National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[NM11046]

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.

So simply speaking you are a fan of giving power to empty land and not to people?  What needs to be governed?  What does that empty space think of war?  Taxes? Immigration? Right to choose?  

 

Putting shoe on the other foot - how fair is it that those empty acres in Wyoming get a fair, actually dominant shake at deciding minimum wage for McDonalds workers in NJ?

[knapplc]

5 hours ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 

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.

 

Apologies. That was inelegantly phrased.

Local level - The citizens directly elect their representative via popular vote

State level - The citizens directly elect their representative via popular vote

Federal level - The citizens directly elect their representative via popular vote

President - Representative not elected via popular vote

 

Which of these kids is doing their own thing?  C'mon, can you tell which one?

 

The Electoral College was conceived of in the 18th century because we had an uneducated population that couldn't (they thought) be trusted to elect a president. We are no longer uneducated.  It was also designed to give smaller states disproportionate power in selection of the president. But this is fundamentally undemocratic - a special interest that conservatives love to complain about so much. 

[JJ Husker]

I fail to see where the big travesty is in this issue. No one has made a convincing argument as to how the current system is failing our needs. People in Nebraska and Wyoming etc., while having a slight per population advantage, are not really affecting the issues and skewing things. These states have a small handful of influence while the Jerseys and California's still have the power of shear numbers. The differences are so large that it doesn't matter if Nebraska may have a technical mathematical representative advantage. It amounts to nothing even if pooled with all the smaller like-minded states.

 

Ya know, I really have no dog in this fight and care very little one way or the other. It seemed like a good opportunity to take the counterpoint and play devil's advocate. However the one thing that is convincing me that maybe things aren't terrible the way they are is I really have a distaste for the way things are in Cali, New York, Massachusetts, Chicago etc. and I would hate to see those people and places have even greater say over what happens in this country, especially the states that I know and love. That's it. I'll keep reading along and maybe somebody will make a compelling case as to how things are currently completely f'd up but I haven't seen it yet. Calling a system that has served us pretty darned well for 240 years antiquated, sure isn't moving my needle. If all you've got is a few Presidential elections that went slightly against the popular vote, sorry if I'm not moved to action.

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

I fail to see where the big travesty is in this issue

 

George W. Bush and his disastrous Iraq war would not have happened without the Electoral College.

 

Donald Trump would not have happened without the Electoral College.

[NM11046]

37 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

I fail to see where the big travesty is in this issue. No one has made a convincing argument as to how the current system is failing our needs. People in Nebraska and Wyoming etc., while having a slight per population advantage, are not really affecting the issues and skewing things. These states have a small handful of influence while the Jerseys and California's still have the power of shear numbers. The differences are so large that it doesn't matter if Nebraska may have a technical mathematical representative advantage. It amounts to nothing even if pooled with all the smaller like-minded states.

 

Ya know, I really have no dog in this fight and care very little one way or the other. It seemed like a good opportunity to take the counterpoint and play devil's advocate. However the one thing that is convincing me that maybe things aren't terrible the way they are is I really have a distaste for the way things are in Cali, New York, Massachusetts, Chicago etc. and I would hate to see those people and places have even greater say over what happens in this country, especially the states that I know and love. That's it. I'll keep reading along and maybe somebody will make a compelling case as to how things are currently completely f'd up but I haven't seen it yet. Calling a system that has served us pretty darned well for 240 years antiquated, sure isn't moving my needle. If all you've got is a few Presidential elections that went slightly against the popular vote, sorry if I'm not moved to action.

Curious what “ways” you hate in MA/CA etc. 

[BigRedBuster]

I really struggle with this issue.  It is very hard for anyone to accurately predict how going to popular vote would affect the country long term politically.  On the surface, it's logical to think that every person should just have one vote....and.....that's simple right?  But, with every action, there are consequences.  We just don't know exactly what those are until we make the change.  

 

Saying that, honestly....I think there are WAY bigger issues in our elections than the electoral college.  The electoral college is the simple thing to point at and ask, why the hell are we doing it that way?

 

But, fixing the Gerrymandering issues, allowing all citizens the right to vote while ensuring non-citizens don't, taking money out, shrinking the election cycle....etc.  are all WAY bigger issues with me than the electoral college.

I would prefer to fix these things first.  Then, if we still feel we have a problem with the electoral college, then look at fixing it.

 

Hey...why don't all these states that are acting righteous with this idea be bold and put in place a bi-partisan agreement to stop gerrymandering?

[RedDenver]

30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I really struggle with this issue.  It is very hard for anyone to accurately predict how going to popular vote would affect the country long term politically.  On the surface, it's logical to think that every person should just have one vote....and.....that's simple right?  But, with every action, there are consequences.  We just don't know exactly what those are until we make the change.  

 

Saying that, honestly....I think there are WAY bigger issues in our elections than the electoral college.  The electoral college is the simple thing to point at and ask, why the hell are we doing it that way?

 

But, fixing the Gerrymandering issues, allowing all citizens the right to vote while ensuring non-citizens don't, taking money out, shrinking the election cycle....etc.  are all WAY bigger issues with me than the electoral college.

I would prefer to fix these things first.  Then, if we still feel we have a problem with the electoral college, then look at fixing it.

 

Hey...why don't all these states that are acting righteous with this idea be bold and put in place a bi-partisan agreement to stop gerrymandering?

I mostly agree with you, but I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can continue to push for a popular vote and still work to put a stop to gerrymandering.

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

We can continue to push for a popular vote

But, I'm not sold that this is an issue and I don't believe anyone really fully understands what the ramifications of this is.

[Nebfanatic]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

But, I'm not sold that this is an issue and I don't believe anyone really fully understands what the ramifications of this is.

In the vote for the president, why shouldn't the popular vote win? 

[TGHusker]

On 5/8/2018 at 9:08 AM, knapplc said:

 

 

By that line I mean that the decision to cast the Electoral College votes for the nation's popular vote is being made by state legislatures & governors.  I think this is something the citizens should vote on, as in, a ballot measure to gauge the interest of the citizens whose votes will be used this way.

 

Bear in mind that I think the popular vote should be the determining factor in elections, so I'm actually kinda in favor of this.  But it's something the citizens should decide, not lawmakers.

I'm jumping in late on this.  Basically you are saying a direct vote of citizens on a ballot initiative and not an indirect vote via their elected legislatures. The direct ballot initiative may be a more lengthy process if done via a petition route or less so, it the state legislature made it a ballot issue on a future election date.

[TGHusker]

56 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I really struggle with this issue.  It is very hard for anyone to accurately predict how going to popular vote would affect the country long term politically.  On the surface, it's logical to think that every person should just have one vote....and.....that's simple right?  But, with every action, there are consequences.  We just don't know exactly what those are until we make the change.  

 

Saying that, honestly....I think there are WAY bigger issues in our elections than the electoral college.  The electoral college is the simple thing to point at and ask, why the hell are we doing it that way?

 

But, fixing the Gerrymandering issues, allowing all citizens the right to vote while ensuring non-citizens don't, taking money out, shrinking the election cycle....etc.  are all WAY bigger issues with me than the electoral college.

I would prefer to fix these things first.  Then, if we still feel we have a problem with the electoral college, then look at fixing it.

 

Hey...why don't all these states that are acting righteous with this idea be bold and put in place a bi-partisan agreement to stop gerrymandering?

The bold:

 

I'm all for shrinking the election cycle  - why we can't pick a candidate within 6 months is beyond me. Yes in the days of horse and buggy and train whistle stops more time was needed for candidates to be seen and heard. But not any more.    6 mo schedule:  1 month of general campaigning prior to the beginning of the primaries, month 2-5 - 4 regional primaries one month apart, month 6 the general election.   While we are at it - change House member terms from 2 years to 4 to stop the constant campaign with recall options in case a 'turd' was elected.

[JJ Husker]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I really struggle with this issue.  It is very hard for anyone to accurately predict how going to popular vote would affect the country long term politically.  On the surface, it's logical to think that every person should just have one vote....and.....that's simple right?  But, with every action, there are consequences.  We just don't know exactly what those are until we make the change.  

 

Saying that, honestly....I think there are WAY bigger issues in our elections than the electoral college.  The electoral college is the simple thing to point at and ask, why the hell are we doing it that way?

 

But, fixing the Gerrymandering issues, allowing all citizens the right to vote while ensuring non-citizens don't, taking money out, shrinking the election cycle....etc.  are all WAY bigger issues with me than the electoral college.

I would prefer to fix these things first.  Then, if we still feel we have a problem with the electoral college, then look at fixing it.

 

Hey...why don't all these states that are acting righteous with this idea be bold and put in place a bi-partisan agreement to stop gerrymandering?

 

I pretty much completely agree with this. There are much more pressing issues than the electoral college. For me, it's not a matter of being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. It's that I'm not convinced we need to chew this gum at all. And like you said, we don't know what all the unintended consequences might be. I'm pretty much a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" type. I don't see the EC as being broken whereas I do see quite a few related issues that are definitely broke.

[JJ Husker]

4 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Curious what “ways” you hate in MA/CA etc. 

 

Well....I am pretty solidly fiscally conservative and socially moderate in my beliefs and preferences, even if I do not currently like or approve of recent republican/conservative/Trump ways. I don't think I'll go too far into explaining why I'm not fond of traditionally liberal left ways of doing things. It should be pretty self evident by the places I listed as not wanting to have greater influence.

 

Some of the things I don't care for in most cases (all things being equal); higher taxes, greater government control, less personal responsibility...San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi, Los Angeles, Hollywood people and lifestyle, the Chicago/New York/New Jersey/DC political ways.  Need I say more?  I guess I don't have much firsthand knowledge specifically of the Mass/Boston area but my perception is that they are much like the other places I listed and I tend to lump them all together.

[knapplc]

38 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

I pretty much completely agree with this. There are much more pressing issues than the electoral college. For me, it's not a matter of being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. It's that I'm not convinced we need to chew this gum at all. And like you said, we don't know what all the unintended consequences might be. I'm pretty much a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" type. I don't see the EC as being broken whereas I do see quite a few related issues that are definitely broke.

 

The president nominates supreme court picks as well as judges to the federal courts.  The fact that we've had ten years (and counting) of conservative judges on the courts rather than judges who accurately reflect the will of the people (because Gore & Clinton won the popular vote) is a HUGE issue. 

 

Would you feel the same about this issue if a Republican had won the popular vote twice in the last four terms, but wasn't placed in the presidency because of the Electoral College, and all those judges were liberal?

[JJ Husker]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

The president nominates supreme court picks as well as judges to the federal courts.  The fact that we've had ten years (and counting) of conservative judges on the courts rather than judges who accurately reflect the will of the people (because Gore & Clinton won the popular vote) is a HUGE issue. 

 

Would you feel the same about this issue if a Republican had won the popular vote twice in the last four terms, but wasn't placed in the presidency because of the Electoral College, and all those judges were liberal?

 

I thought judges were supposed to reflect the rule of law and the constitution and not be subject to any political party or even necessarily the will of the people

 

But to honestly answer your question, I may very well feel differently about the EC if we'd had numerous liberal judges appointed rather than more conservative ones. I mean I am pretty socially moderate so I'm not extremely fond of either of the extremes but my fall back position would tend to be more conservative than liberal.