National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Making Chimichangas]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Think about it.

 

Oh no...you're not drawing me into the slippery slope of thought...

 

All kidding aside, why do liberal elites always want to change the rules just because they don't win?  #RhetoricalQuestion

 

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Oh no...you're not drawing me into the slippery slope of thought...

 

All kidding aside, why do liberal elites always want to change the rules just because they don't win?  #RhetoricalQuestion

 

 

I edited my response. See the flabbergasted part. The electoral college and popular vote had agreed with each other in every election since 1888. It was working as intended.

 

 

Pretty good article I just found:

 

http://time.com/4571626/electoral-college-wrong-arguments/

 

 

Quote

Other than this odd view of democracy, which advocates spending as much campaign time in areas where few people live as in areas where most Americans live, the argument is simply false. The Electoral College causes candidates to spend all their campaign time in cities in 10 or 12 states rather than in 30, 40 or 50 states.

 

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas.

 

Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.

 

[Big Red 40]

24 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Oh no...you're not drawing me into the slippery slope of thought...

 

All kidding aside, why do liberal elites always want to change the rules just because they don't win?  #RhetoricalQuestion

 

Its not just liberal elites, and its not just because the electoral college decided things, twice, instead of actual votes.

I've always hated the electoral college especially living in Nebraska. The majority here, have always voted republican and always will. All a candidate has to SAY is that they are fiscally conservative, anti abortion, anti gay rights, pro national security, and christian and they take this state.  It really doesn't matter who the Dems , or independents run or what their policies are.

With the Electoral college, the vast majority of states are decidedly Dem, or Rep,  and only a handful of true "swing" states decide the election.  That's why Presidential candidates rarely campaign here. Gop already knows they have this state, and Dems know they have little chance of changing 200,000 plus minds to vote for them no matter what they say. 

It should not matter what state you live in ALL votes should count equally, and with the EC they really don't.

[Making Chimichangas]

36 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I edited my response. See the flabbergasted part. The electoral college and popular vote had agreed with each other in every election since 1888. It was working as intended.

 

 

Pretty good article I just found:

 

http://time.com/4571626/electoral-college-wrong-arguments/

 

 

 

 

Good info.  However, the difference is with the system as is now, red states vote red and blue states vote blue so yeah Presdential candidates will spend the bulk of their time in swing states.

 

Going to a popular vote model probably won't change where candidates for President campaign, but it will change who runs and gets elected.  If it goes to popular vote then pretty much no (R) will ever win the Presidency ever again--unless he moves considerably to the left.  That's the part I don't like: play the game by the rules as they exist.  Don't whine and try to change the rules just because the outcome isn't in your favor.

[Making Chimichangas]

7 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

Its not just liberal elites, and its not just because the electoral college decided things, twice, instead of actual votes.

I've always hated the electoral college especially living in Nebraska. The majority here, have always voted republican and always will. All a candidate has to SAY is that they are fiscally conservative, anti abortion, anti gay rights, pro national security, and christian and they take this state.  It really doesn't matter who the Dems , or independents run or what their policies are.

With the Electoral college, the vast majority of states are decidedly Dem, or Rep,  and only a handful of true "swing" states decide the election.  That's why Presidential candidates rarely campaign here. Gop already knows they have this state, and Dems know they have little chance of changing 200,000 plus minds to vote for them no matter what they say. 

It should not matter what state you live in ALL votes should count equally, and with the EC they really don't.

 

I get what you're saying, but we go to popular vote for President and that'll nullify more than half the country's votes because the major urban centers have more people than the rest of the country combined.  

[Moiraine]

29 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

we go to popular vote for President and that'll nullify more than half the country's votes because the major urban centers have more people than the rest of the country combined.  

 

 

This just does not compute. Each vote would count as 1 vote, which is the complete opposite of what you're saying. A vote in western Nebraska will count the same as one in Los Angeles. Right now a vote in Nebraska counts for more than a vote in Los Angeles - for presidency, and a voter in Nebraska gets more representation in the House and the Senate. Whenever people make this argument the only way it holds up is if people in cities are one giant blob of homogeny. That just isn't the case. There isn't one, singular way of life for people in cities that's alien to people in non-urban areas.

I feel like there's a good analogy for this. I'm going to try and probably fail.

The argument you're making is like saying all the people in cities are fuji apples and the rest of the people are green peppers. When in reality, 60% of the people in cities are fruits of all types, 40% are vegetables, 60% of the people in rural areas are vegetables and 40% are fruits. There isn't some huge barrier that separates cityfolk and countryfolk into 2 different homogenous, groupthinking masses. There's a huge variety of people in both cities and rural areas and there are also similar people with shared concerns in both and they should all have a vote that counts the same.

 

The senate can protect the interests of the lowly populated areas.

[RedDenver]

8 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

That's the part I don't like: play the game by the rules as they exist.  Don't whine and try to change the rules just because the outcome isn't in your favor.

This is a ridiculous argument. The entire idea of governments and politics to to create and modify the rules. To say that we shouldn't "change the rules" is to give up on progress and to instead stay stuck in whatever century the current rules happened to be authored.

[Nebfanatic]

8 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I get what you're saying, but we go to popular vote for President and that'll nullify more than half the country's votes because the major urban centers have more people than the rest of the country combined.  

Aren't Dem votes in Nebraska and Republican votes in California nullified by the electoral college? 

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Aren't Dem votes in Nebraska and Republican votes in California nullified by the electoral college? 

Yes. And CM is also wrong about nullifying the rural vote as their votes will be added to the votes from urban centers.

[BigRedBuster]

9 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Aren't Dem votes in Nebraska and Republican votes in California nullified by the electoral college? 

 

Right now, my vote doesn't mean squat in Nebraska.  It means absolutely zero.  If we went to popular vote, it would mean the same as someone anywhere in the country.

However, politicians won't need to pay attention to rural America and they won't.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Right now, my vote doesn't mean squat in Nebraska.  It means absolutely zero.  If we went to popular vote, it would mean the same as someone anywhere in the country.

However, politicians won't need to pay attention to rural America and they won't.

Changing to a popular vote will only affect the Presidential candidates, as all other elections I'm aware of are already a popular vote. And as mentioned before, the Presidential candidates already mostly ignore rural areas in favor of urban areas in swing states.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Changing to a popular vote will only affect the Presidential candidates, as all other elections I'm aware of are already a popular vote. And as mentioned before, the Presidential candidates already mostly ignore rural areas in favor of urban areas in swing states.

I'm only talking about Presidential candidates.

 

Candidates don't ignore rural America.  They ignore non-swing states.  Live in Iowa for a while and you will see candidates all over the state.  But...gosh....that Missouri River is just too big and scary to cross over into Nebraska.

[Moiraine]

Just to add - the best way to reach rural voters is to have an event... in a city they can converge on.

[funhusker]

I've finally come to the realization that the only real reason to not have a popular vote is to allow the chance for a person to receive less votes and still be able to win against the wishes of the American citizens.  Saying that out loud a few times has made me quit defending the Electoral College.

[knapplc]

53 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I've finally come to the realization that the only real reason to not have a popular vote is to allow the chance for a person to receive less votes and still be able to win against the wishes of the American citizens.  Saying that out loud a few times has made me quit defending the Electoral College.

 

The Electoral College was also intended to act as a buffer against an uneducated population electing an unfit candidate for President. 

 

In the one election where they could have done that in the history of this country, they failed.  It was patently obvious that Trump was not capable of holding the office, and we're suffering for that now. 

 

If the Electoral College isn't going to perform as intended & save us from this type of administration, it really has no useful purpose in a democracy.