We The People: National Popular Vote!

[leper84]

I'll cross post this since there are two threads of similar topic...


I still want to know why it's not reasonable to award electorate votes per state as a percentage of voting. If the vote is split 75/25 then give 75% of the electoral votes for the state to that candidate and the remaining to the other. Rinse and repeat for all 50 states. Then winner overall of electorate tally takes it.

From my understanding each State decides electors and how they vote, so there is no reason if that idea were popular enough that people couldn't demand their local representatives make it law.

In fact this election Maine split and promised 3 electoral votes to Clinton and 1 to Trump.

 

[Brainonska511]

From my understanding each State decides electors and how they vote, so there is no reason if that idea were popular enough that people couldn't demand their local representatives make it law.

In fact this election Maine split and promised 3 electoral votes to Clinton and 1 to Trump.

Each state decides how their electors are chosen, but no state will unilaterally move to a proportional system because it would diminish their own influence. Hence the need for a compact between states that would only take effect at a critical mass or a constitutional amendment.

 

[SNC]

I do want to address one thing that hasn't been discussed in this thread. There is an assumption that a popular vote would favor the blue team and not the red team. That is not necessarily the case. Ultimately we cannot tell who it would favor because it's very hard to measure how much voter suppression occurs due to the EC. No one knows just how many people would actually show up to vote if all votes were equal. There are people who stay at home because they know their state is pretty much set in stone on both sides. Maybe Republicans in California would come out to vote. Maybe Dems in Alabama would come out. No one knows.

Actually I did.

 

[leper84]

Each state decides how their electors are chosen, but no state will unilaterally move to a proportional system because it would diminish their own influence. Hence the need for a compact between states that would only take effect at a critical mass or a constitutional amendment.

If the people in a state demanded their elections and electors handled that way then they would have no choice. If people can't make this happen with the tools already available at the State level then the chances of amending the Constitution to change the electoral college are pretty much zero.

 

[Vic]

I still stand by the electoral college. We are a federal republic, not a unitary state. The individual states should continue to have proportional representation in determining the executive.

 

[Newbian]

It is not incorrect because it did not happen, It could only be incorrect if it happened and turned out differently than predicted. Learn how to think.

Your assumption of what incorrect is is incorrect.

 

[Matthiasa]

I still stand by the electoral college. We are a federal republic, not a unitary state. The individual states should continue to have proportional representation in determining the executive.

Except you know how it isn't actually proportional representation in the current system...

 

[Blue_Max]

So people suddenly have the urgency to abolish the Electoral College because their candidate didn't win?

Seems just like our society.

Yep. Cry until you get what you want/demand.

Whole lotta' college kids need a whippin' out in the woodshed.

 

[buckshot24]

Except you know how it isn't actually proportional representation in the current system...

It isn't exactly proportional, if it was it wouldn't be any different than a national vote.

 

[cubby1223]

Clinton's vote tally lead is pretty much due solely to California. That's the pros and cons of the rules of the election.

In the current rules, states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, get most of the attention. Quite frankly, I'm glad it's not me. I'd rather be in a state with solid devotion to one side. And for the record, I live in a blue state. Fewer trash commercials each election cycle to suffer through not worth whatever benefits come from the political focus. Trump can choose to ignore California, just like Clinton gambled on her choice to ignore the entire center of the U.S.

Switch the system up to popular vote, and parties will just find new strategies to focus, divide, and conquer. Same problems will remain, just a different geographical divide. You're not solving the world of shitty politics by switching up the rules of the Presidential election.

All you're doing is feeding your inner rage over this one election.

 

[1prophet]

We can only hope now that the EC has the good

We can only hope now that the EC lives up that responsibility and vote to block the guy who won based on insane localized mob rule and installs the person favored by the sane half of the nation, What a perfect time for the elites and wise to stand up and save the nation from the self destructive power of psychopathic imbeciles.

The elites and wise with their "let them eat cake" mentality is why we ended up with Trump, Democrats need to get back to their roots "the middle class" and stop playing "Republican light" for their corporate masters once they get in office.

They didn't just lose the presidency but the house and senate as well, which wouldn't have happened if they actually were looking out for the the "deplorable little people" like they used to in the past that they now despise, but love to court celebrities and other high profile people instead.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Party of Superdelegates complaining about Electoral College. The irony is delicious

How does this comment relate to anything?

Just think about it for a while.

I've thought about it and other than his attempt at humor, I still don't get it. The Super Delegates were for the Democrats Primary. This is not a General Election since in most places only Democrats can vote in the Democrats Primary. You can hate the process all you want but its not relevant since you are not a Democrat.
BTW: The General Election has super delegates too.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So people suddenly have the urgency to abolish the Electoral College because their candidate didn't win?

Seems just like our society.

Nope, I said it before the election. I'll go back and find the post if needed. I believed it should be changed since at least 2000.
Don't confuse what I said and act like I want the election taken from Trump. I want it for future elections.

 

[postmortemIA]

So glad California couldn't force their choice upon rest of USA this time. Hillary had 55 electoral votes from California, isn't that enough? A good head start?

 

[SNC]

I've thought about it and other than his attempt at humor, I still don't get it. The Super Delegates were for the Democrats Primary. This is not a General Election since in most places only Democrats can vote in the Democrats Primary. You can hate the process all you want but its not relevant since you are not a Democrat.
BTW: The General Election has super delegates too.

?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

?

its between me and Bucky

 

[Brainonska511]

So glad California couldn't force their choice upon rest of USA this time. Hillary had 55 electoral votes from California, isn't that enough? A good head start?

Yeah, it's much better to give disproportionate influence based on geographic location instead of one person, one vote. You know, on a per person level, California's electoral votes are worth less than less populated states' delegates. California is also not a unified state - there is as much diversity in that state as the entire US, but you wouldn't necessarily know that because conservatives are drowned out in the presidential vote thanks to this archaic system.

 

[Jaskalas]

So glad California couldn't force their choice upon rest of USA this time. Hillary had 55 electoral votes from California, isn't that enough? A good head start?

And every single one of those 55 votes were for Clinton. Popular Vote means CA Republicans get to participate.
EC is largely based on population, the primary difference is every vote would count.

 

[TallBill]

As posted in the other thread,

The election wasn't campaigned for as a popular vote, and voters didn't turn out for a popular vote. It is literally impossible to know what a popular vote turnout would have been and any discussion regarding such event is moot. Popular vote is a logical fallacy, constructed to create a non-existent story. Even if it was an actual thing, it still wouldn't matter.

 

[fskimospy]

As posted in the other thread,

The election wasn't campaigned for as a popular vote, and voters didn't turn out for a popular vote. It is literally impossible to know what a popular vote turnout would have been and any discussion regarding such event is moot. Popular vote is a logical fallacy, constructed to create a non-existent story. Even if it was an actual thing, it still wouldn't matter.

Of course you can make an educated guess by looking at registered voter polls, which Clinton won handily. Attempting to act like it's something that you can't even speculate intelligently on is absolute silliness and an attempt to ignore a pretty awkward truth.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course you can make an educated guess by looking at registered voter polls, which Clinton won handily. Attempting to act like it's something that you can't even speculate intelligently on is absolute silliness and an attempt to ignore a pretty awkward truth.

Ignoring awkward truths is how conservatives voted for Trump in the first place. Only catastrophe will cause them to re-evaluate.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Is there a time limit on the votes? For example if Vermont "voted" for the change in 2012 and now it's 4 years later, does that "vote" slide off the books? Does this one time vote just continue in perpetuity until maybe someday it finally passes?

 

[TallBill]

Of course you can make an educated guess by looking at registered voter polls, which Clinton won handily. Attempting to act like it's something that you can't even speculate intelligently on is absolute silliness and an attempt to ignore a pretty awkward truth.

I'm sure there are plenty of people, myself included, who didn't register because we live in unwinnable states. Of course, I wouldn't have been voting for Clinton or Trump in any kind of election. Speculation is fine, but I haven't seen a single person on a forum, social media, blog, or any source who has speculated with the assumptions that would be necessary if popular vote was a thing.

 

[jammix]

Win by large amounts where you win + lose by small amounts where you lose = loser can have more votes that the winner.

If you remove California, I imagine that the numbers would add up to her losing the popular vote. How much of that is due to illegals is a separate issue; but it is basically all about California.

 

[TallBill]

Win by large amounts where you win + lose by small amounts where you lose = loser can have more votes that the winner.

If you remove California, I imagine that the numbers would add up to her losing the popular vote. How much of that is due to illegals is a separate issue, but it is basically all about California.

.

Somewhere that Trump didn't bother to campaign... because he knew it was unwinnable and a waste of time and energy, because popular vote doesn't matter.