Virginia passes Bill to give presidential electoral votes to national popular vote winner.

[fried-chicken]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/politics/va-house-electoral-college-popular-vote/index.html


We'll be up to 199/270 if this goes through.

Worth noting that Maine had a bill on the governors desk and he didn't sign it into law. They have since elected a Democrat so maybe they're next.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Good to see D's in VA shilling for the groupthink coming out of CA and NY.

 

[firm_bizzle]

I'm predicting an electoral college tie. Trump is underwater in MI and PA, probably doesn't get Maine's 1 electoral vote this time either. He's even in WI. I think he holds the other states.

 

[fried-chicken]

Good to see D's in VA shilling for the groupthink coming out of CA and NY.

Oh no, groupthink that 1 person should get 1 vote.

How scandalous. 67% of all presidential campaign events were held in 5 states in 2016. Why should the votes of republicans in New York and California not matter? Why should votes of democrats in Mississippi not matter?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Oh no, groupthink that 1 person should get 1 vote.

How scandalous. 67% of all presidential campaign events were held in 5 states in 2016. Why should the votes of republicans in New York and California not matter? Why should votes of democrats in Mississippi not matter?

If you're too stupid to understand the merits of our system and why it was codified this way, then I'm not going to explain it for the 10000th time.

You guys are butthurt that the millions of leftie zombies in LA, SF, and NYC can't single handedly decide elections so this is where we're at.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

How the Maine/Nebraska model would have impacted the last 5 elections.

Cliffs: 4 of 5 remain the same with margins seemingly making more sense. The only flip would have been Romney defeating Obama.

https://electoralvotemap.com/what-if-all-states-split-their-electoral-votes-like-maine-and-nebraska/

 

[UCFWayne]

so what happens if trump magically wins the national popular vote, but doesnt win those select states? like he loses them by a very very small margin.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Democrats: "Hmm, should we simply stop calling everyone a racist and just go engage voters in the Midwest once and a while, to give impression we give a shit about them? Nah, ridiculous assertion. Let's change the constitutionally mandated way we elect Presidents to assure we must only pander to the liberal masses on each coast!"

 

[NinjaKnight]

Democrats: "Hmm, should we simply stop calling everyone a racist and just go engage voters in the Midwest once and a while, to give impression we give a shit about them? Nah, ridiculous assertion. Let's change the constitutionally mandated way we elect Presidents to assure we must only pander to the liberal masses on each coast!"

You really are a whiny little bitch.

 

[Crazyhole]

so what happens if trump magically wins the national popular vote, but doesnt win those select states? like he loses them by a very very small margin.

Then he would get all of their electoral votes.

 

[Boosted87]

If you're too stupid to understand the merits of our system and why it was codified this way, then I'm not going to explain it for the 10000th time.

You guys are butthurt that the millions of leftie zombies in LA, SF, and NYC can't single handedly decide elections so this is where we're at.

I see the merits of our current system. But I also see drawbacks. I get the complaint that you give CA too much power compared to Wyoming in Presidential elections with a national popular vote. But I also think that would counteract the power advantage Wyoming voters currently hold in the Senate. Keep in mind, the largest-to-smallest state population ratio was 10x in 1790. It's 66x today.

A Wyoming voter has 66x the power to shape the Senate than a California voter. To that end, an issue like statehood becomes purely political. DC voters support statehood with 86% of the vote. The House is going to pass a statehood resolution for DC, that Mitch has already said he'll kill purely because it'll give democrats two more senators. Whether DC should be a state or not should be a much more complex discussion than what party will it benefit in the senate?

It's possible to see the merits in the current system through the lens of the late 1700's, while also seeking reforms to modernize.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I see the merits of our current system. But I also see drawbacks. I get the complaint that you give CA too much power compared to Wyoming in Presidential elections with a national popular vote. But I also think that would counteract the power advantage Wyoming voters currently hold in the Senate. Keep in mind, the largest-to-smallest state population ratio was 10x in 1790. It's 66x today.

A Wyoming voter has 66x the power to shape the Senate than a California voter. To that end, an issue like statehood becomes purely political. DC voters support statehood with 86% of the vote. The House is going to pass a statehood resolution for DC, that Mitch has already said he'll kill purely because it'll give democrats two more senators. Whether DC should be a state or not should be a much more complex discussion than what party will it benefit in the senate?

It's possible to see the merits in the current system through the lens of the late 1700's, while also seeking reforms to modernize.

Ah yes, the "living constitution" argument then, huh? Nah. The people who wrote the Constitution weren't dumb, they knew that state populations wouldn't be the same in the 18th century as they are 100 or 200 or 300 years later. They didn't care.

They knew that who moved into what states more or less in the future was irrelevant to their more overreaching goal, which was to ensure we had a system that didn't allow a simple mob majority to overrun the priorities and rights of the States.

It works. It's only challenged by people who think paying attention to the needs of those lower populace states is beneath them.

 

[fried-chicken]

If you're too stupid to understand the merits of our system and why it was codified this way, then I'm not going to explain it for the 10000th time.

You guys are butthurt that the millions of leftie zombies in LA, SF, and NYC can't single handedly decide elections so this is where we're at.

Millions of people... single handedly deciding an election...

Hmmm...

Millions of people...
Single handedly...

Millions of people...
Single handedly...

I don't think you understand how hands work.

I'm struggling here. Those are citizens of the United states... Why should their wishes matter less because of where they live?

 

[fried-chicken]

I see the merits of our current system. But I also see drawbacks. I get the complaint that you give CA too much power compared to Wyoming in Presidential elections with a national popular vote. But I also think that would counteract the power advantage Wyoming voters currently hold in the Senate. Keep in mind, the largest-to-smallest state population ratio was 10x in 1790. It's 66x today.

A Wyoming voter has 66x the power to shape the Senate than a California voter. To that end, an issue like statehood becomes purely political. DC voters support statehood with 86% of the vote. The House is going to pass a statehood resolution for DC, that Mitch has already said he'll kill purely because it'll give democrats two more senators. Whether DC should be a state or not should be a much more complex discussion than what party will it benefit in the senate?

It's possible to see the merits in the current system through the lens of the late 1700's, while also seeking reforms to modernize.

The 48 senators that found that Trump needed to be removed from office represent 58% of the population.

 

[fried-chicken]

The senators that opposed Kavanaugh represented 40,000,000 more Americans than the senators that confirmed him.

We 100% have minority rule in America.

 

[NinjaKnight]

I see the merits of our current system. But I also see drawbacks. I get the complaint that you give CA too much power compared to Wyoming in Presidential elections with a national popular vote. But I also think that would counteract the power advantage Wyoming voters currently hold in the Senate. Keep in mind, the largest-to-smallest state population ratio was 10x in 1790. It's 66x today.

A Wyoming voter has 66x the power to shape the Senate than a California voter. To that end, an issue like statehood becomes purely political. DC voters support statehood with 86% of the vote. The House is going to pass a statehood resolution for DC, that Mitch has already said he'll kill purely because it'll give democrats two more senators. Whether DC should be a state or not should be a much more complex discussion than what party will it benefit in the senate?

It's possible to see the merits in the current system through the lens of the late 1700's, while also seeking reforms to modernize.

Interesting posts, thanks for providing actual numbers and facts, I wasn't aware of the sheer magnitude of population migration since the 1770's.

Good insight.

 

[Cubs79]

I see the merits of our current system. But I also see drawbacks. I get the complaint that you give CA too much power compared to Wyoming in Presidential elections with a national popular vote. But I also think that would counteract the power advantage Wyoming voters currently hold in the Senate. Keep in mind, the largest-to-smallest state population ratio was 10x in 1790. It's 66x today.

A Wyoming voter has 66x the power to shape the Senate than a California voter. To that end, an issue like statehood becomes purely political. DC voters support statehood with 86% of the vote. The House is going to pass a statehood resolution for DC, that Mitch has already said he'll kill purely because it'll give democrats two more senators. Whether DC should be a state or not should be a much more complex discussion than what party will it benefit in the senate?

It's possible to see the merits in the current system through the lens of the late 1700's, while also seeking reforms to modernize.

I don't see the merits of the electoral college at all at this point. Each state has Senators, and each district has a Rep, so everywhere does have their on own representation. So I don't understand why the election of the president also has to be taken away from the people and put in the hands of a system that is only around to benefit the minority of the country.

 

[Crazyhole]

Ah yes, the "living constitution" argument then, huh? Nah. The people who wrote the Constitution weren't dumb, they knew that state populations wouldn't be the same in the 18th century as they are 100 or 200 or 300 years later. They didn't care.

They knew that who moved into what states more or less in the future was irrelevant to their more overreaching goal, which was to ensure we had a system that didn't allow a simple mob majority to overrun the priorities and rights of the States.

It works. It's only challenged by people who think paying attention to the needs of those lower populace states is beneath them.

The brilliance in their system was that it did take population swings into account. That's why California has more influence in congress than 20 states combined, but is also restricted in their influence in the senate so there's a hedge against mob rule.

We would be better off if all states followed the electoral model that nebraska uses. It would more closely represent the will of the people without giving too much influence to states like California that would come from a national popular vote. It would be the same kind of power structure that we have in the legislative branch.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The senators that opposed Kavanaugh represented 40,000,000 more Americans than the senators that confirmed him.

We 100% have minority rule in America.

Actually it proves the system works great. The Democrats weren't able to lie, invent slanders, and destroy the guy's life all in the name of sinking a nominee. Reason and actual facts won the day, and majority mob rule who was willing to destroy a guy based upon lies did not.

Thanks for making that point for us.

 

[Cubs79]

Actually it proves the system works great. The Democrats weren't able to lie, invent slanders, and destroy the guy's life all in the name of sinking a nominee. Reason and actual facts won the day, and majority mob rule who was willing to destroy a guy based upon lies did not.

Thanks for making that point for us.

That is nothing more than your opinion and most certainly doesn't "prove" anything. I am pretty sure you would be singing a different tune if the parties were reversed in this scenario.

 

[Crazyhole]

Actually it proves the system works great. The Democrats weren't able to lie, invent slanders, and destroy the guy's life all in the name of sinking a nominee. Reason and actual facts won the day, and majority mob rule who was willing to destroy a guy based upon lies did not.

Thanks for making that point for us.

There was a time in the not so distant past that SCOTUS nominees were appointed based on being qualified for the job, not whether they had the right political ideology. Kavanaugh is clearly qualified for the job so there should have been no doubt that he be appointed.

 

[Cubs79]

The brilliance in their system was that it did take population swings into account. That's why California has more influence in congress than 20 states combined, but is also restricted in their influence in the senate so there's a hedge against mob rule.

We would be better off if all states followed the electoral model that nebraska uses. It would more closely represent the will of the people without giving too much influence to states like California that would come from a national popular vote. It would be the same kind of power structure that we have in the legislative branch.

I don't understand this idea that everyone in states votes the same way. The only reason states matter in the presidential election is because of the electoral college, so California wouldn't have any more influence than anywhere else if you take away the EC and just count invidividual votes. Trump got 4.5 million votes in California that didn't count for squat. In a popular election that is a lot of votes, in an EC election, they were meaningless.

 

[Cubs79]

There was a time in the not so distant past that SCOTUS nominees were appointed based on being qualified for the job, not whether they had the right political ideology. Kavanaugh is clearly qualified for the job so there should have been no doubt that he be appointed.

So was Merrick Garland.

 

[Crazyhole]

I don't understand this idea that everyone in states votes the same way. The only reason states matter in the presidential election is because of the electoral college, so California wouldn't have any more influence than anywhere else if you take away the EC and just count invidividual votes. Trump got 4.5 million votes in California that didn't count for squat. In a popular election that is a lot of votes, in an EC election, they were meaningless.

Apportion them by district and they wouldn't be meaningless.

 

[Crazyhole]

So was Merrick Garland.

Agreed, and I didnt support McConnell tabling his nomination. It, along with the Bork and Thomas confirmation hearings made SCOTUS too political. Moving forward, every nominee will face political opposition which is too bad.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I don't understand this idea that everyone in states votes the same way. The only reason states matter in the presidential election is because of the electoral college, so California wouldn't have any more influence than anywhere else if you take away the EC and just count invidividual votes. Trump got 4.5 million votes in California that didn't count for squat. In a popular election that is a lot of votes, in an EC election, they were meaningless.

So the idea is to make those 4.5M votes "meaningful" and make most of the middle of the country meaningless.

Again, no. The founders knew what they were doing and it's worked.

Fact: if HRC wins in 2016 we aren't even having this conversation. This is undisputable. This is all just butthurt sour grapes.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

I’d be satisfied with proportional state electoral votes based on state popular vote. The winner take all electoral system in a state disenfranchises conservative voters in highly liberal states and liberal voters in highly conservative states. Several primaries already do this.

 

[Cubs79]

So the idea is to make those 4.5M votes "meaningful" and make most of the middle of the country meaningless.

Again, no. The founders knew what they were doing and it's worked.

Fact: if HRC wins in 2016 we aren't even having this conversation. This is undisputable. This is all just butthurt sour grapes.

This conversation has been going on since Bush and Gore at least.

Why would it make the middle of the country meaningless? About 130 million people voted in 2016, only about 12.5 million of those were from California, and like I said, about 4.5 million of those California votes went to Trump. So where does this idea come from that California would decide every election if it was a popular vote? California on its own would have only accounted for about 4 million vote gain for Clinton over Trump. That is hardly enough to over ride the rest of the country.

 

[UCFKnight85]

This conversation has been going on since Bush and Gore at least.

Why would it make the middle of the country meaningless? About 130 million people voted in 2016, only about 12.5 million of those were from California, and like I said, about 4.5 million of those California votes went to Trump. So where does this idea come from that California would decide every election if it was a popular vote? California on its own would have only accounted for about 4 million vote gain for Clinton over Trump. That is hardly enough to over ride the rest of the country.

Uh, because if we had 50.1% majority rule, candidates would spend 90% of their time in the largest population centers trying to eek out every single vote from there. There are 40M people in California, there are 3M people in all over Iowa. Why would a candidate remotely give a shit about the needs of Iowans when they can get more votes in CA alone than live in that entire state?

There's only so much time and money for campaigning. Hell, we have the Electoral College and HRC still didn't even rally in the Midwest.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

This conversation has been going on since Bush and Gore at least.

Why would it make the middle of the country meaningless? About 130 million people voted in 2016, only about 12.5 million of those were from California, and like I said, about 4.5 million of those California votes went to Trump. So where does this idea come from that California would decide every election if it was a popular vote? California on its own would have only accounted for about 4 million vote gain for Clinton over Trump. That is hardly enough to over ride the rest of the country.

It’s impossible to know the true number of California voters that would have voted for Trump if the result (all CA electoral votes going to Clinton) wasn’t a foregone conclusion. It is certainly higher than the 4.5 million that actually cast a ballot.

 

[Crazyhole]

This conversation has been going on since Bush and Gore at least.

Why would it make the middle of the country meaningless? About 130 million people voted in 2016, only about 12.5 million of those were from California, and like I said, about 4.5 million of those California votes went to Trump. So where does this idea come from that California would decide every election if it was a popular vote? California on its own would have only accounted for about 4 million vote gain for Clinton over Trump. That is hardly enough to over ride the rest of the country.

California is just the biggest example. What it's really about are whether the population centers who have over half of the countries population should have more influence than rural areas in both congress AND the presidency.

 

[Crazyhole]

It’s impossible to know the true number of California voters that would have voted for Trump if the result (all CA electoral votes going to Clinton) wasn’t a foregone conclusion. It is certainly higher than the 4.5 million that actually cast a ballot.

That's why apportioning by district would have the same effect as having a popular vote. The winner-take-all system decreases voter turnout in states like California, but if people knew that their district could have a voice then those people who show up.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

Uh, because if we had 50.1% majority rule, candidates would spend 90% of their time in the largest population centers trying to eek out every single vote from there. There are 40M people in California, there are 3M people in all over Iowa. Why would a candidate remotely give a shit about the needs of Iowans when they can get more votes in CA alone than live in that entire state?

There's only so much time and money for campaigning. Hell, we have the Electoral College and HRC still didn't even rally in the Midwest.

Uh, it’s only that way because California heavily leans toward Democratic candidates and campaigning in a state where the election result is a foregone conclusion is worthless. It’s not due to some sort of better good throwing a bone to little ole Iowa. Iowa is a swing state. If there was a chance for Republicans to win California or New York and their large number of electoral votes, then 90% of the campaigning would in fact be in those states and Iowa would get no attention at all.

 

[Cubs79]

California is just the biggest example. What it's really about are whether the population centers who have over half of the countries population should have more influence than rural areas in both congress AND the presidency.

I don't understand this logic at all. Why should the population centers not have influence? They have people, they have money, commerce, tourism, etc etc, yet they should have less influence than the minority party? In what world is this logical?

 

[Cubs79]

It’s impossible to know the true number of California voters that would have voted for Trump if the result (all CA electoral votes going to Clinton) wasn’t a foregone conclusion. It is certainly higher than the 4.5 million that actually cast a ballot.

This is true. Many people from both sides don't even bother to vote if they know their vote is going to be meaningless in their state.

 

[Cubs79]

Uh, because if we had 50.1% majority rule, candidates would spend 90% of their time in the largest population centers trying to eek out every single vote from there. There are 40M people in California, there are 3M people in all over Iowa. Why would a candidate remotely give a shit about the needs of Iowans when they can get more votes in CA alone than live in that entire state?

There's only so much time and money for campaigning. Hell, we have the Electoral College and HRC still didn't even rally in the Midwest.

But this already happens. Candidates spend most of their time in swing states and certainly pick and choose where they put their time and money based on the importance of a particular state, and most certainly ignore lots of areas of the country who they feel are either unwinnable or they will win easily.

 

[Crazyhole]

I don't understand this logic at all. Why should the population centers not have influence? They have people, they have money, commerce, tourism, etc etc, yet they should have less influence than the minority party? In what world is this logical?

They do have influence. Cities control over half of congress.

Would you be in favor of a popular vote in each state to select all of their representatives?

 

[Cubs79]

They do have influence. Cities control over half of congress.

Would you be in favor of a popular vote in each state to select all of their representatives?

I don't understand your question. Representatives represent districts not states, and we have a popular vote to elect our senators.

 

[UCFKnight85]

But this already happens. Candidates spend most of their time in swing states and certainly pick and choose where they put their time and money based on the importance of a particular state, and most certainly ignore lots of areas of the country who they feel are either unwinnable or they will win easily.

Yea, and those swing states are very different in what they view as important. That's good. Candidates have to pretend that they care about the rural voter in Ohio or Virginia and not just camp out in urban population centers.

 

[Cubs79]

Yea, and those swing states are very different in what they view as important. That's good. Candidates have to pretend that they care about the rural voter in Ohio or Virginia and not just camp out in urban population centers.

So our politicians should bow down to the wants of Midwest swing states but not the coastal and urban areas? I disagree, they should worry about individual voters and have a platform to try to win over more people, not just more land masses.