National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Moiraine]

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Nobody lives in the counties in red. That's dirt. Empty land.  Here's a better map. Ignore the white bits - there are no people there.

 

 

 

This is great.

[JJ Husker]

48 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

Not singling you out, I hear this argument all the time, but this is a B.S. argument and always has been, imo.

As things are right now:

The electoral college is biased towards people in states with low population - the number of electoral votes is biased in favor of these states because they get more electoral votes than their population calls for.

The House of Representatives is biased towards people in states with low population - apportionment is biased in favor of states like Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, etc. As with the electoral votes, they are getting more representatives than their populations call for. Also, gerrymandering is much more easily used to disenfranchise voters in cities than it is voters in rural areas.

The Senate is biased towards people in states with low population - Nebraska gets 2 senators. California gets 2 senators. This is actually the goal they had in mind with the Senate, so it's fine.


The other reason it's a bad argument is the president, once elected, is likely not going to give a crap about someone in a small town cares about regardless of whether we use the electoral college or the popular vote. They go to a place like Iowa at the beginning because it makes national news. Just because they go back there later for the 10 ec votes doesn't mean they're going to base any of their decisions on the Iowa voter. The flyover argument is just bad. Currently the candidates are only campaigning in something like 10 states. The popular vote would increase that, not decrease it. With a popular vote they would be much more likely to go to places like Portland, Seattle, Dallas, Kansas City, Omaha, etc. They would honestly probably reach more rural voters this way, not less, because a larger number of rural voters would have a city closer to them that they could travel to.

 

You're usually pretty good with numbers but you're losing me with your first two assertions. How in the world is the electoral college or the HoR biased towards states with low population? The numbers for each are tied directly to that states population. That is why Nebraska has only 3 reps and Cali has 53. How do you figure this arrangement is biased towards low populations? I can see where the electoral college can subvert the popular vote due to states awarding all the EV's to one candidate but as for bias.....?

 

The only one imo that is biased towards small states is each having two Senators. But this is a republic and 50 United States after all. If the states serve no purpose then we better do away with them before we act like it's just one country subject to the overall popular vote.

[HuskermanMike]

30 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

Not singling you out, I hear this argument all the time, but this is a B.S. argument and always has been, imo.

As things are right now:

The electoral college is biased towards people in states with low population - the number of electoral votes is biased in favor of these states because they get more electoral votes than their population calls for.

The House of Representatives is biased towards people in states with low population - apportionment is biased in favor of states like Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, etc. As with the electoral votes, they are getting more representatives than their populations call for. Also, gerrymandering is much more easily used to disenfranchise voters in cities than it is voters in rural areas.

The Senate is biased towards people in states with low population - Nebraska gets 2 senators. California gets 2 senators. This is actually the goal they had in mind with the Senate, so it's fine.


The other reason it's a bad argument is the president, once elected, is likely not going to give a crap about someone in a small town cares about regardless of whether we use the electoral college or the popular vote. They go to a place like Iowa at the beginning because it makes national news. Just because they go back there later for the 10 ec votes doesn't mean they're going to base any of their decisions on the Iowa voter. The flyover argument is just bad. Currently the candidates are only campaigning in something like 10 states. The popular vote would increase that, not decrease it. With a popular vote they would be much more likely to go to places like Portland, Seattle, Dallas, Kansas City, Omaha, etc. They would honestly probably reach more rural voters this way, not less, because a larger number of rural voters would have a city closer to them that they could travel to.

Yes exactly, small states get representation. In a direct democracy, we elect the president by the majority of votes. We are not a direct democracy and that is not what the founders wanted either. Also, the EC does not require a massive recounting of votes like a popular vote would. Of course outside of Florida in the 2000 election. If it were as close as the 2016 election people would demand a recount. 

 

It is set up to give fair representation to everyone like you said with the Senate above. So, why change it? This system has worked since we started.  What happens if we change it and people want to go back? No way will this happen in the near future. If it is not broke why fix it?

 

We all know people say well this state is always red or blue. Well, swing states change all the time and if all people voted it may not be that way. The EC also helps minorities because it gives them a say to swing a state one way or the other. 

 

I trust what the founding fathers had to say over a majority of people. We have the freedom to voice our displeasure on issues, but in my mind, this one is far from what we should be worrying about right now. 

 

 

[Moiraine]

35 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

You're usually pretty good with numbers but you're losing me with your first two assertions. How in the world is the electoral college or the HoR biased towards states with low population? The numbers for each are tied directly to that states population. That is why Nebraska has only 3 reps and Cali has 53. How do you figure this arrangement is biased towards low populations?

 

 

Nebraska's 2010 population: 1.83 million
California's 2010 population: 37.35 million

 

37.35/1.83 = 20.409836065573770491803278688525

 

20.41 * 3 reps = 61.23 reps. California has 53 reps.

 

Wyoming's 2010 population: 0.56 million
New York's 2010 population: 19.39 million

19.39/0.56 = 34.625

 

34.625 * 1 rep = 34.625 reps. New York has 27 reps.

 

Iowa's 2010 population: 3.05 million
Massachussetts' 2010 population: 6.56 million

6.56/3.05 = 2.150819672131147540983606557377

2.15 * 4 = 8.6 reps. Massachussetts has 9 reps

Iowa's 2010 population: 3.05 million
Virginia's 2010 population: 8.025 million

8.025/3.05 = 2.6311475409836065573770491803279

2.63 * 4 = 10.5 reps. Virginia has 11 reps


If you look at the whole picture, states with higher populations are shorted a lot more votes than vice versa. It's not proportional to the population because they haven't increased the # of seats in over 100 years. So if you take the state with the smallest population (Montana?) they should really have a decimal number of votes, but obviously you can't do that. So what should happen is they should increase the number above 435 until the smallest state's representative number = 1. It can never be perfect whole numbers for every state, but it could be a lot closer to proportional than it actually is. The point is, lowly populated areas have an advantage with all 3 of the above, as I said in the original post.
 

Quote

Why the Number of House Members Hasn't Changed Since 1913

 

There are still 435 members of the House of Representatives a century later because of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which set that number in stone.

 The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was the result of a battle between rural and urban areas of the United States following the 1920 Census.

[knapplc]

The system has not worked. The people haven't elected a first term Republican president in 26 years, but we've had two instances where Republicans were put in office because of the Electoral College. 

 

We are a direct democracy in every other elected office than president. The Electoral College is a relic of the days of wooden sailing ships and horse drawn carriages. It's time to end it like we ended Slavery and Prohibition.

[funhusker]

36 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 

You're usually pretty good with numbers but you're losing me with your first two assertions. How in the world is the electoral college or the HoR biased towards states with low population? The numbers for each are tied directly to that states population. That is why Nebraska has only 3 reps and Cali has 53. How do you figure this arrangement is biased towards low populations? I can see where the electoral college can subvert the popular vote due to states awarding all the EV's to one candidate but as for bias.....?

 

The only one imo that is biased towards small states is each having two Senators. But this is a republic and 50 United States after all. If the states serve no purpose then we better do away with them before we act like it's just one country subject to the overall popular vote.

Nebraska population: 2 million

Nebraska Reps: 3

Reps per person: 1 for 666,666

 

California population: 39.5 million

California reps:53

Reps per person: 1 for 745,283

 

 

Edit: Moiraine did it MUCH more thoroughly than I!!!

[Moiraine]

Just now, funhusker said:

Nebraska population: 2 million

Nebraska Reps: 3

Reps per person: 1 for 666,666

 

California population: 39.5 million

California reps:53

Reps per person: 1 for 745,283

 

 

This post is way better than the one I just made

[funhusker]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

This post is way better than the one I just made

You should change your name to "nice"raine. 

[Moiraine]

46 minutes ago, HuskermanMike said:

It is set up to give fair representation to everyone

 

No, it isn't.

 

Living in Nebraska, I have more voting power with regards to the President, and the House, and the Senate.

That isn't fair.

[Big Red 40]

i got the impression that the original intent of the electoral college, was to prevent uninformed voters from voting for the "wrong" candidate? Black people were considered half a person, women couldn't vote at all, and people in remote areas had no access to the data needed to make a informed vote. "Electors' were in place to override their vote and make sure the "right" candidate won.

Fast forward 200 years and none of that is relevant any more. Information is available to everyone , everywhere, and while willful ignorance to that information is rampant, there is no excuse to have some magical "electors" there to override any ones vote.

[Moiraine]

27 minutes ago, knapplc said:

The system has not worked. The people haven't elected a first term Republican president in 26 years, but we've had two instances where Republicans were put in office because of the Electoral College. 

 

We are a direct democracy in every other elected office than president. The Electoral College is a relic of the days of wooden sailing ships and horse drawn carriages. It's time to end it like we ended Slavery and Prohibition.

 

 

I thought a direct democracy would mean we'd vote on all the bills. But I could be making that up.

[Moiraine]

Alrighty I looked up the lowest pop and it was Wyoming at 493k.

 

So let's say it's 500K. That means for every 500,000 people in a state, there should be 1 rep.

 

Proportional # on left, actual on right. I believe all states would have a bigger # on left but the lower the population, the smaller the discrepancy.

 

California should have 67.7 (53)

Texas 41.8 (36)

New York 38.0 (27)

Florida 32.0 (27)

Illinois 24.8 (18)

Pennsylvania 24.6 (18)

 

Nebraska 3.4 (3)

 

 

The Census pop in 2010 was 309 million, so there should be 618 seats (if we say Wyoming has 500k).

[JJ Husker]

Granted it's not exactly 1:1 but I don't feel it's that far out of whack. Maybe population is not the only thing to be concerned about. What about the land area within those sparsely populated states? Do we really want New York and the whole upper east coast, Cali and Chicago dictating what happens with Nebraska, Iowa, Wyoming etc.? The less populated states may very well have a technical mathematical advantage but it seems pretty obvious to me where the true power of the people lies. I'm not real happy with the result of our most recent election either but I'm not convinced that giving the reins to left and east coast liberal elites is the best solution, especially for heartland folks.

 

And you're correct, the representation ratio has gotten out of kilter since they stopped adding seats and started reapportioning them. Some lose seats while others gain them but it doesn't fully equalize. I just happen to feel we have much more dire problems than this. We need good candidates. We need to get money out of politics. Elected office should not be a golden ticket that eliminates accountability to those who elected you. I'd much rather fix those problems and see the good that does. Trump and the electoral college are not the problem with our system. There's much bigger fish to fry.

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

The system has not worked. The people haven't elected a first term Republican president in 26 years, but we've had two instances where Republicans were put in office because of the Electoral College. 

 

We are a direct democracy in every other elected office than president. The Electoral College is a relic of the days of wooden sailing ships and horse drawn carriages. It's time to end it like we ended Slavery and Prohibition.

 

The United States is not a direct democracy. Never has been. It is a representative democracy, a constitutional democracy, a republic but never a direct democracy which seems to be what some of you are desiring. Not sure what any of this has to do with horse drawn carriages or slavery or relics.

[Moiraine]

5 hours ago, Comfortably Numb said:

Granted it's not exactly 1:1 but I don't feel it's that far out of whack. Maybe population is not the only thing to be concerned about. What about the land area within those sparsely populated states? Do we really want New York and the whole upper east coast, Cali and Chicago dictating what happens with Nebraska, Iowa, Wyoming etc.? The less populated states may very well have a technical mathematical advantage but it seems pretty obvious to me where the true power of the people lies. I'm not real happy with the result of our most recent election either but I'm not convinced that giving the reins to left and east coast liberal elites is the best solution, especially for heartland folks.

 

And you're correct, the representation ratio has gotten out of kilter since they stopped adding seats and started reapportioning them. Some lose seats while others gain them but it doesn't fully equalize. I just happen to feel we have much more dire problems than this. We need good candidates. We need to get money out of politics. Elected office should not be a golden ticket that eliminates accountability to those who elected you. I'd much rather fix those problems and see the good that does. Trump and the electoral college are not the problem with our system. There's much bigger fish to fry.

 

 

Yes I agree about getting money out of politics but that's not what this topic is about and there's no reason both can't be fixed other than stubborness.

 

"What about the land area within those sparsely populated states? Do we really want New York and the whole upper east coast, Cali and Chicago dictating what happens with Nebraska, Iowa, Wyoming etc.? The less populated states may very well have a technical mathematical advantage but it seems pretty obvious to me where the true power of the people lies."

 

This has always been nonsensical to me and always will be. People living in cities are not a different species. There are plenty of people in Chicago with the same needs as someone in Western Nebraska. Why should 500 Nebraskans have more of a say than 500 Chicagoans? And this argument is what the Senate is for. To those talking about what the people who created our government intended, they intended the House to be proportional, and those lowly populated states f*ed that up in the early 1900s. So that isn't a good argument.

 

Each person's vote should be worth the same amount, and currently they're not. Votes in states like Nebraska have a lot more power than those in Chicago. We could even take it further and talk about how much easier it is to vote in a small town than it is in a big city, and how much effort the GOP puts into making it even harder.

 

Also, you're saying the difference in the House isn't a big deal.

 

618-435 = 183

 

That's a 42% increase in votes. I would wager at least 150 of those would be in highly populated states, and within the 183 the Democrats would probably have a 30 to 50 vote advantage. That's a pretty damn big difference, and shows there is a huge advantage for states with smaller population when they already have a huge advantage in the Senate. (This doesn't even get into gerrymandering which is much easier to use in highly populated areas). A different party would have held the House for the past 8 yearsif it was proportional, or the GOP would have had to change. It's a pretty big deal.