areas where time and money is not worth the ROI to campaign.

However, the current system incentivizes constantly revisiting the same swing locations.
We'll look at 'R' events only, since Trump did a better job campaigning:
35 events in Florida, that's one event per half million people
31 events in North Carolina, that's one event per 300 thousand people
28 events in Pennsylvania, that's one event per half million people
30 events in Ohio, that's one event per 400 thousand people

As you can see, the amount of campaign effort per person in these states is nuts, and you're daft if you think campaigning would be this rigid if the whole nation were in play.
By the above metrics, any city with a population of 300,000 is worth visiting. Considering Trump had 248 events for 2016, it's fair to say he at least would have visited the top 66 most populous cities. This means visiting 32 states plus DoC, (as opposed to 25) with 182 other stops to distribute, either revisiting the huge cities, or spreading out even further to those last 18 states.

And even after those 66 stops, he's only covered %17 of the voting base! That's right, as much as you fear the urban liberal strongholds, one candidate winning the top 66 cities entirely would still only net them %17 of the vote (assuming population and registered voters properly scale).

And this of course assumes live campaigning is important, or the point of the NPVIC, which it is not. The point is to count everyone's vote, doing so will just make it more appealing for candidates to spread their message everywhere. In the age of the internet, live campaigning is only a small part of any strategy.

No they wouldn't. They are dwarfed in the state.

Here you are objectively wrong.
In a 'winner takes all' methodology, conservative voices in a liberal state (New York, currently) have no bearing on national results
In a method that counts and applies all national votes, conservative voices in a liberal state still count towards national totals

I'm not sure if you just aren't understanding what I'm typing or what, so I'll spell it out.
Hypothetical election, all votes are counted except New York, EV total is 265R, 244D. Popular vote is 61m R, 58m D
New York results are same as 2016: 4.5m D, 2.8m R
In the current 'winner takes all' method the final results are 265R, 273D, D wins
but with NPVIC, the minority of conservative voices in New York are enough to keep the R popular vote advantage, and R wins
by the same token, if EVs were destributed proportionally (not winner-takes all) which is what the NPVIC is attempting to simulate across all states, R would win with the following: 283R, 255D

This is why NPVIC gives conservative voices in New York more national power

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?

This does not answer why a system that allows a minority of people to control the majority by virtue of happening to exist within borders drawn for arbitrary reasons is more fair
No matter what system is used, candidates will design a strategy that forces them to deal with different parts of the country. This is not profound. In the existing system, every voice is heard at the table, but some voices are up to four times louder for arbitrary reasons. With NPVIC, every voice is heard at the table equally. Both methods will require candidates design a strategy that forces them to deal with different parts of the country

And I've already addressed Rhode Island here, here, and here, but this is the most pointed criticism:
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?
Can you devise some form of fairly calculated system by which Rhode Island should have four electoral votes and not Dallas or LA?

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?

My support for NPVIC has nothing to do with the 2016 election

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote precisely because Trump ignored the areas that would have earned him the popular vote. He went to California once, Texas once, and never visited Illinois or New York. He went to Ohio 30 times. You aren't illustrating what you think you are illustrating, here.
Donald Trump did not speak to less people.
He spoke to many more people. He held 97 more events than Hillary. The only state where she campaigned more was Illinois, by one visit. He went to 12 states she skipped. Trump won because he put in way more effort, and understood the game way better.
Trump would have campaigned differently if he knew he needed those popular votes. His campaign stops were targeted at the areas he needed for EVs, not for population
I do not think Hillary would have won if the NPVIC were in place. I think Trump's strategy would've been much different.
I've posted this sentiment prior, and allude to it in this thread here.

But regardless, your assertion that the candidates who campaign more should win is faulty to begin with. The candidate with the best policies should win. If Trump had to campaign twice as hard as Hillary to win, that may simply indicate his policies needed twice as much advertising. It's up to the people to decide if Hillary's campaign is strong enough to carry her while she sits at home. My preferred method simply suggests that all of the people should decide equally

So you do see why this a stupid idea. Good moving on...

no...
I don't see why giving equivalent voting power to each person is a stupid idea
To me this seems like the better way to handle things.

After all, Compton and Beverly Hills have more dissimilar needs and cultures than, say, Birmingham Alabama vs. Little Rock Arkansas. I do not ascribe to the fallacy you are pushing that urban centers are magically impenetrable blue voting blocks, particularly when vast numbers of rural counties share similar concerns and voting habits, and are far more partisan.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,615
3,436
515
@ PkunkFury PkunkFury

It may mean seemingly arbitary territories, the states, choose with electoral college. But this is for historical reasons. Making it so that small areas no longer receive excessive voice, changes the original importance of states, it would be like dissolving the union into one mixture.

One could argue that it may be fairer for all votes to be counted equally. But then why would these smaller regions want to be part of the union, rather than secede?

I think what could be done is to bar winner take all per state, and allow percentages within states to influence electoral votes. That would allow the voices of minorities within states to be heard, while preserving the original state structure.

EDIT:
Large areas with low populations should have a bigger voice than smaller areas with big populations. Small highly populated regions shouldn't dictate how larger less populated areas are governed. As for small areas with small populations, they should get a smaller say, but any reform is prone to abuse, so care should be taken and it is doubtful some of these small areas would agree with losing their power as states.

We have to remember, while it seems fairer for large populations to get a bigger say, there is no reason for the far larger regions with smaller population to agree to be held hostage to these small areas with large populations. Parts of california should even be able to secede from california, as was seemingly threatened in that region in spain that wanted to secede.

There is no reason why the entirety of california should be subject to the will of a few cities. The electoral votes should be divided between smaller regions within states, so that each area gets a voice proportional to its area.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
This is what I mean when I say the NPVIC will ensure the entire nation is always in play, and will reduce partisanship. The current system encourages parties to abandon lost causes, whereas a different system would reward small gains and make people feel less marginalized
I think whatever the game is, people are going to minmax it for the greatest returns for the least amount of effort. I think think popular vote will be any less (or more) abusable than the electoral college. At least as far as I'm concerned, I'm more interested in a diversity of life experiences being represented. California has a tenth of the population of the United States, but I don't think they deserve a tenth of a say in what happens in it.

Personally, I'm far more in favor of more independent states, with a more limited federal government, but I realize that you can't really put the cork back in that bottle. But I think California should have a lion's share of the input into what California does, considerably less of the input into the immigration and foreign policy of the federal government.

Partisanship is massively more one sided in rural red areas than in any of the liberal enclaves you spend all day bitching about. And I don't see you complaining about how hard it will be for Democrats to flip those.
I'd like the Democrats to at least admit they exist. It's getting a little old seeing Democrats constantly act like red state people are too stupid to deserve to vote. No wonder none of them vote Democrat. They are just too gosh darn partisan! Shame on them!

By the above metrics, any city with a population of 300,000 is worth visiting. Considering Trump had 248 events for 2016, it's fair to say he at least would have visited the top 66 most populous cities. This means visiting 32 states plus DoC, (as opposed to 25) with 182 other stops to distribute, either revisiting the huge cities, or spreading out even further to those last 18 states.

And even after those 66 stops, he's only covered %17 of the voting base! That's right, as much as you fear the urban liberal strongholds, one candidate winning the top 66 cities entirely would still only net them %17 of the vote (assuming population and registered voters properly scale).
That list of 66 most populous cities is not giving the whole picture. It says Los Angeles has about 4 million people, which is true. But Los Angeles is surrounded by dozens of other cities that add to the general metropolitan population. There's no discernible difference between Los Angeles and Venice Beach, Culver City, Santa Monica, and a bunch of other places.

If you include all of this, Los Angeles' population balloons from 4 million people to about 18 million people. And this is true about most of the top cities on that list. New York City goes from 8 million to almost 24 million. Chicago goes from 2.5 million to almost 10 million people. That 17% of the voting base is probably closer to 40%, or even higher.

Can you devise some form of fairly calculated system by which Rhode Island should have four electoral votes and not Dallas or LA?
The real question is, fair to whom? Population is not the sole measure of a city or state. Rhode Island has its own state government, with its own state courts, state legislature, state offices, senators, representatives, and so on. Dallas is not an independent governing body and wholly owned by Texas' state government. That's why Rhode Island gets to send two people to the senate and Dallas does not. What you are basically advocating for here is that Dallas should be given the power and distinction of a state while still being beholden to Texas, while Rhode Island give up their fair say in government as a state because it is too tiny.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
You didn't reply to a single one of his points. You edited some out even.

This is amazing to watch.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
I think whatever the game is, people are going to minmax it for the greatest returns for the least amount of effort. I think think popular vote will be any less (or more) abusable than the electoral college. At least as far as I'm concerned, I'm more interested in a diversity of life experiences being represented. California has a tenth of the population of the United States, but I don't think they deserve a tenth of a say in what happens in it.

While I agree that people will minmax either system, I assure you the current system has much more opportunity to be gamed, and is much more abusable. Hence 30 visits to Ohio, 35 visits to Florida, 1 to Illinois, none to New York...

Hence what I posted to you (and two others) prior:

I think you understand this, because you play games. The fact that you used the term 'minmax' tells me you understand this.

And we've been over the 'diversity of life experiences' before. I'm not sure how the life experience from Birmingham Alabama vs. Little Rock Arkansas is any more 'diverse' than the life experience from Comptom to Beverly Hills.
I'm not against 'diversity of experience' being considered when weighting votes, but you better be able to explain to me how such a thing is measured and ensure that the right areas are receiving the right weighting. The idea that the existing weighting just happens to perfectly weigh 'diversity of experience' throughout the US is baffling. Also, it sounds very much like 'identity politics' to me

Personally, I'm far more in favor of more independent states, with a more limited federal government, but I realize that you can't really put the cork back in that bottle. But I think California should have a lion's share of the input into what California does, considerably less of the input into the immigration and foreign policy of the federal government.

This seems hypocritical. If states should be more independent, clearly California should be one of the few who's voice on immigration is important, considering it actually occupies our more troubled border. I can only think of two other states who's opinions on the matter should weigh more.

But I agree with the sentiment. I'd like to see more state rights, as states allow for proving grounds for different laws that other states could adopt. I, for example, would prefer abortion be decided per state, if only so it would quit stalling the national government (this is assuming each side would surrender nationally, which they won't...). Marijuana legalization is a great example of state's rights working to drive national policy. I look forward to a state run single-payer health system. I appreciate that Alaska has been running UBI

The trick is, in the modern world so much of what a state does effects the nation. If only half the states combat climate change, industry moves to the other half that let them pollute. If half the states take in massive amounts of immigrants, those immigrants can flood into the other states once they're here. If only half the states ban guns, criminals can run guns from next door.

At the very least, if states are to have more autonomy with local laws, and serve as proving grounds for new ideas, I do think national politics should still favor populace over state weighting. After all, if a state is implementing ideas that attract the most people, it is silly to punish those people for coalescing in the state that seems to be doing things right.

I'd like the Democrats to at least admit they exist. It's getting a little old seeing Democrats constantly act like red state people are too stupid to deserve to vote. No wonder none of them vote Democrat. They are just too gosh darn partisan! Shame on them!

Surely you recognize that this street goes both ways, right? Couldn't Republicans admit Democrats aren't evil? Instead of constantly acting like we are going out of our way to kill babies, we are the cause of shit and needles on the streets, and we want to open borders and take away property rights, etc. These are all things I see regularly on this very forum. Heck, this thread is a perfect example.

I'm not a fan of "both sides" in most cases, but I can certainly agree that each side needs to cut the shit stereotyping and start actually trying to understand what the other is trying to accomplish. There's plenty of common ground

And concerning your post, I'm not sure how Democrats are not admitting rural red areas exist. Our suggestions, be they free healthcare, free college, UBI, legalizing drugs, etc. all have rural red areas in mind, even if those areas will demonize us for them. I'm not aware of many tent-pole democrat positions that are specifically only benefiting urban areas. Feel free to enlighten me, this may be a blind spot

That list of 66 most populous cities is not giving the whole picture. It says Los Angeles has about 4 million people, which is true. But Los Angeles is surrounded by dozens of other cities that add to the general metropolitan population. There's no discernible difference between Los Angeles and Venice Beach, Culver City, Santa Monica, and a bunch of other places.

If you include all of this, Los Angeles' population balloons from 4 million people to about 18 million people. And this is true about most of the top cities on that list. New York City goes from 8 million to almost 24 million. Chicago goes from 2.5 million to almost 10 million people. That 17% of the voting base is probably closer to 40%, or even higher.

Agreed, I actually had this in my already too long post and removed it for brevity (I know, it doesn't show).

But as I pointed out, even the core of these cities still have a decent mix of the two parties (especially in red states). No one was ever going to win that whole %17. As you branch into those suburbs, more and more red is mixed in.

So yes, you are correct that the population associated with these cities would ratchet that percent up to %40, but I maintain that these areas are less partisan than rural areas (as the data I posted demonstrates), would remain easy to target via campaigns (greater Chicago would come to Chicago for events), and winning a sizable minority (or even a majority) in these areas would be well worth it in a NPVIC setting. That %40 would be divided, maybe %60/%40 with a good candidate

The real question is, fair to whom? Population is not the sole measure of a city or state. Rhode Island has its own state government, with its own state courts, state legislature, state offices, senators, representatives, and so on. Dallas is not an independent governing body and wholly owned by Texas' state government. That's why Rhode Island gets to send two people to the senate and Dallas does not. What you are basically advocating for here is that Dallas should be given the power and distinction of a state while still being beholden to Texas, while Rhode Island give up their fair say in government as a state because it is too tiny.

The bolded is precisely what I'm suggesting (I did not suggest it should still be beholden to Texas). Rhode Island is a state because it was lucky enough to be an original territory. If it weren't, it'd be a Dallas sized city in a state that also encompasses Vermont, NH, CT, and Mass. I don't expect Dallas to become a state, just pointing out there's no technical reason it doesn't exist as a state

My point is that state borders exist for historical reasons. The power divisions of the Senate are basically based on tradition. There's no better way to explain this organization. It is not protecting farmers, or rural areas, otherwise the rural areas chained to blue states would be liberated. It is not protecting areas with small population, otherwise low populated areas would be excised from the major states so they could have a say. It is simply tradition, and once you start granting power based on rigid tradition, you are setting up a system that can be easily gamed. Amazon can purposely setup their next factory in Wyoming and flip the state with tech jobs. China can buy all of the real estate in Rhode Island. These are extreme examples

I'd prefer something fluid, where 'statehood' is designated based on certain parameters, and can be earned or lost. This is not something I ever expect to happen, but as a fan of properly implemented rules and systems, its' something I feel is missing. As far as I'm aware, the US has no definition of or official path to statehood; what's in the constitution is sparse. If some of the big states eventually start splitting, we could see a future where gerrymandering via 'new state' becomes a thing. As it stands, admitting new states will be a massive political upset (looking at Puerto Rico, with those 7 'winner take all' EVs)

If we are assigning weights to votes, I'd prefer it be done for a less arbitrary reason. I don't doubt that a good reason could be found for weighting, but that reason should be better than 'that's the way it is'. Without such a reason existing, I'd prefer no weights be assigned.
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
One could argue that it may be fairer for all votes to be counted equally. But then why would these smaller regions want to be part of the union, rather than secede?

maybe they want to be part of the Union because they have an affinity for the regions around them, be they bigger regions with which they have good relationships, or other smaller regions that share a similar culture but happen to transcend state boundaries (which is exactly how rural America currently exists)

By the same token you could ask why rural red regions should want to be part of California, New York, or Oregon. Why don't they secede? Why should Dallas and Austin want to be part of Texas? Why don't they secede? (and I see you mentioned this towards the end of your post, so we are on the same page)
Ultimately nothing is 'fair' if you are looking at it from the right perspective. This is why I want a system that restores national relevance to areas of states that are drowned out by 'winner takes all', at least it gives it them some say, even if it isn't a majority

I think what could be done is to bar winner take all per state, and allow percentages within states to influence electoral votes. That would allow the voices of minorities within states to be heard, while preserving the original state structure.

I agree 100%. I think this is what most NPVIC supporters want, as this is what the founders intended. This preserves the advantage for smaller states, but still enables minority opinions within states to be represented.

The problem with this is it requires a Constitutional amendment, whereas the NPVIC just needs to be ratified by 271 EVs worth of states. It's unlikely we can get enough states to relinquish the power of the 'winner takes all' allocations (as discussed above) for an amendment. My guess is as the NPVIC looms closer to hitting that 271 threshold, discussions of such a Constitutional amendment may finally have some merit. States afraid of the NPVIC may see such an amendment as a compromise
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,615
3,436
515
I agree 100%. I think this is what most NPVIC supporters want, as this is what the founders intended. This preserves the advantage for smaller states, but still enables minority opinions within states to be represented.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. -wiki


That sounds the exact opposite of my idea. My idea is to divide states into regions, and assign the state's electoral votes in a divided region based way so that more small regions get a meaningful say.

If all states assign the electoral vote to the popular vote winner in the nation, than extremely small highly populated regions will get a disproportional share compared to the rest of the nation with lower more dispersed population.

Right now winner take all at a state level and a few cities dictate where the states votes go, that NPVIC seems like it would be winner take all at a national level a few cities dictate how the nation's entire electoral votes go.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
There’s a lot going on in those posts, but unfortunately, it is prohibitively difficult to respond to a post like that on an iPad. let’s just boil it down to the main point. I think popular vote doesn’t have a lot of wiggle room to adjust for and overcome voting imbalances. One person, one vote is a static measure while the EC, imperfect as it is, allows for us to adjust things as needed by shifting EC votes around while still counting everybody’s vote. This means that if EC doesn’t work, we can fix it (as a system, maybe not as a political body) while if popular vote doesn’t work, there’s nothing that can be done short of replacing it.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
That sounds the exact opposite of my idea. My idea is to divide states into regions, and assign the state's electoral votes in a divided region based way so that more small regions get a meaningful say.

If all states assign the electoral vote to the popular vote winner in the nation, than extremely small highly populated regions will get a disproportional share compared to the rest of the nation with lower more dispersed population.

Right now winner take all at a state level and a few cities dictate where the states votes go, that NPVIC seems like it would be winner take all at a national level a few cities dictate how the nation's entire electoral votes go.

agreed, it's not the same as your idea. You initially said "allow percentages within states to influence electoral votes", which I agree with. (i.e. if half of Rhode Island popular vote goes to Trump, he gets two EVs)

If you want to divide states into areas and give each area an EV (as Maine does) you run into the same issue as dividing the nation into states. Pockets of your districts will be suppressed by 'winner take all' in each district. Also, these districts would likely be drawn similar to (or match exactly) congressional districts, and we already know the issues with drawing those fairly. Your districts would be gerrymandered, and partisan politics would still fight for control so they could use the power to draw districts to their advantage. You will find little support for such a method, among NPVIC supporters or otherwise. It actually exacerbates the problems that NPVIC attempts to solve

NPVIC would be winner take all at the national level. Appropriating EVs based on state percents would ultimately be as well, but the EVs would still be portioned to each candidate, thus the EV bonus for less populated states remains. It seems I'm wrong, and NPVIC supporters aren't keen on this method either, since it's not direct, but I think this is a good compromise.
Still, it would require an amendment, or buy in from all states. This is the main reason NPVIC is the first choice, it can be done with less support
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,615
3,436
515
Pockets of your districts will be suppressed by 'winner take all' in each district. Also, these districts would likely be drawn similar to (or match exactly) congressional districts, and we already know the issues with drawing those fairly. Your districts would be gerrymandered, and partisan politics would still fight for control so they could use the power to draw districts to their advantage.

The problem is that deep down, 1 vote is always outdone even by 2 other votes. Eventually people will be able to be self sufficient, able to provide their own security, food, entertainment, etc. It seems like others dictating minor details of their lives, and threatening them with incarceration without offering anything in return is more of a bother than any benefit. The time may come when society at large no longer has anything to offer to small groups and individuals, as technology allows perfect recycling and energy gathering as well as advanced security at a local level.

I think division of political power is best. The federal government should get smaller, and perhaps the states subdivide into united states like collectives.

At least with smaller groups you have a chance of meaningfully interacting with your community and changing votes. With a national popular vote, only the wealthy corporations and individuals can have meaningful influence.

EDIT: If states subdivide into smaller regions with their own laws, and the bigger government is shrunk, there would be no gerrymandering.

Outside of extremes like outright human abuse, there is no reason why people at large should have a say in what happens in a town, or house, or an individual's life. They should govern themselves by laws of their own making.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
2,947
1,906
885






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.

I assume that when you say "giving states a voice" you mean "giving people who live in red states a disproportionally weighted vote in relation to people who live in blue states." Notice Republicans have been the only ones to benefit from this system as 2 of their last 3 "wins" were by barely squeezing out an electoral win while losing the popular. At this point it's necessary for Republicans to cling to the electoral college to win anything anymore as they clearly don't have majority of America on their side and will keep shrinking unless they actually attempt to reach out to minority populations more aggressively (fat chance). Rather than framing this as "states rights" you should just be honest and say "it's the only way my team has a chance of winning national elections anymore."

80,000 Trump voters negated 3,000,000 Clinton voters. One Trump voter is worth 38 Clinton voters, because "states rights." It's extra funny as conservatives are also often the ones to bring up that argument of "a majority ruled by a minority leads to civil unrest" because they always think Dems/Libs are the minority with outsized power and are stepping upon the "silent" conservative majority. But that rationale is rarely used these days by them.:unsure:

Note, before you attempt to talk about how a bad a purely populist vote would be, there are alternatives other than that like the UK system. The two parties having a strangehold over all the others is the main problem IMO.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,615
3,436
515
At this point it's necessary for Republicans to cling to the electoral college to win anything anymore as they clearly don't have majority of America on their side and will keep shrinking unless they actually attempt to reach out to minority populations more aggressively (fat chance). Rather than framing this as "states rights" you should just be honest and say "it's the only way my team has a chance of winning national elections anymore."
The problem you don't get is that this is united states not united people. And republicans have states, which have say. Even right now california itself should be divided, maybe into smaller states, so that smaller regions within get a say.

Trump won in the majority of states and the majority of the within state regions. A few cities cannot superbreed and outsay how the rest of the land is managed. IF they want to have crazy laws, go at it, have them. We already saw what happened to san francisco. Their brand of crazy must be contained, there is no reason why laws elsewhere in the land should be determined by a few crazy cities.

These are territories and the inhabitants have a say since they have most of the territory. The president doesn't manage los angeles and new york, the president manages the entire land of the states, and most of that land has nothing to do with those cities. So those cities shouldn't dictate how the rest of the land is managed even if they have a billion citizens.
edit:
In spain there was talk that a region wanted to secede. IF rather than states seceding within state regions could secede, those large populations would be left with no land and resources at all.
 
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,562
36,242
885
39
Admit it. You think red state people are dumb and don't deserve to vote.

i mean he said, it "least educated, least productive". hardly unbiased.

apparently only highly educated people should be allowed to vote. maybe we should have reading tests before you can vote. oh wait, no, that was Jim Crow. funny enough, most of the solid blue states have lower minority populations than rural red states. guess it's fine to take away their vote if it's made up for with a city dweller. they know what's good for them! lol the elitism is potent.

if people want to argue for improving democracy, that is one thing. but you can't do that and at the same time complain that people you don't like have a say. that is the true meaning of democracy. everyone has a voice.
 
Last edited:

Voost Kain

Banned
Jun 6, 2015
1,999
1,203
960
I assume that when you say "giving states a voice" you mean "giving people who live in red states a disproportionally weighted vote in relation to people who live in blue states." Notice Republicans have been the only ones to benefit from this system as 2 of their last 3 "wins" were by barely squeezing out an electoral win while losing the popular. At this point it's necessary for Republicans to cling to the electoral college to win anything anymore as they clearly don't have majority of America on their side and will keep shrinking unless they actually attempt to reach out to minority populations more aggressively (fat chance). Rather than framing this as "states rights" you should just be honest and say "it's the only way my team has a chance of winning national elections anymore."

80,000 Trump voters negated 3,000,000 Clinton voters. One Trump voter is worth 38 Clinton voters, because "states rights." It's extra funny as conservatives are also often the ones to bring up that argument of "a majority ruled by a minority leads to civil unrest" because they always think Dems/Libs are the minority with outsized power and are stepping upon the "silent" conservative majority. But that rationale is rarely used these days by them.:unsure:

Note, before you attempt to talk about how a bad a purely populist vote would be, there are alternatives other than that like the UK system. The two parties having a strangehold over all the others is the main problem IMO.

How long are you people going to pretend that Hillary lost the 3 states she needed to win because of hubris, laziness, and poor strategy, instead of blaming the EC? The reason why MIchigan, WIns, and PENN won Trump the election isn't because "lopsided red state for GOP" especially for PENN. She didn't listen, her base was confused and though she could flip Arizona, she has in fighting in her campaign.

Almost every single reason from Hillary voters for why the EC should be changed is to cover up for her being a bad candidate. It always goes back to 2016 and 3 million votes, with a nod at Bush which actually was disputed and took awhile before the win was decided, so you're simplifying one election and misrepresenting the recent one by acting like Trump win because of 80,000 votes by itself instead of admitting Hillary was &(^(*&)( trash, and then you had her and her out of touch allies screwing Bernie over instead of working with him which caused a further divide.

In fact, the 2016 election would have given Trump a bigger win if we were in the popular vote because the Bernie guys would have had more reason to go out and vote for bernie and it will make the third-party voters jump in more as well, which primarily took from Hillary based on the party split.

I don't know why this is so difficult, if you have a good candidate for 2020 they have a very high chance of winning right now, focus less on the EC and more on moving those radical socialists away from the dem party so you have someone that can actually win. What are you going to do if a radical gets nominated and rump beats them Blame the EC again?

It's crazy how so many keep this foolish argument up, especially AFTER all that came out on Hillary and her campaign, as well as the actions of several others, and you guys spend the last two years burying it and pretending it didn't happen. What's funny is with no lessons learned the result would be the same without the EC, too many of you are clueless and won't address the actual issue with 2016, and 2016 is the ONLY reason WHY we are even HAVING this conversation on this grand of a scale.
 

I_D

Member
Dec 22, 2007
4,457
751
1,390
Didn’t Trump win something like 95% of all counties but lose the popular vote overall? Do you not see that as a problem? Why should all power be concentrated in a handful of counties?

Oh, it's definitely a problem. I'm just thinking about the meta-politics.
Philosophically-speaking, wouldn't it make sense that the majority of the population gets to decide on the issues? That way it makes the most people happy?
Obviously, such a system causes problems. But then, letting the minority-vote speak also causes problems because the majority may disagree.
I'm just wondering what the solution is.


I'll be honest, as a programmer and an ex-system administrator, I wouldn't trust voting over the internet at all. Ever.
I don't trust it either.

I'm thinking more along the lines of widely-available voting booths, with high levels of security (in all forms). Plus, the ability to show up late to work without being penalized for voting, and various other things that need to be put into place.

Plus widely-available internet, wireless and wired, so the average person can research anything they want.

giving back greater power to the states rather than concentrating it in a federal government.
Many of our issues come down to this, I think.




I can see how modern issues could still cause small-population states to be overruled.
I'm not necessarily convinced that this would happen super often, since I don't think highly-populated states really give enough of a shit to block many of the things small-states would bring forth. But I can still see it happening.
If it did happen, that's why things like the Supreme Court exist.
If we gave more power to the states instead of the federal government, I think a lot of the problems would automatically be alleviated.
And if all of those things were put into place (which is, I'm the first to admit, essentially impossible) then I think a popular-vote may be the way to go, though I'm still open to even better methods.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,615
3,436
515
Obviously, such a system causes problems. But then, letting the minority-vote speak also causes problems because the majority may disagree.
I'm just wondering what the solution is.
Those with the most intelligence, both fluid and crystalline intelligence, make the decisions for the world at large. That is the nature of the world, the more apt and capable should get a bigger say. And they do, a person invents a grand thing, and the system rewards them with vast wealth, which is a symbol of power, to better manipulate the system.

Humans have full dominion over all animals, even though many others are basically just humans with other bodily shapes. Yet the others if the gap in capacity is too big, they don't even get a say, the same will likely happen with lower level ais, only higher level ais will have a say.

Soon an invention will dawn that can reshape nations whether politicians or their populace like it or not. Something able to manipulate the world to such an extent, that it cannot be opposed, and even attempted opposition is futile.

In any case some rumor is that nearly 50~ M americans have such low intellect as to barely even be able to function or perform basic tasks at any job.


But even among those with high iq many are uneducated tribalists with confirmation bias.

Tests should be administered both of intellectual capacity as well as knowledge, in order to vote for representatives. Similar to legislators, if they cannot pass a test on the legislation to be passed they do not get a vote, and don't worry ais will be able to create tests fast enough not to interfere with legislation.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,261
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com

Nevada governor wasn't stupid enough to go along with it. Guessing most of the other states will follow the same route, with the few stragglers cleaned up in the higher courts.
 

Voost Kain

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

Nevada governor wasn't stupid enough to go along with it. Guessing most of the other states will follow the same route, with the few stragglers cleaned up in the higher courts.

Most of the country isn't dumb enough to think it's a good idea outside radical blue areas. Even among the slowly far left leaning democrats, they know this would be a political disaster and are actively going away from it.

Not to mention if Hillary won we wouldn't be having EC related debates and that's undeniable.
 

Solomeena

Banned
Jan 8, 2018
1,266
1,805
455
All i am going to say is that Democrats are complete idiots for wanting something like this because it truly shows you how evil liberals have become. They are literally trying to betray our constitution and if and when they get enough votes to bypass the constitution this will be taken to the courts and it will be slammed shut for what it is, unconstitutional and nazi like from Democrats, bunch of hypocrite losers.
 
Oct 26, 2018
17,424
24,232
795
So democrats want to change the voting process because they lose. So much for being liberal and free and having people's choice determine outcomes.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
8,387
7,538
1,710
All i am going to say is that Democrats are complete idiots for wanting something like this because it truly shows you how evil liberals have become. They are literally trying to betray our constitution and if and when they get enough votes to bypass the constitution this will be taken to the courts and it will be slammed shut for what it is, unconstitutional and nazi like from Democrats, bunch of hypocrite losers.
This is why I've abandoned the party. They hate America the way it is, and has been for over 200 years. Traitorous at this point, and if they keep it up, it could turn violent.

Utterly lost the plot.
 

Bolivar687

Banned
Jun 13, 2014
7,264
7,842
800
USA

somerset

Member
Apr 15, 2019
441
615
420
Can't be done. And any yank who knows how the USA was formed, and the laws under which the Federal system of states operates, would know why.

Each State is a nation unto itself. New York State, for instance, is *more* of a nation than maybe a third of nations at the UN, and I'm not talking about wealth or population numbers.

Each State has an agreed *weight* when it comes to their contribution to the election of el prez. If this was simple by population, some states would become vanishingly weak.

The horse trading that agrees bloc votes on the existing system is a very sane compromise. The ability for a state to *ignore* the wishes of its own voters in the prez vote ended long ago *in practice*.

The *only* reason dumb dumbs 'think' (yeah, think- I don't think so) the current system is 'unfair' is that the two levels of "first passed the post" counting can ignore the total voting pattern a little more than usual. But America like the UK is largely a first passed the post, and not a *proportional* nation.

America's existing system is actually *genius* for giving the maximum amount of happiness to the various states, big and small. A different system would start a war between the states, and increase the pressure to break up the USA. Some forces want this. I'm not sure where the puppet masters of the alt-left currently stand.

PS the USA is also a carefully crafted 50-50 *fake* two party 'left', 'right' system, where usually *noise* in the system determines who will be prez. But when you are 50-50, of course noise will be the deciding factor- duh.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,551
9,298
940
“Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Those are the words of someone who decided to put their people's interests and the constitution over the temper tantrum demands of a few. Bet they gets primary'd for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

StormCell

Member
Dec 11, 2018
2,387
2,640
540
So good to see a glimmer of sanity. Now if only we could get more people on the left to understand the other part of the "problem." If you don't like all the consequences that come from your party not winning the presidential election, then help us strip away some responsibilities that the federal government doesn't need to have! Imagine if you were more focused on the people guiding your state than the people far away guiding the entire country...