WWTBAM Bored

Lest we forget, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections (including this one). That doesn't seem to me to be a repudiation of Democratic policies. It seems to me to be an antimajoritarian political system permitting a minority of voters to prevail over a (slightly larger) plurality.

Maybe it's time to get to work on that interstate electoral vote compact. --Bob

Some thoughts on this.
#1) So the Democrats run up vast margins in the big coastal cities(aka Panem)-How does this indicate that they are capable of governing Flyover Nation (aka The Districts)-a place that they can barely imagine even exists?

An important thing to remember is that the Democrat won the popular vote under an electoral vote system with very large non-competitive Democrat states. Republican leaning voters in New York and California have very little reason to turn out. This dynamic would likely change is a straight-up popular vote election. Conversely, maybe more Democrats turn out in solid Red States

It is too simplistic to automatically assume that the geographic dynamics of a electoral vote election would automatically transfer to a popular vote election.

My numbers show that HRC won by about 225,000. This is essentially less than the margin in one big Democrat district, for example, Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco based district.

Simply put, take Nancy Pelosi's district out of the equation and the Republicans won the popular vote of the rest of the country-Including Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston etc-etc

It is inarguable that the Republicans are more of a national party than the Democrats are.

Bob78164 wrote:Lest we forget, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections (including this one). That doesn't seem to me to be a repudiation of Democratic policies. It seems to me to be an antimajoritarian political system permitting a minority of voters to prevail over a (slightly larger) plurality.

Maybe it's time to get to work on that interstate electoral vote compact. --Bob

Yes, and thank God for the Founding Father's foresight in establishing the Electoral College. Pure Democracy is one of the worst forms of government, and they knew that. Look at the county voting map of recent national elections. The only blue areas are the urban areas. The vast majority of the country has different values than NY, LA, SF, DC etc. The Electoral College allows them the opportunity to be counted in national elections.
In the terms that your party likes to use, people who want to get rid of the Electoral College want to disenfranchise millions of voters. Using the convoluted logic that your party uses against it's opponents, that is racist. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Spock wrote:Some thoughts on this.
#1) So the Democrats run up vast margins in the big coastal cities(aka Panem)-How does this indicate that they are capable of governing Flyover Nation (aka The Districts)-a place that they can barely imagine even exists?

An important thing to remember is that the Democrat won the popular vote under an electoral vote system with very large non-competitive Democrat states. Republican leaning voters in New York and California have very little reason to turn out. This dynamic would likely change is a straight-up popular vote election. Conversely, maybe more Democrats turn out in solid Red States

It is too simplistic to automatically assume that the geographic dynamics of a electoral vote election would automatically transfer to a popular vote election.

My numbers show that HRC won by about 225,000. This is essentially less than the margin in one big Democrat district, for example, Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco based district.

Simply put, take Nancy Pelosi's district out of the equation and the Republicans won the popular vote of the rest of the country-Including Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston etc-etc

It is inarguable that the Republicans are more of a national party than the Democrats are.

All Congressional Districts have about 700,000 people. 225,000 is a rather big margin.

Bob####s is proposing Mob Rule, but only because it's his mob.

Spock wrote:Some thoughts on this.
#1) So the Democrats run up vast margins in the big coastal cities(aka Panem)-How does this indicate that they are capable of governing Flyover Nation (aka The Districts)-a place that they can barely imagine even exists?

An important thing to remember is that the Democrat won the popular vote under an electoral vote system with very large non-competitive Democrat states. Republican leaning voters in New York and California have very little reason to turn out. This dynamic would likely change is a straight-up popular vote election. Conversely, maybe more Democrats turn out in solid Red States

It is too simplistic to automatically assume that the geographic dynamics of a electoral vote election would automatically transfer to a popular vote election.

My numbers show that HRC won by about 225,000. This is essentially less than the margin in one big Democrat district, for example, Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco based district.

Simply put, take Nancy Pelosi's district out of the equation and the Republicans won the popular vote of the rest of the country-Including Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston etc-etc

It is inarguable that the Republicans are more of a national party than the Democrats are.

California counts a lot of votes late. Her final margin will be around a million votes.

The votes of Nancy Pelosi's constituents are just as legitimate as those of any other citizen of this country. So your point about taking those votes out of the equation is lost on me.

As for your first point, I could equally well say that the Republicans' inability to make headway along the coasts shows their inability to govern there. And it seems to me that a system that encourages more voters to actually vote (rather than stay home because they're convinced their state is a done deal) is a good thing.

And it is decidedly arguable that Democrats are more of a national party than Republicans. We win plenty of elections, including statewide elections, in the heartland. Republicans haven't won statewide in California in years. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Yes, and thank God for the Founding Father's foresight in establishing the Electoral College. Pure Democracy is one of the worst forms of government, and they knew that. Look at the county voting map of recent national elections. The only blue areas are the urban areas. The vast majority of the country has different values than NY, LA, SF, DC etc. The Electoral College allows them the opportunity to be counted in national elections.

I doubt the Founding Fathers foresight extended to practices such as the extreme racial gerrymandering and voting restrictions that currently exist in many parts of "red America" that were enacted with the sole purpose of maximizing Republican representation beyond what their actual percentage of the vote should be.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Lest we forget, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections (including this one). That doesn't seem to me to be a repudiation of Democratic policies. It seems to me to be an antimajoritarian political system permitting a minority of voters to prevail over a (slightly larger) plurality.

Maybe it's time to get to work on that interstate electoral vote compact. --Bob

Yes, and thank God for the Founding Father's foresight in establishing the Electoral College. Pure Democracy is one of the worst forms of government, and they knew that. Look at the county voting map of recent national elections. The only blue areas are the urban areas. The vast majority of the country has different values than NY, LA, SF, DC etc. The Electoral College allows them the opportunity to be counted in national elections.

If it's "[t]he vast majority of the country," then why do Republicans keep losing the popular vote?

This is really just an argument that our votes shouldn't count as much as yours. I won't accept that. I'll work to change it. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:This is really just an argument that our votes shouldn't count as much as yours. I won't accept that. I'll work to change it. --Bob

For one of the first times ever, I actually want to REC a Bob post...

lb13

Bob78164 wrote: This is really just an argument that our votes shouldn't count as much as yours. --Bob

Bob, you make that argument yourself. You don't care who votes. You don't care about voter fraud. Your state allows, or is on its way to allowing, non-citizens to vote.

I was thinking about this on the way to work this morning. Each state has differing voter eligibility laws. Virginia decided criminals should get to vote who makes their laws. Not really a smart idea, but one you likely support. The Electoral system balances out the states' differences. In essence it says you get this many votes on the national level, how you want to decide to use those votes is up to you. If you want criminals to decide, knock yourself out, if you want Mexican citizens to decide, go ahead.

Yes, California votes, Virginia votes, shouldn't count as much because they are not worth as much. You've devalued them yourselves.

Bob78164 wrote:This is really just an argument that our votes shouldn't count as much as yours. I won't accept that. I'll work to change it. --Bob

Bob:

In all fairness, your argument is akin to that of a football coach who loses a game on a 2-point conversion and then says they would have won without that rule.

The rules are the rules, and each team (or in this case each candidate) plans its strategy based on those rules. In this case, both Hillary and Trump ignored the West Coast and the New York area because they knew it didn't pay to invest the candidates' time or money there. I can guarantee you that if we had a popular vote system, Trump would have put in appearances in California rather than New Hampshire and Wisconsin, and it's ingenuous to assume that his presence wouldn't have had any effect on the vote totals. It's not that far fetched to suggest that he could have gotten the 200K or so additional voters he needed.

One reason that margins are so big in California (as well as mountain states like the Dakotas) is because the candidates don't bother to campaign there.

silverscreenselect wrote: One reason that margins are so big in California (as well as mountain states like the Dakotas) is because the candidates don't bother to campaign there.

And those that would vote differently had better things to do, like work to get their taxes paid. I'm sure conservative apathy is rampant in CA, OR, WA, and other deep blue states.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: One reason that margins are so big in California (as well as mountain states like the Dakotas) is because the candidates don't bother to campaign there.

And those that would vote differently had better things to do, like work to get their taxes paid. I'm sure conservative apathy is rampant in CA, OR, WA, and other deep blue states.

And that's fine and dandy with you? That tens of millions of otherwise perfectly qualified and registered voters in the United States are for all practical purposes disenfranchised from participating in the Presidential election because they happen to live in a state where the overwhelming majority of people believe differently than them? The very idea that conservative apathy in blue states and liberal apathy in red states is likely rampant due to the pointlessness of the process is perfectly OK with you!?!?!?

I just want you to confirm that this is your idea of what democracy should be. That the citizens of Ohio and Pennsylvania and the small handful of other perpetual swing states should be the only ones that get to decide who the President for all fifty states should be.

This isn't even a partisan issue with me since I'm as nonpartisan as they get. It's a matter of making EVERY PERSON'S VOTE COUNT, as it should work.

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:
And that's fine and dandy with you? That tens of millions of otherwise perfectly qualified and registered voters in the United States are for all practical purposes disenfranchised from participating in the Presidential election because they happen to live in a state where the overwhelming majority of people believe differently than them? The very idea that conservative apathy in blue states and liberal apathy in red states is likely rampant due to the pointlessness of the process is perfectly OK with you!?!?!?

I just want you to confirm that this is your idea of what democracy should be. That the citizens of Ohio and Pennsylvania and the small handful of other perpetual swing states should be the only ones that get to decide who the President for all fifty states should be.

This isn't even a partisan issue with me since I'm as nonpartisan as they get. It's a matter of making EVERY PERSON'S VOTE COUNT, as it should work.

lb13

Every vote counts. If a voter decides to vote. Apathy is what it is. No one is disenfranchised. Everyone's vote counts towards their state's influence in the national result. Everyone's vote counts equally within the state.

We are not a single national democracy. We are a collection of individual states. Look at the name.

None of this will matter when California secedes from the union.

Maybe they can take Oregon and Washington with them.

Oh, and Texas, too!

BackInTex wrote:Every vote counts. If a voter decides to vote. Apathy is what it is. No one is disenfranchised. Everyone's vote counts towards their state's influence in the national result. Everyone's vote counts equally within the state.

We are not a single national democracy. We are a collection of individual states. Look at the name.

Then we should just get rid of the office of the President or have Congress vote for them. If everyone's vote can't count the same towards a national election, the entire voting process is a farce....

lb13

BackInTex wrote: We are not a single national democracy. We are a collection of individual states. Look at the name.

But the conception of state's rights (and the power of the Presidency) has changed considerably since 1787, primarily due to a Republican president, Abe Lincoln, and the Civil War.

Although Lincoln would never be allowed in the Republican party of today.

BackInTex wrote:We are not a single national democracy. We are a collection of individual states. Look at the name.

I also think that a large part of the reason why our Constitution is structured the way it is results from the practical limitations on travel and communications that existed in 1787. A national government could not quickly or effectively make decisions or receive input (or voting results) from New England to Georgia. Vesting a considerable amount of power in the states was a practical necessity.

Nope, the difficulty of travel in among the 13 states was not a basis for The Great Compromise

Ironically, a friend of mine was talking about this early Tuesday. The reason I say "ironically" is because he's a big Trump fan, and envisioned the Electoral College as part of the "rigged system" that would give Mrs. Clinton the win, even though Mr. Trump would have more votes from the people (it'll be interesting to see what he thinks now that the results are in).

Realistically, you're asking for a constitutional amendment that would have to be started by the group that benefited from the old system to change to a new system that doesn't benefit them. Human nature says that's not going to happen, ever.

I, for one, would like to see a popular vote decide it, if only because then someone in, say, Alabama or California might think their vote for a Democrat or Republican (respectively) might mean something other than throwing a pebble in the ocean. It also would get rid of the focus on just a few states and force the parties to go nationwide with their campaigning. But that's me. And I know it won't change in my lifetime.

Can we all agree that an Article V constitutional convention is due?

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Can we all agree that an Article V constitutional convention is due?

Oh hell no! That would be total chaos.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Ironically, a friend of mine was talking about this early Tuesday. The reason I say "ironically" is because he's a big Trump fan, and envisioned the Electoral College as part of the "rigged system" that would give Mrs. Clinton the win, even though Mr. Trump would have more votes from the people (it'll be interesting to see what he thinks now that the results are in).

Realistically, you're asking for a constitutional amendment that would have to be started by the group that benefited from the old system to change to a new system that doesn't benefit them. Human nature says that's not going to happen, ever.

I, for one, would like to see a popular vote decide it, if only because then someone in, say, Alabama or California might think their vote for a Democrat or Republican (respectively) might mean something other than throwing a pebble in the ocean. It also would get rid of the focus on just a few states and force the parties to go nationwide with their campaigning. But that's me. And I know it won't change in my lifetime.

As a lawyer, I should love it. Imagine all of the lawsuits from having to recount all of the votes in the United States, not just one state like in 2000. Might have to make the big money in private practice now.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Nope, the difficulty of travel in among the 13 states was not a basis for The Great Compromise

I never said it was, but I do think that the decision of how much power to allocate to the states vis-à-vis the federal government was influenced by what the founders knew was the difficulty in getting people in one central location and communicating back and forth over hundreds of miles effectively. Other republican governments of the era, like Britain and the First French Republic were much more concentrated geographically and never wound up with anything approaching the systems of states we have here.

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Can we all agree that an Article V constitutional convention is due?

Oh hell no! That would be total chaos.

I concur. My understanding (likely wrong) is if they states call for a new Constitutional Convention, the whole thing is up for rework, not just one section.