Electoral college

[Bigred_inSD]

If this is being discussed in another post, ignore and redirect it.

 

Hillary won the popular vote, but obviously lost the Presidential race. So again people are trying to drop the electoral college.

 

I disagree. States like California and New York would always decide on president. It would probably always be the Democrat nominee,

 

And it would be the biggest case of gerrymandering in history. And being a democrat in SD I already see plenty of that.

[Moiraine]

If this is being discussed in another post, ignore and redirect it.

 

Hillary won the popular vote, but obviously lost the Presidential race. So again people are trying to drop the electoral college.

 

I disagree. States like California and New York would always decide on president. It would probably always be the Democrat nominee,

 

And it would be the biggest case of gerrymandering in history. And being a democrat in SD I already see plenty of that.

 

 

You're misunderstanding what gerrymandering is. It's absolutely, 100% impossible to gerrymander when using the popular vote. Each person's vote is worth exactly the same amount (1) with a popular vote. If you want me to explain what gerrymandering is I'd be happy to. Not going to do it in this post, in case you're not really interested. Let me know.

[Bigred_inSD]

 

 

If this is being discussed in another post, ignore and redirect it.

 

Hillary won the popular vote, but obviously lost the Presidential race. So again people are trying to drop the electoral college.

 

I disagree. States like California and New York would always decide on president. It would probably always be the Democrat nominee,

 

And it would be the biggest case of gerrymandering in history. And being a democrat in SD I already see plenty of that.

 

You're misunderstanding what gerrymandering is. It's absolutely, 100% impossible to gerrymander when using the popular vote. Each person's vote is worth exactly the same amount (1) with a popular vote. If you want me to explain what gerrymandering is I'd be happy to. Not going to do it in this post, in case you're not really interested. Let me know.

It's drawing district lines to ensure or almost ensure one party wins and making those lines as absurd as possible ( cross county lines, certain city blocks while skipping others. So on.

 

Its not the pure definition of it, but in a way it is. Or at least in my opinion, other probably disagree and rightfully so.

 

Either way I disagree with going to the popular vote. Neither ways are perfect

[Moiraine]

 

 

If this is being discussed in another post, ignore and redirect it.

 

Hillary won the popular vote, but obviously lost the Presidential race. So again people are trying to drop the electoral college.

 

I disagree. States like California and New York would always decide on president. It would probably always be the Democrat nominee,

 

And it would be the biggest case of gerrymandering in history. And being a democrat in SD I already see plenty of that.

 

You're misunderstanding what gerrymandering is. It's absolutely, 100% impossible to gerrymander when using the popular vote. Each person's vote is worth exactly the same amount (1) with a popular vote. If you want me to explain what gerrymandering is I'd be happy to. Not going to do it in this post, in case you're not really interested. Let me know.

It's drawing district lines to ensure or almost ensure one party wins and making those lines as absurd as possible ( cross county lines, certain city blocks while skipping others. So on.

 

Its not the pure definition of it, but in a way it is. Or at least in my opinion, other probably disagree and rightfully so.

 

Either way I disagree with going to the popular vote. Neither ways are perfect

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but in this case it doesn't matter what your opinion is. When you use the popular vote on the whole country, the state lines don't matter. Each vote counts for the same amount. That's a 100% fact.

 

 

 

 

It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to do the above when you use the popular vote for the Presidential election. There aren't any lines drawn.

 

 

I'm not vehemently against the electoral college, btw. If we got rid of it and went with the popular vote for president, the Senate should gain more power to make up for it. That's the only way to make sure people in places like Nebraska get their voices heard.

[The Dude]

"See, I told you the electoral college was a disaster for democracy."

 

-Donald J. Trump

[zoogs]

I've always defended the EC. I think the fairest criticisms of it are this thing with who the electors are and how they get chosen.

 

Although, if every state did it this way with a country:state::state:county analogy, then wouldn't population centers be silenced as a matter of geography? There's no perfect solution, and it seems fair the the EC weights up less populated states, for example. At what point is raw population not simply marginalized, though?

 

The EC also isn't necessarily serving its purpose of making sure politicians cater not just to population centers. I mean, the model for Democrats in any state is more or less making sure big population areas go and outvote the rest of the state. Whether we're talking about Michigan or PA or Florida, it's a story of certain counties needing to turn the heck out.*

 

*Which I think, also underscores how important turnout is. On a macro level you might think your vote doesn't matter depending on how your state leans, so if you look at yourself and the people around you and think, turnout will 10% less this year but that's fine -- you would be very wrong. Many states' leanings depend crucially on successful turnout in certain areas. As we learned quite hard this year.

[jsneb83]

This isn't like taking a certain sample of the country and using only their vote to determine who wins. You are taking the whole population (of registered voters, obviously). There doesn't need to be any reason to change the weight of any votes. I mean, why would a vote in Nebraska hold more weight than one from California?

[Danny Bateman]

It wouldn't, but then would any politician ever campaign in rural areas ever again? Wouldn't their time be best spent campaigning in places like California, New York, Florida, and Chicago?

I'm not sure I hate the idea of moving to a popular vote system, but it would definitely marginalize the concerns of those who live in lower population rural states.

[jsneb83]

I've always defended the EC. I think the fairest criticisms of it are this thing with who the electors are and how they get chosen.

 

Although, if every state did it this way with a country:state::state:county analogy, then wouldn't population centers be silenced as a matter of geography? There's no perfect solution, and it seems fair the the EC weights up less populated states, for example. At what point is raw population not simply marginalized, though?

 

The EC also isn't necessarily serving its purpose of making sure politicians cater not just to population centers. I mean, the model for Democrats in any state is more or less making sure big population areas go and outvote the rest of the state. Whether we're talking about Michigan or PA or Florida, it's a story of certain counties needing to turn the heck out.*

 

*Which I think, also underscores how important turnout is. On a macro level you might think your vote doesn't matter depending on how your state leans, so if you look at yourself and the people around you and think, turnout will 10% less this year but that's fine -- you would be very wrong. Many states' leanings depend crucially on successful turnout in certain areas. As we learned quite hard this year.

For some states, yes. But how many states did the TV stations instantly select a winner the minute their polls closed. There's a lot of states where who they were electing was a given, which can discourage some people from voting (not saying that's acceptable or anything). The popular vote was separated by less than 600,000. Who knows? Those people who didn't vote because they knew their vote wasn't going to really make a difference in who their state picked could have made a difference in who won the popular vote.

[jsneb83]

It wouldn't, but then would any politician ever campaign in rural areas ever again? Wouldn't their time be best spent campaigning in places like California, New York, Florida, and Chicago?

 

I'm not sure I hate the idea of moving to a popular vote system, but it would definitely marginalize the concerns of those who live in lower population rural states.

Maybe that would have been a bigger issue back when the only time you got to see the candidates was in person when they visited your area. Now with everything being televised and posted on the internet, seeing them in person isn't as big of a deal, imo.

[zoogs]

I agree, jsneb. That seems like a drawback to me. There's so much disincentive for engagement depending on where you live that it doesn't strike me as particularly healthy.

 

At the same time, I see the reasoning behind, hey, we're 50 united States, so the idea is the President is the choice of the states. In federalism, the states are represented (well, it's a compromise) and not the people directly. In some respects I do think it's healthier to view POTUS as the elected leader of the states, and not the champion-savior of the people. I don't know if the EC is really supporting that anymore, though.

[Moiraine]

It wouldn't, but then would any politician ever campaign in rural areas ever again? Wouldn't their time be best spent campaigning in places like California, New York, Florida, and Chicago?

 

I'm not sure I hate the idea of moving to a popular vote system, but it would definitely marginalize the concerns of those who live in lower population rural states.

 

Campaigning isn't even the problem. They wouldn't have to do as much during their tenure to please people in less populated areas as long as they can get enough people from cities to vote for them.

[HuskerNation1]

As I said in another thread, those arguing that the electoral college should be dropped because HIllary would have won are making a huge assumption that would have actually happened. Hillary racked up HUGE vote margins in states that Trump did not spend one minute in (like CA, IL, and NY), and hence the margins were extremely high there. When you look at those battleground states both competed in, Trump's campaign and efforts allowed him to get the better of her.

 

I read another article today that explained it this way...it would be like playing a basketball game where one team has won, and then arguing that had the 3-point line not been allowed the other team would have won. You can't draw conclusions on how the outcome might have differed when you are talking about a completely different way of playing the game.

[zoogs]

That is quite fair.

[jsneb83]

As I said in another thread, those arguing that the electoral college should be dropped because HIllary would have won are making a huge assumption that would have actually happened. Hillary racked up HUGE vote margins in states that Trump did not spend one minute in (like CA, IL, and NY), and hence the margins were extremely high there. When you look at those battleground states both competed in, Trump's campaign and efforts allowed him to get the better of her.

 

I read another article today that explained it this way...it would be like playing a basketball game where one team has won, and then arguing that had the 3-point line not been allowed the other team would have won. You can't draw conclusions on how the outcome might have differed when you are talking about a completely different way of playing the game.

I don't think anyone is saying that (at least here). And a lot of people just found it funny/ironic that Trump earlier said that the electoral college was a disaster and then won with it. And I would argue that Hillary did the same thing in states that she knew she wouldn't win. It goes both ways.