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.
