Electoral College
Quote: DocUh, make that eight posts in the first two hours. I don't think even any of the infamous JerryLogan's incarnations started out to that extreme. Seems like a suitable tactic if one wishes to be ignored by most.
He looks like a paid shill for some liberal group still upset that Al Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election from the rightful winner did not work. There are places like freelancerdotcom that pay people to post on sites like here at WoV. This thread is a few weeks old. My guess is he came in after some regular bot found the thread here.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: DocUh, make that eight posts in the first two hours. I don't think even any of the infamous JerryLogan's incarnations started out to that extreme. Seems like a suitable tactic if one wishes to be ignored by most.
He looks like a paid shill for some liberal group still upset that Al Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election from the rightful winner did not work. There are places like freelancerdotcom that pay people to post on sites like here at WoV. This thread is a few weeks old. My guess is he came in after some regular bot found the thread here.
Yes. His posts are just copying the various sections of the National Popular Vote website. Nothing more than a mind-numbed robot, in its purest sense. Likely they do google searches for their idea periodically and attempt to take over the discussion. I did laugh at the argument that we'd still have a unique system; the EC becomes a mere formality in the system. It's like saying that the Party who wins the majority of the House of Commons doesn't name the Prime Minister - the Queen does!
Quote: kohlerA smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%) that now get overwhelming attention, while two-thirds of the states are ignored
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
Just as a matter of courtesy, it would be better to layout your position in a single post, and then point to the website for those people who want to pursue more information.
(1) I think that this 12% number is not justified. Virtually a 1/3 of the congressional districts voted for a man for a representative for one party (in 2008 and 2010) and a presidential candidate from the opposite party in 2008. At least 1/3 of the districts had a popular vote within 10% between the winner and the loser.
However, your argument is relatively meaningless. Popular votes are usually close, so it stands to reason that a limited number of congressional districts would be ultra competitive.
We all know that a candidate can win the White House without winning the national popular vote. Bill Clinton won in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote, because of a strong showing by Ross Perot. The framers of the constitution knew that would happen. They insisted on a majority of electoral votes, or the presidency would be decided by the House.
The original post was not about simple majorities of a congressional district getting one vote. That issue is well discussed. It was a question if states would be allowed to set up thresholds where congressional districts could earn a vote if they go radically against the majority of the state. That way Downtown Dallas could get a vote in for Obama, while Texas votes Republican. The Florida panhandle could get a vote in for McCain even though the state in general votes for Obama.
As I understand it the state actually has a lot of leeway in how it parcels it's electoral college votes. It can require not just a simple plurality, but can set up any set of rules that it wants. They can use simple proportionality if they want. For instance if the state has 10 electoral college votes, and the popular vote is 68% to 26% with 6% for write ins and third party candidate it is permitted to ignore the third party and give 7 votes to the winner and 3 to the loser.
It's just that historically states have gone with the winner take all method.
Quote: kohlerA national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
Everyone's vote is equal now. The founders recognized that a candidate may not get a popular majority to win the presidency, and made provisions for such an occurrence.
The people through elected representatives constituted a union of states, not a union of the people, and the difference either eludes you, or bothers you because your candidate lost.
If federalism isn't to your liking, just say so, and eliminate state borders altogether.
Quote: pacomartin
As I understand it the state actually has a lot of leeway in how it parcels it's electoral college votes. It can require not just a simple plurality, but can set up any set of rules that it wants. They can use simple proportionality if they want. For instance if the state has 10 electoral college votes, and the popular vote is 68% to 26% with 6% for write ins and third party candidate it is permitted to ignore the third party and give 7 votes to the winner and 3 to the loser.
It's just that historically states have gone with the winner take all method.
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
There is definate leeway. The real genius in the US Constitution is that so much is so vague. Just an outline and allow it to play out. The failed EU Constitution was the oppisite, trying to spell out everything. My understanding is that this comes from the fact that USA law (except Louisiana) is based on "common law" which is a judical based system whereas Europe (not Britian) is based on "code law" where everything and every situation is spelled out and if something not spelled out comes up you spell it out.
The other genius is that the US Constitution makes it very hard to get anything done. The Founding Fathers were indeed wise.
Quote: kohler
I find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. Presidential campaigns spend 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they aren't hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and can win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state's electoral votes.
Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states. So they are ignored.
I am not sure that a national popular vote would make much difference. As Nelson Rockfeller said a presidential election will be all about BOMFOG (Brotherhood of Man, and the Fatherhood of God).
Quote: DocI suspect this spammer does not even realize that run-on rants are rarely read and only tend to be annoying. They certainly do not serve to convince anyone of one's alleged "point", certainly not on a forum of educated folks like this one. It's as if he feels the need to publish his manifesto. My guess is that he is just using cut-and-paste from his favorite web site. I have not bothered to completely read any of his posts. Has anyone? I just can't develop any interest in his line.
I'm truly sorry to hear that such "educated folks" as you all, don't have the intellectual curiosity or open-mindedness to read responses to your posts, in an effort to always strive to be the well-informed citizenry that our republic needs.
Quote: kohlerI'm truly sorry to hear that such "educated folks" as you all, don't have the intellectual curiosity or open-mindedness to read responses to your posts, in an effort to always strive to be the well-informed citizenry that our republic needs.
Yeeeeah, we're "educated" enough to actually go and find the sites that you're copying and pasting from. Also, you're not actually responding to our posts - you're just inserting a random fountain of off-point crap about NPV laws.
Quote: kohlerI'm truly sorry to hear that such "educated folks" as you all, don't have the intellectual curiosity or open-mindedness to read responses to your posts, in an effort to always strive to be the well-informed citizenry that our republic needs.
I did read your posts. I just don't agree with the concept of a popular vote. I think it is dangerous since a momentary fluctuation in popularity or a strong regional candidate could grab the election. Plus it would certainly allow dozens of people to run, since they all could be assured of getting some percentage of the popular vote.
I also think that it won't make candidates more available, and may make them campaign in a more restricted area. They could content themselves with a broad message for most of the country, and spend all their time trying to encourage massive turnouts in their core regions.
But my biggest concern that could threaten the peaceful operation of this country , is it could cause a contested election that will be almost impossible to resolve because the votes could come from anywhere. At least in 2000 they could be isolated to a few counties.
Quote: pacomartinI did read your posts. I just don't agree with the concept of a popular vote. I think it is dangerous since a momentary fluctuation in popularity or a strong regional candidate could grab the election. Plus it would certainly allow dozens of people to run, since they all could be assured of getting some percentage of the popular vote.
I also think that it won't make candidates more available, and may make them campaign in a more restricted area. They could content themselves with a broad message for most of the country, and spend all their time trying to encourage massive turnouts in their core regions.
But my biggest concern that could threaten the peaceful operation of this country , is it could cause a contested election that will be almost impossible to resolve because the votes could come from anywhere. At least in 2000 they could be isolated to a few counties.
Thank you for reading.
And how does the current system protect against "a momentary fluctuation in popularity or a strong regional candidate could grab the election. Plus it would certainly allow dozens of people to run, since they all could be assured of getting some percentage of the popular vote" or support the "peaceful operation of this country, by isolating [potential fraudulent votes] to a few counties?
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system encourages regional candidates. A third-party candidate has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for states that he or she can win or affect the results. Minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). Candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states. Extremist candidacies as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won a substantial number of electoral votes in numerous states.
If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured apocalyptic outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
In 2000, as little as 537 popular votes in Florida won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws, we have a precarious system, highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008).
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
Quote: kohlerThank you for reading.
And how does the current system protect against "a momentary fluctuation in popularity or a strong regional candidate could grab the election. Plus it would certainly allow dozens of people to run, since they all could be assured of getting some percentage of the popular vote" or support the "peaceful operation of this country, by isolating [potential fraudulent votes] to a few counties?
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system encourages regional candidates. A third-party candidate has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for states that he or she can win or affect the results. Minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). Candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states. Extremist candidacies as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won a substantial number of electoral votes in numerous states.
If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured apocalyptic outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
In 2000, as little as 537 popular votes in Florida won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws, we have a precarious system, highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008).
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
The thing is, in anything but a close election, it doesn't matter. The results will be the same. If it is a very close election, recounts in every precinct in the country would be a madhouse. You thought the lawsuits in a few FLA counties were bad? Imagine in every county in the US?
Each state has different provisions, as the founders wanted. I suppose if they form a compact, the legality of it would be judged. If ruled acceptable, then that's the system we'd have. I'm just saying I would never support it in my state and in my opinion it's a horrible idea.
Also, you can't use revisionist history to say Gore "would have won" the popular vote. If the rules going into the game were different, perhaps Bush would not have chosen a VP that would provide such a small geographic addition to his total. If he had known that racking up votes was important, maybe Pete Wilson would have been the VP selection. Sure, he probably still wouldn't have won Cali, but maybe the popular former 2 term Governor would have given him many more votes on the left coast. Or maybe he'd have spent more time in Texas racking up even bigger margins. I know you never really said it, but don't fall into the trap that if we were a popular vote winner country, that Gore would have won that election.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.
Let's look at the 1880 election where the principal candidates won 19 states apiece.
Garfield had a margin of victory in the nationwide popular vote of 1,898 votes or 0.021% of the popular vote. That is such a small percentage that given some very small factors like rainstorms, it could just as easily have been Winfield Scott Hancock with the same margin of popular vote victory.
Garfield had 58% of the electoral college vote largely because he won New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (the huge states at the time).
You think the four largest states in the Union would willingly vote for Hancock because he won an overwhelming victory in Texas? I think it will never happen.
Quote: SOOPOOInteresting map, Paco... The vote seems split north south, essentially. My problem with the electoral college concept is that as a New Yorker, I know my vote does not matter. As we have so many on the public dole a Democrat will win every time. So since that is true the candidates need not even pay attention to NY other than cursorily. The only states that matter are the 'swing' states. Both systems have plusses and minuses.
Well only 4 of the 29 NY districts voted for McCain in 2008. The 26th and 29th in Western NY, and 3rd on Long Island, and 13th on Staten Island. Obama won his biggest landslide in the nation in the 16th (Bronx), even bigger than his home district in Chicago.
The federal government considers the following counties:
Chautauqua,Cattaraugus, Allegany,Steuben,Chemung,Tioga, Broome,Delaware (along PA border)
Schuyler,Tompkins,Cortland, Chenango, Otsego, Schoharie (one row up from the PA border)
to be the northernmost part of the Appalachian Region.
Quote: SOOPOOInteresting map, Paco... The vote seems split north south, essentially. My problem with the electoral college concept is that as a New Yorker, I know my vote does not matter. As we have so many on the public dole a Democrat will win every time. So since that is true the candidates need not even pay attention to NY other than cursorily. The only states that matter are the 'swing' states. Both systems have plusses and minuses.
That North/South split is apparent in the vast majority of non-landslide elections for most of the Country's history. Republicans didn't even appear on the ballot in some of the South in the past. The poles have switched somewhat today.
Quote: pacomartinYou think the four largest states in the Union would willingly vote for Hancock because he won an overwhelming victory in Texas? I think it will never happen.
I remember seeing an interview with Jimmy Carter, and I think it was during the battle following the Gore-Bush election. The interviewer started to ask about the desirability of a popular vote system. Carter's interrupted to reply that it didn't matter whether it might be a good idea or not, it was never going to happen. He just dismissed the entire concept. I think he was right and that a popular vote system would be an invitation to election turmoil in this country.
Quote: pacomartinI think you overestimate the effect of gerrymandering. Look at Nebraska for instance. McCain won by 39% in district #3, and by 10% in district #1. Obama won by 1% in district #2 (around Omaha). So they gave 4 electoral college votes to McCain and 1 electoral college vote to Obama.
Now if you redraw the congressional districts so that you split the city into pieces in an effort to divide the urban vote, you would run the risk of the Democrats winning 2 of the districts. Because they win 2 out of 3 districts, where would you vote the other two votes? Would you give them to McCain because he wins the majority of the state popular vote, or to Obama because he won the majority of the districts? Besides, the congressional districts serve a purpose in government. The people would probably object to having the city of Omaha split in half.
Gerrymandering works better for local politics. Presidential politics are more variable. Last election 83 out of 245 congressional districts (1/3) voted for one party for representative, and the other party for the presidential candidate.
I also think that the most ridiculous gerrymandering schemes would lose out to common sense.
Gerrymandering would become more important when presidential politics are in play.
To your point about the variability of Presidential races: sure. Still, people pretty reliably vote with their party in a presidential race. You can make districts that swing the outcome one way or another. The 1/3 number splitting parties for representative and president is inflated by the healthy margin by which Obama won.
I favor a system with less arbitrary and manipulable lines. Going district by district maximizes the arbitrariness.
Quote: bbvk05Gerrymandering would become more important when presidential politics are in play.
To your point about the variability of Presidential races: sure. Still, people pretty reliably vote with their party in a presidential race. You can make districts that swing the outcome one way or another. The 1/3 number splitting parties for representative and president is inflated by the healthy margin by which Obama won.
I favor a system with less arbitrary and manipulable lines. Going district by district maximizes the arbitrariness.
In order to nearly guarantee a Republican win in all three districts you would have to split Douglas county into three pieces, and choose the rural counties to make the districts equal in size. I think the people would reject that kind of blatant gerrymandering.
Your last statement seems to indicate that you will accept nothing short of a nationwide popular vote. My personal feeling is that will probably break down the party system.
The founding fathers felt that the president should be elected by a majority, not a plurality. They simply defined a majority as a majority of electoral college votes.
They aren't going to jeopardize their US House seats to grab a chance at winning an Electoral vote in 2, 4, 6, or even 8 years in the future. So the seats are gerrymandered to a degree in many states (not all, some use different commissions, by law must respect County lines, etc), but not for the purpose of Presidential politics.
