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

[Crazyhole]

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

I made my point earlier. Cities already have disproportionate representation than rural areas in the house. A national popular vote for president would give them that same dynamic in 2 branches of government. If you want that kind of democracy then dont you think the same should apply on a greater scale in congress?

 

[Crazyhole]

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.

Bow down? No, but I dont see how that happens so I dont understand your point. Those areas already have representation that affects policy equal to or greater than rural areas.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Reminder: lefties are only consumed with this because they think it's the easier path for their nominee to win. There is no real interest here in making things more fair or "have every vote count", they think that HRC was robbed and here we are.

 

[Cubs79]

I made my point earlier. Cities already have disproportionate representation than rural areas in the house. A national popular vote for president would give them that same dynamic in 2 branches of government. If you want that kind of democracy then dont you think the same should apply on a greater scale in congress?

I still don't understand this logic. I am literally asking for 1 vote for 1 person. How can 1 vote per person be disproportionate in any way? And how do cities have a disproportionate amount of representation? You have said that, but unless I missed it, I don't see where you have back up that idea at all.

 

[Cubs79]

Bow down? No, but I dont see how that happens so I dont understand your point. Those areas already have representation that affects policy equal to or greater than rural areas.

Again, you keep saying that, but you have not remotely explained why you think this?

 

[hemightbejeremy]

I made my point earlier. Cities already have disproportionate representation than rural areas in the house. A national popular vote for president would give them that same dynamic in 2 branches of government. If you want that kind of democracy then dont you think the same should apply on a greater scale in congress?

It is already the same way in the presidential election. More populated states have more electoral votes. While some people still advocate for the current electoral college based on “giving the Midwest a voice”, actually the only states that have “a voice” so to speak are states where the electorate is relatively equally divided and the states electoral votes are in question. This is the case no matter if it is a more or less populated state.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

Reminder: lefties are only consumed with this because they think it's the easier path for their nominee to win. There is no real interest here in making things more fair or "have every vote count", they think that HRC was robbed and here we are.

Awe come on. You resorted to this already? We were having a healthy discussion. Maybe give it a few pages before whipping that back out.

 

[Cubs79]

Reminder: lefties are only consumed with this because they think it's the easier path for their nominee to win. There is no real interest here in making things more fair or "have every vote count", they think that HRC was robbed and here we are.

And Republicans are only protective of it because it is the only way they can win at this point.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

And Republicans are only protective of it because it is the only way they can win at this point.

No true. I believe they elected a president with the popular vote before. I mean last time was the 1980’s, but it’s been known to happen.

 

[Crazyhole]

No true. I believe they elected a president with the popular vote before. I mean last time was the 1980’s, but it’s been known to happen.

2004. The popular vote has only lost the presidency 3 times in history I think. Bill Clinton never won a majority so I guess you could throw his 2 elections in there as well. There might be more.

Edit: hillary didnt get 50% either.

 

[Crazyhole]

I guess one benefit of going with a popular vote would be greater viability of 3rd party candidates. If a party only has to get to 33.4 percent it might help break the 2 party system.

 

[Cubs79]

2004. The popular vote has only lost the presidency 3 times in history I think. Bill Clinton never won a majority so I guess you could throw his 2 elections in there as well. There might be more.

Edit: hillary didnt get 50% either.

They still received the most votes though. If 50% was needed we would have to have run off elections.

 

[Crazyhole]

They still received the most votes though. If 50% was needed we would have to have run off elections.

That would be interesting. I wonder how many of Gary Johnsons voters would have gone to Trump or Hillary, or how many Perot voters would have gone to Bush, Dole, or Clinton. It would be kind of cool to actually have that type of system on a national level.

 

[UCFKnight85]

And Republicans are only protective of it because it is the only way they can win at this point.

Not really. Trump will absolutely win the popular vote in November and the EC. I guess we're defending the EC since, you know, it's how the Constitution was drawn up to elect Presidents.

 

[Cubs79]

That would be interesting. I wonder how many of Gary Johnsons voters would have gone to Trump or Hillary, or how many Perot voters would have gone to Bush, Dole, or Clinton. It would be kind of cool to actually have that type of system on a national level.

I agree. I think that is a better system than what we have.

 

[Cubs79]

Not really. Trump will absolutely win the popular vote in November and the EC. I guess we're defending the EC since, you know, it's how the Constitution was drawn up to elect Presidents.

The constitution is allowed to be changed and in 2020 America I see absolutely no benefit to the EC.

 

[Crazyhole]

Another thing to consider about a national popular vote, not all states include all candidates on their ballots. Wouldn't there have to be some sort of regulation that ensures that a candidate like gary johnson or jill stein are on all ballots?

 

[fried-chicken]

In regards to making a bunch of people's votes in the middle US meaningless this is just not true.

The system we have makes everyone outside of swing states vote meaningless.

If you're in any state that goes one way or another by 55+%, your vote is effectively already meaningless. It doesn't matter what side you are for or against. Your vote is pointless. You wont change any delegate. Your state will do what it's going to do even if 80% of the population decided not to vote, baring some statistical anomaly, the 20% that does should be statistically representitive.

Having a national popular vote encourages voter turnout because even if you're a republican in California you know you can cancel out your liberal neighbors.

Right now your vote only matters if you're in one of 6 swing states which is why we saw 66.7% of the campaign events held in these states while the rest of the nation got ignored.

 

[Crazyhole]

In regards to making a bunch of people's votes in the middle US meaningless this is just not true.

The system we have makes everyone outside of swing states vote meaningless.

If you're in any state that goes one way or another by 55+%, your vote is effectively already meaningless. It doesn't matter what side you are for or against. Your vote is pointless. You wont change any delegate. Your state will do what it's going to do even if 80% of the population decided not to vote, baring some statistical anomaly, the 20% that does should be statistically representitive.

Having a national popular vote encourages voter turnout because even if you're a republican in California you know you can cancel out your liberal neighbors.

Right now your vote only matters if you're in one of 6 swing states which is why we saw 66.7% of the campaign events held in these states while the rest of the nation got ignored.

Let's brainstorm this out. How do you structure the vote so that someone has to win a majority? That seems like the real issue here. If there are 3 candidates, one could become president with 34% of the vote. That's not exactly a mandate. If the goal is to make sure that the people are directly electing their president we need to figure out how to get someone over 50%. How could we structure that?

 

[ChrisKnight06]

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

Yes this is what I posted and it seems completely reasonable while also getting away from a winner take all system the rewards you for focusing your energy in only a few key battlegrounds. It has to be more ideal than our current system.

 

[Crazyhole]

Yes this is what I posted and it seems completely reasonable while also getting away from a winner take all system the rewards you for focusing your energy in only a few key battlegrounds. It has to be more ideal than our current system.

Amazingly, this is how it was supposed to be done from the very beginning.

 

[Cubs79]

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

Doing it by district brings gerrymandering into play, so I will pass on that. If you did it by %, (candidate x gets 60% of the vote so he gets 60% of the electoral votes from that state,) then i might be ok with that. But in saying that, I still dont understand how a popular vote doesnt make the most sense.

 

[Cubs79]

Yes this is what I posted and it seems completely reasonable while also getting away from a winner take all system the rewards you for focusing your energy in only a few key battlegrounds. It has to be more ideal than our current system.

It might be reasonable if we knew they wouldnt gerrymander the districts even more, but we know that wont be the case.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

I believe France has a multi party system with run off elections between top candidates. So there is less voting based on the lesser of two evils like we have in the states. If your ideal candidate gets weeded out in an early round of voting, you can still redirect your vote to a remaining candidate that is preferred in a later round. You aren’t “throwing your vote away” by voting for a third party candidate in this system and encourages voting outside of two mainstream candidates.

I’m not sure how viable this is however when we have a system where the electorate doesn’t directly elect the president.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

Doing it by district brings gerrymandering into play, so I will pass on that. If you did it by %, (candidate x gets 60% of the vote so he gets 60% of the electoral votes from that state,) then i might be ok with that. But in saying that, I still dont understand how a popular vote doesnt make the most sense.

Doing it by percentage of electoral votes still gives conservatives a bit of what they want since electoral votes per person in a state aren’t equal across the board. So they could give Californians 3/5 of the electoral votes per capita (or whatever 85 is suggesting a Californian’s vote should be worth) as Iowa. It would still be better than winner take all in a state.

 

[fried-chicken]

What is a compelling reason for not having 1 person = 1 vote?

We don't do state wide elections by who wins the most counties, we do it based on 1 person = 1 vote.

Saying you don't want California to decide is silly. California, the state, isn't deciding. It's the millions and millions and millions of people that live there. You're essentially saying you don't want middle America over ruled but to achieve that you're overruling Americans that live in cities.

1 person = 1 vote may have been difficult to count at one point in our history but it's easy as **** right now. We already do it it just doesn't mean anything.

I understand why republicans think this is doom and gloom but your candidates will campaign differently. They might put ideas out that will appeal to moderates in states they have written off for years. Democrats might try to appeal to suburban families in southern states vs giving up on the south.

It will force politicians from the extremes in my opinion and I think that's about as important now as it's ever been.

 

[Crazyhole]

Doing it by district brings gerrymandering into play, so I will pass on that. If you did it by %, (candidate x gets 60% of the vote so he gets 60% of the electoral votes from that state,) then i might be ok with that. But in saying that, I still dont understand how a popular vote doesnt make the most sense.

Gerrymandering to me isnt that big of a deal because it's not permanent. There was a time about 140 years ago when it was a serious concern because of poll taxes but that isnt the case anymore. And outside of North Carolina and Illinois its rarely egregious. But I do see your point, I just dont think it's as problematic as having a popular national vote without safeguards.

 

[Crazyhole]

What is a compelling reason for not having 1 person = 1 vote?

We don't do state wide elections by who wins the most counties, we do it based on 1 person = 1 vote.

Saying you don't want California to decide is silly. California, the state, isn't deciding. It's the millions and millions and millions of people that live there. You're essentially saying you don't want middle America over ruled but to achieve that you're overruling Americans that live in cities.

1 person = 1 vote may have been difficult to count at one point in our history but it's easy as **** right now. We already do it it just doesn't mean anything.

I understand why republicans think this is doom and gloom but your candidates will campaign differently. They might put ideas out that will appeal to moderates in states they have written off for years. Democrats might try to appeal to suburban families in southern states vs giving up on the south.

It will force politicians from the extremes in my opinion and I think that's about as important now as it's ever been.

The most compelling reason is that the presidency is already too powerful and by going to a direct democratic election it advances that power. The founding documents had a consensus theme of protecting against tyranny of the majority.

Our whole system is based on having a hedge against majority rule.

 

[Cubs79]

The most compelling reason is that the presidency is already too powerful and by going to a direct democratic election it advances that power. The founding documents had a consensus theme of protecting against tyranny of the majority.

Our whole system is based on having a hedge against majority rule.

That has nothing do with the EC. The House, Senate, judicial branch, etc are there to prevent tyranny of the majority, the manner in which we elect a president doesn't really do that.

 

[fried-chicken]

The most compelling reason is that the presidency is already too powerful and by going to a direct democratic election it advances that power. The founding documents had a consensus theme of protecting against tyranny of the majority.

Our whole system is based on having a hedge against majority rule.

A hedge, not a disregard.

 

[fried-chicken]

I'm just saying it would be good for America if democratic politicians had a reason to care about Alabama and Republican politicians had a reason to care about California

 

[Crazyhole]

A hedge, not a disregard.

It isnt disregard at all. If there was a case where over 50% voted for a candidate who didnt win, then it would be disregard. Maybe that would be a better reform that would lead to greater turnout, actually. Keep the EC but if any candidate gets over half then its settled.

 

[fried-chicken]

It isnt disregard at all. If there was a case where over 50% voted for a candidate who didnt win, then it would be disregard. Maybe that would be a better reform that would lead to greater turnout, actually. Keep the EC but if any candidate gets over half then its settled.

You just argued against majority rule and your very next post said the majority should overrule the EC

 

[UCFWayne]

the left loves minorities unless it pertains to the minority states.

 

[fried-chicken]

the left loves minorities unless it pertains to the minority states.

Sadly, living in a cousin loving backwoods state isn't a protected class.

 

[Crazyhole]

You just argued against majority rule and your very next post said the majority should overrule the EC

I'm looking for a common ground solution. If you dont want to have that discussion it's fine, but then just state your position once and move on. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it more valid.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

What is the argument against proportional electoral votes rather than winner take all in a state? I’ve never heard one. Seems it would only have benefits. Republicans could campaign California and actually net some electoral votes. Democrats could do the same in Texas. There would be no incentive to neglect large swaths of the country who live in non-swing states like there is now. Voters from a state that leans heavily toward one party also could feel like their vote contributes to a collective something. I’m all ears for a valid counterpoint though.

 

[Crazyhole]

What is the argument against proportional electoral votes rather than winner take all in a state? I’ve never heard one. Seems it would only have benefits. Republicans could campaign California and actually net some electoral votes. Democrats could do the same in Texas. There would be no incentive to neglect large swaths of the country who live in non-swing states like there is now. Voters from a state that leans heavily toward one party also could feel like their vote contributes to a collective something. I’m all ears for a valid counterpoint though.

The argument is against the 2 additional votes that each state gets equally. It's a false narrative in some ways, but the crux of their position is that Wyoming shouldnt get an additional 2 votes just like California gets an additional 2 votes.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

 

[UCFKnight85]

I'm just saying it would be good for America if democratic politicians had a reason to care about Alabama and Republican politicians had a reason to care about California

I can smell this bullshit a mile away. See through.