They didn't for the torture of human beings, didn't for state-sanctioned murder, for needless wars, or for the rule of law, so I don't think it's very plausible "how the electoral college works" would turn out to be the one thing Democratic voters have principles about even when it benefits them.
This is a specious argument. Suggesting that Democrat voters are somehow unprincipled if they voted for Obama in 2012 when there was no serious primary to speak of, and the Republican candidate didnt appear to be any better with respect to those supposed principles doesnt track. This being the case, we cannot infer the supposed principles of the voters in question.
In some respects, you argument also doesnt track that Democrats only favor abolishing the Electoral College when it favors Republicans. You should look into the National Popular Vote Compact.
You should take special notice of the states that have enacted laws to join the compact (Everyone of which is a Democrat or lean-democrat state, perhaps Colorado being the closes to independent). You should also take note of when the compact legislation were signed. The first in 2007 (Bush Presidency, in the run up to Obama. As you noted, Obama enjoyed a tremendous Electoral College advantage). More were signed even *after* Obama was elected, 7 more states joined, including 3 after the 2012 election.
The other way your argument doesnt exactly make sense is: You're suggesting that the Democrats will support the EC so long as it benefits them. What you're not addressing is that a Democrat has only lost the National popular vote once in the past 30 years (2004 was the last time, and before that was 1988). Based on that alone, it would make sense for Democrats to favor abolishing the EC.
As a final, parting thought: Your overarching argument paints with far too broad of a brush. The democratic party is not some monolithic hivemind. It is comported with people up and down the political spectrum. There are some who believe institutions like the EC should be preserved. There are others (like myself) who feel like the EC should be abolished, regardless of whom it favors.
This would have some validity if Obama hadn't also won popular vote landslides by modern standards, especially in '08.
Obama didn't win by a landslide in 2012, and he benefitted from an electoral college setup that could have delivered him the victory even if he'd lost the popular vote.
That article is making a different point, i.e. that reliably Democratic states would get Obama close to victory - meaning that Romney would need to win all the closely contested states in order to win the electoral college. If he had done that though, he would probably not have got the majority of votes. That's because the reliably Democratic states include some big ones (California in particular) and big states get proportionally fewer electors than small states (less than 1/3).
Unless states like California and New York swing more back into balance between the parties, a narrow electoral college win for the Republicans is extremely likely to be associated with a minority of the popular vote. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the vote for Republicans in the states they win is significantly stronger than the vote for Democrats in the states they win, i.e. if both sides win 60:40 in their states, the Republicans would definitely get a minority of the popular vote if the electoral college was almost evenly split. If the Democrats won 60:40, but the Republicans won 70:30 the Republicans might also shade the popular vote.
The whole EC is totally moot. Both parties would adapt and I'm sorry, a 3% majority is ephemeral. This idea that the Democrats would 'own' the Republicans if there wasn't an EC is pure wishful thinking. If anything, even more money would be required to win the presidency since EVERY SINGLE STATE would be a battleground!
Obama won by 4% and 5 million votes nationwide in 2012. He wasn't anywhere in the same stratosphere as coming close to losing the popular vote and winning the Electoral College. And yes, the ONLY election since I was over the age of ten where the Republican candidate got more votes nationally was 2004. Which would have never happened if a.) he hadn't been installed by the Supreme Court in 2000, filled with Justices appointed by Administrations his daddy was a part of and b.) hadn't weaponized 9/11 and a bullshit war for maximum political effect. And within months, they fell into complete disrepair, and Bush left office with approval ratings in the 30s. Other than that, they have been CONSISTENTLY less popular than the Democratic candidates among the totality of Americans for 3 decades running. I've ran the numbers here before. It isn't even close.
So yes, I realize it is the system we have and the system we are going to be stuck with because Republicans KNOW their policies are dogshit and unpopular. But it doesn't change the fact that people in the largest states in this country are de-facto second-class citizens based on the power of their vote. They have LESS of a vote than other people. It's not my opinion, it's a mathematical fact.
The people who want the Electoral College abolished don't want it abolished right now; instead, they want it abolished by 2024 or 2028 because by then Texas will have likely turned blue (or at least heavily purple). Based on 2015 population estimates, California + Texas + New York + Illinois = 97,507,013. This is greater than Maryland + Wisconsin + Minnesota + Colorado + Alabama + South Carolina + Louisiana + Kentucky + Oregon + Oklahoma + Connecticut + Puerto Rico + Iowa + Mississippi + Arkansas + Utah + Kansas + Nevada + New Mexico + Nebraska + West Virginia + Idaho + Hawaii + Maine + New Hampshire + Rhode Island + Montana + Delaware + South Dakota + Alaska + North Dakota + District of Columbia + Vermont + Wyoming.
In other words, if you live in any of those 34 States neither you nor your vote matter. At all. Well, at least as far as Presidential elections are concerned.
Yes, the allure of pure democracy is strong and at certain levels it works perfectly--city council elections, etc. The problem with pure democracy is that the 51% are always kicking the 49% in the teeth. Of course, the problem with plurality is that "the biggest minority group" is always kicking all the other minority groups in the teeth. No system is perfect.
If you really wanted to introduce some chaos then the person who wins the most votes in a Presidential election becomes POTUS and the person who wins the second-most votes becomes VPOTUS. That would probably not be a very good idea at all, though, would it Ancient Rome?
Russian meddling. *sigh* Whether real or imagined, and regardless of its level of success (which is probably extremely low, since voting machines are not remotely accessible by any means), what we are left with are tainted results regardless of who wins. There will always now be a question as to whether the winner really won or if meddling caused them to win. My advice: let the intelligence community continue to monitor for possible interference via some means, ignore social media altogether, and just accept the results even if they aren't what you would have preferred. Some people won't, of course--they simply cannot bring themselves to accept certain truths--but that is their problem.
It should never be pure democracy. Minority groups (feel free to read as rural, black, Asian, non Christian whatever) would have little say in how their government is run and what laws are passed.
However, as it stands now, there is too much weight given to the “little guys.” I mentioned prior that the easiest solution is to give each state (and then each US territory) one electoral vote and then split the rest up by population. It would even it up slightly, while still giving more weight to rural areas.
The people who want the Electoral College abolished don't want it abolished right now; instead, they want it abolished by 2024 or 2028 because by then Texas will have likely turned blue (or at least heavily purple). Based on 2015 population estimates, California + Texas + New York + Illinois = 97,507,013. This is greater than Maryland + Wisconsin + Minnesota + Colorado + Alabama + South Carolina + Louisiana + Kentucky + Oregon + Oklahoma + Connecticut + Puerto Rico + Iowa + Mississippi + Arkansas + Utah + Kansas + Nevada + New Mexico + Nebraska + West Virginia + Idaho + Hawaii + Maine + New Hampshire + Rhode Island + Montana + Delaware + South Dakota + Alaska + North Dakota + District of Columbia + Vermont + Wyoming.
In other words, if you live in any of those 34 States neither you nor your vote matter. At all. Well, at least as far as Presidential elections are concerned.
Actually, their votes would count.......exactly the same as everyone else's. You are operating under the assumption that there are no rural areas in California and Illinois, and that there are no cities or liberal enclaves in North Dakota or Nebraska. That somehow the TOTALITY of how a state votes would somehow invalidate the individual vote of a single person for President. That isn't true in any reality. It would be hard to see how it would be true in fiction. The individual preferences of a state would be meaningless if the votes of those people were going into a total pool. We wouldn't even need to discuss it.
The CURRENT system is what makes votes useless. My preferred candidate will have ZERO chance to win North Dakota (where I vote). A conservative in Orange County has ZERO chance of his candidate winning California. However, in a national vote, both of votes go somewhere and to an idea that is completely unimpeachable.
What you are talking about is addressed by the existence of State governments, and (especially) the Senate. But no one's vote is going to be "meaningless" in a national popular vote election for President, unless the idea that 1=1 is somehow no longer a valid mathematical concept.
The people who want the Electoral College abolished don't want it abolished right now; instead, they want it abolished by 2024 or 2028 because by then Texas will have likely turned blue (or at least heavily purple). Based on 2015 population estimates, California + Texas + New York + Illinois = 97,507,013. This is greater than Maryland + Wisconsin + Minnesota + Colorado + Alabama + South Carolina + Louisiana + Kentucky + Oregon + Oklahoma + Connecticut + Puerto Rico + Iowa + Mississippi + Arkansas + Utah + Kansas + Nevada + New Mexico + Nebraska + West Virginia + Idaho + Hawaii + Maine + New Hampshire + Rhode Island + Montana + Delaware + South Dakota + Alaska + North Dakota + District of Columbia + Vermont + Wyoming.
In other words, if you live in any of those 34 States neither you nor your vote matter. At all. Well, at least as far as Presidential elections are concerned.
Actually, their votes would count.......exactly the same as everyone else's. You are operating under the assumption that there are no rural areas in California and Illinois, and that there are no cities or liberal enclaves in North Dakota or Nebraska. That somehow the TOTALITY of how a state votes would somehow invalidate the individual vote of a single person for President. That isn't true in any reality. It would be hard to see how it would be true in fiction. The individual preferences of a state would be meaningless if the votes of those people were going into a total pool. We wouldn't even need to discuss it.
The CURRENT system is what makes votes useless. My preferred candidate will have ZERO chance to win North Dakota (where I vote). A conservative in Orange County has ZERO chance of his candidate winning California. However, in a national vote, both of votes go somewhere and to an idea that is completely unimpeachable.
What you are talking about is addressed by the existence of State governments, and (especially) the Senate. But no one's vote is going to be "meaningless" in a national popular vote election for President, unless the idea that 1=1 is somehow no longer a valid mathematical concept.
Donald Trump had a 0% chance of winning Michigan in 2016 yet he did. Reagan had a 0% chance of winning every state except Minnesota in 1984. This bullshit of it being impossible for a Republican to win California or a Democrat to win Texas is totally due to the same big data analytics crap that's also ruining sports. There are dynamics in elections that are impossible to predict and there always will be.
The people who want the Electoral College abolished don't want it abolished right now; instead, they want it abolished by 2024 or 2028 because by then Texas will have likely turned blue (or at least heavily purple). Based on 2015 population estimates, California + Texas + New York + Illinois = 97,507,013. This is greater than Maryland + Wisconsin + Minnesota + Colorado + Alabama + South Carolina + Louisiana + Kentucky + Oregon + Oklahoma + Connecticut + Puerto Rico + Iowa + Mississippi + Arkansas + Utah + Kansas + Nevada + New Mexico + Nebraska + West Virginia + Idaho + Hawaii + Maine + New Hampshire + Rhode Island + Montana + Delaware + South Dakota + Alaska + North Dakota + District of Columbia + Vermont + Wyoming.
In other words, if you live in any of those 34 States neither you nor your vote matter. At all. Well, at least as far as Presidential elections are concerned.
Actually, their votes would count.......exactly the same as everyone else's. You are operating under the assumption that there are no rural areas in California and Illinois, and that there are no cities or liberal enclaves in North Dakota or Nebraska. That somehow the TOTALITY of how a state votes would somehow invalidate the individual vote of a single person for President. That isn't true in any reality. It would be hard to see how it would be true in fiction. The individual preferences of a state would be meaningless if the votes of those people were going into a total pool. We wouldn't even need to discuss it.
The CURRENT system is what makes votes useless. My preferred candidate will have ZERO chance to win North Dakota (where I vote). A conservative in Orange County has ZERO chance of his candidate winning California. However, in a national vote, both of votes go somewhere and to an idea that is completely unimpeachable.
What you are talking about is addressed by the existence of State governments, and (especially) the Senate. But no one's vote is going to be "meaningless" in a national popular vote election for President, unless the idea that 1=1 is somehow no longer a valid mathematical concept.
Here is the problem with pure democracy with regional differences. I am going to use Canada as an example:
Saskatchewan had a population of approx 1 million people and Manitoba has about 1.3 million. Compare that to Alberta’s 4 million and Ontario’s 13.5 million. (Hell Toronto alone has 6.1 million).
Assume a federal government ran on a campaign to create a pipeline running from Alberta to Ontario going through both Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the process. This would create permanent jobs in Ontario (oil refinery) and boost Manitoba’s GDP significantly because they’d no longer have to deal with America.
It would however have a negative impact on farming in Saskatchewan and Manitoba lowering their GDP, but the boost to both Ontario and Alberta would be greater by comparison.
In a situation like this it’s easy to ignore the negative consequences of 2.3 million people as it’s benefiting 17.5 million.
Another example would be a political party promising to help Toronto with a major vanity project (a new stadium for example), and to pay for it, they will have a tax on potash production (one of Saskatchewan’s main exports). The trade off in votes (6 to 1) would be enough to ignore Saskatchewan’s concern about the tax and help lead the party to victory.
Yeah, that's what @smeagolheart said. Either enriching yourself at the expense of someone else, or outright turning on each other. Its one of THE defining traits of the conservative mindset.
Then I guess you're gonna have to explain why conservatives consistently make more charitable donations than liberals.
There is no single "conservative mindset", any more than there is a single "liberal mindset", and as you are perfectly well aware of the latter, you ought to acknowledge the former.
Have the data on that? I'd like to see it. That being said, Blue states pay more into welfare than red ones do.
The people who want the Electoral College abolished don't want it abolished right now; instead, they want it abolished by 2024 or 2028 because by then Texas will have likely turned blue (or at least heavily purple). Based on 2015 population estimates, California + Texas + New York + Illinois = 97,507,013. This is greater than Maryland + Wisconsin + Minnesota + Colorado + Alabama + South Carolina + Louisiana + Kentucky + Oregon + Oklahoma + Connecticut + Puerto Rico + Iowa + Mississippi + Arkansas + Utah + Kansas + Nevada + New Mexico + Nebraska + West Virginia + Idaho + Hawaii + Maine + New Hampshire + Rhode Island + Montana + Delaware + South Dakota + Alaska + North Dakota + District of Columbia + Vermont + Wyoming.
In other words, if you live in any of those 34 States neither you nor your vote matter. At all. Well, at least as far as Presidential elections are concerned.
Actually, their votes would count.......exactly the same as everyone else's. You are operating under the assumption that there are no rural areas in California and Illinois, and that there are no cities or liberal enclaves in North Dakota or Nebraska. That somehow the TOTALITY of how a state votes would somehow invalidate the individual vote of a single person for President. That isn't true in any reality. It would be hard to see how it would be true in fiction. The individual preferences of a state would be meaningless if the votes of those people were going into a total pool. We wouldn't even need to discuss it.
The CURRENT system is what makes votes useless. My preferred candidate will have ZERO chance to win North Dakota (where I vote). A conservative in Orange County has ZERO chance of his candidate winning California. However, in a national vote, both of votes go somewhere and to an idea that is completely unimpeachable.
What you are talking about is addressed by the existence of State governments, and (especially) the Senate. But no one's vote is going to be "meaningless" in a national popular vote election for President, unless the idea that 1=1 is somehow no longer a valid mathematical concept.
Donald Trump had a 0% chance of winning Michigan in 2016 yet he did. Reagan had a 0% chance of winning every state except Minnesota in 1984. This bullshit of it being impossible for a Republican to win California or a Democrat to win Texas is totally due to the same big data analytics crap that's also ruining sports. There are dynamics in elections that are impossible to predict and there always will be.
I would't say it's "ruining" sports. What it amounts to in basketball, despite all the complicated numbers under the hood, is that taking long 2-point shots instead of 3's is statistically stupid, and that big men are basically obsolete next to wings who can shoot the aforementioned 3 and guard on the perimeter. There are certain teams like the Houston Rockets who are horrible to watch, but that's because one player has learned how to just BARELY not get called for travels on his signature moves and draw alot of bullshit fouls. Thing is, he only gets those calls in the regular season. Now, if you are gonna call the current generation "soft" because of how the games get officiated, that's entirely true. Michael Jordan would AVERAGE 45 points a game in this climate compared to the beatings he took in the paint from the Pistons and Knicks for a decade.
The people who want the Electoral College abolished don't want it abolished right now; instead, they want it abolished by 2024 or 2028 because by then Texas will have likely turned blue (or at least heavily purple). Based on 2015 population estimates, California + Texas + New York + Illinois = 97,507,013. This is greater than Maryland + Wisconsin + Minnesota + Colorado + Alabama + South Carolina + Louisiana + Kentucky + Oregon + Oklahoma + Connecticut + Puerto Rico + Iowa + Mississippi + Arkansas + Utah + Kansas + Nevada + New Mexico + Nebraska + West Virginia + Idaho + Hawaii + Maine + New Hampshire + Rhode Island + Montana + Delaware + South Dakota + Alaska + North Dakota + District of Columbia + Vermont + Wyoming.
In other words, if you live in any of those 34 States neither you nor your vote matter. At all. Well, at least as far as Presidential elections are concerned.
Actually, their votes would count.......exactly the same as everyone else's. You are operating under the assumption that there are no rural areas in California and Illinois, and that there are no cities or liberal enclaves in North Dakota or Nebraska. That somehow the TOTALITY of how a state votes would somehow invalidate the individual vote of a single person for President. That isn't true in any reality. It would be hard to see how it would be true in fiction. The individual preferences of a state would be meaningless if the votes of those people were going into a total pool. We wouldn't even need to discuss it.
The CURRENT system is what makes votes useless. My preferred candidate will have ZERO chance to win North Dakota (where I vote). A conservative in Orange County has ZERO chance of his candidate winning California. However, in a national vote, both of votes go somewhere and to an idea that is completely unimpeachable.
What you are talking about is addressed by the existence of State governments, and (especially) the Senate. But no one's vote is going to be "meaningless" in a national popular vote election for President, unless the idea that 1=1 is somehow no longer a valid mathematical concept.
Here is the problem with pure democracy with regional differences. I am going to use Canada as an example:
Saskatchewan had a population of approx 1 million people and Manitoba has about 1.3 million. Compare that to Alberta’s 4 million and Ontario’s 13.5 million. (Hell Toronto alone has 6.1 million).
Assume a federal government ran on a campaign to create a pipeline running from Alberta to Ontario going through both Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the process. This would create permanent jobs in Ontario (oil refinery) and boost Manitoba’s GDP significantly because they’d no longer have to deal with America.
It would however have a negative impact on farming in Saskatchewan and Manitoba lowering their GDP, but the boost to both Ontario and Alberta would be greater by comparison.
In a situation like this it’s easy to ignore the negative consequences of 2.3 million people as it’s benefiting 17.5 million.
Another example would be a political party promising to help Toronto with a major vanity project (a new stadium for example), and to pay for it, they will have a tax on potash production (one of Saskatchewan’s main exports). The trade off in votes (6 to 1) would be enough to ignore Saskatchewan’s concern about the tax and help lead the party to victory.
And I'd venture to guess if you broke down even certain sections of individual cities you'd see the same thing. It's CERTAINLY true about states themselves just as much as the country at large. The city of Minneapolis has nothing in common with the needs of my hometown of 500 people in Minnesota. The suburban outskirts of the same city have little in common with the needs of those living in apartments downtown. The need to use public transportation probably being key among them. We could go down this rabbit-hole all day. Eventually, we just end up with neighborhood councils of 50 people controlling separate city blocks if we follow this through to it's conclusion. Without an overarching template, you'd have complete chaos.
Actually, their votes would count.......exactly the same as everyone else's. You are operating under the assumption that there are no rural areas in California and Illinois, and that there are no cities or liberal enclaves in North Dakota or Nebraska. That somehow the TOTALITY of how a state votes would somehow invalidate the individual vote of a single person for President. That isn't true in any reality. It would be hard to see how it would be true in fiction. The individual preferences of a state would be meaningless if the votes of those people were going into a total pool. We wouldn't even need to discuss it.
The only real presumption I made is that the percentage of eligible and likely voters is the same in all States. California is listed at 38,421,464 but not all those people can vote--children, nonresident aliens, people who have not yet attained citizenship status, etc. There *are* rural areas in California but they are irrelevant when compared to the cities--if Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego vote one way the entire rest of the State can vote the other way but the majority rules. With that in mind, the large cities--Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Houtson, etc--outweigh individual States.
The point is that doing away with the EC means voting as pure democracy--the person with the most votes wins, so the campaigns will then focus on population centers and ignore the rest. You already feel ignored as it is; not having the EC will not change your situation in the slightest, so I also presume you are concerned with the principle of the matter even if it won't change anything for you.
I am still unconvinced that the NPVIC is the correct way to resolve the problem. The EC votes would all go the the person with the greatest popular vote, but that means plurality--someone can win with only 48.6% of the popular vote but they get *all* the EC votes?
The problem really isn't the Electoral College, per se. The problem is that we need viable third parties.
*************
Uncertain when we will get Nevada results, but I expect Sanders to win it.
Actually, their votes would count.......exactly the same as everyone else's. You are operating under the assumption that there are no rural areas in California and Illinois, and that there are no cities or liberal enclaves in North Dakota or Nebraska. That somehow the TOTALITY of how a state votes would somehow invalidate the individual vote of a single person for President. That isn't true in any reality. It would be hard to see how it would be true in fiction. The individual preferences of a state would be meaningless if the votes of those people were going into a total pool. We wouldn't even need to discuss it.
The only real presumption I made is that the percentage of eligible and likely voters is the same in all States. California is listed at 38,421,464 but not all those people can vote--children, nonresident aliens, people who have not yet attained citizenship status, etc. There *are* rural areas in California but they are irrelevant when compared to the cities--if Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego vote one way the entire rest of the State can vote the other way but the majority rules. With that in mind, the large cities--Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Houtson, etc--outweigh individual States.
The point is that doing away with the EC means voting as pure democracy--the person with the most votes wins, so the campaigns will then focus on population centers and ignore the rest. You already feel ignored as it is; not having the EC will not change your situation in the slightest, so I also presume you are concerned with the principle of the matter even if it won't change anything for you.
I am still unconvinced that the NPVIC is the correct way to resolve the problem. The EC votes would all go the the person with the greatest popular vote, but that means plurality--someone can win with only 48.6% of the popular vote but they get *all* the EC votes?
The problem really isn't the Electoral College, per se. The problem is that we need viable third parties.
There hasn't been a "viable" third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and even giving HIM that designation that year is pushing it. They are nothing but spoilers at best for one party or the other at this point. Perot certainly helped Clinton get elected in 1992 (though the impact of this is exaggerated) and Nader and Stein absolutely cost Al Gore and Hillary Clinton the Presidency. If they aren't in the race, I 100% believe the outcomes are different. In a situation where the ACTUAL choices are binary, voting for a third party is the functional equivalent of voting for the candidate of the two major parties their run is helping the most.
Say we're taking a vote in school to decide what kind of milk we are going to drink at lunch each day. The choices are white, chocolate, and strawberry. I think we'd all concede that only the first two have any chance of winning, even if my personal choice is the later. If I vote for strawberry, I'm simply taking away a vote from the either white or chocolate, and lessening the chances my preference between THOSE TWO will come out on top.
Then I guess you're gonna have to explain why conservatives consistently make more charitable donations than liberals.
Have the data on that? I'd like to see it. That being said, Blue states pay more into welfare than red ones do.
Good luck finding non-biased data on that--I just tried, but every article was heavily skewed or pure opinion. I will note that "welfare" is not "charity"--"charity" is defined by voluntary contributions and paying in to government-funded program via taxation is not voluntary.
Say we're taking a vote in school to decide what kind of milk we are going to drink at lunch each day. The choices are white, chocolate, and strawberry. I think we'd all concede that only the first two have any chance of winning, even if my personal choice is the later. If I vote for strawberry, I'm simply taking away a vote from the either white or chocolate, and lessening the chances my preference between THOSE TWO will come out on top.
There is the problem--we would not all concede that the winner will be white or chocolate. We have far too many people who have bought into the mindset "I *have* to for this party because the other side is *evil*". Still, I have to concede that inertia works in politics like it does in physics. Ideally, the Democrat party splits into "Democrats" and "Democratic Socialists" while the Republican Party splits in to "Trumpists" and "Never-Trumpers" (I don't have any other good names for them right now). I suspect both parties do want to split like that but neither one can do so until the other one does. The problem there is that volcanoes which build too much pressure explode violently.
The people who want the Electoral College abolished don't want it abolished right now; instead, they want it abolished by 2024 or 2028 because by then Texas will have likely turned blue (or at least heavily purple). Based on 2015 population estimates, California + Texas + New York + Illinois = 97,507,013. This is greater than Maryland + Wisconsin + Minnesota + Colorado + Alabama + South Carolina + Louisiana + Kentucky + Oregon + Oklahoma + Connecticut + Puerto Rico + Iowa + Mississippi + Arkansas + Utah + Kansas + Nevada + New Mexico + Nebraska + West Virginia + Idaho + Hawaii + Maine + New Hampshire + Rhode Island + Montana + Delaware + South Dakota + Alaska + North Dakota + District of Columbia + Vermont + Wyoming.
In other words, if you live in any of those 34 States neither you nor your vote matter. At all. Well, at least as far as Presidential elections are concerned.
Actually, their votes would count.......exactly the same as everyone else's. You are operating under the assumption that there are no rural areas in California and Illinois, and that there are no cities or liberal enclaves in North Dakota or Nebraska. That somehow the TOTALITY of how a state votes would somehow invalidate the individual vote of a single person for President. That isn't true in any reality. It would be hard to see how it would be true in fiction. The individual preferences of a state would be meaningless if the votes of those people were going into a total pool. We wouldn't even need to discuss it.
The CURRENT system is what makes votes useless. My preferred candidate will have ZERO chance to win North Dakota (where I vote). A conservative in Orange County has ZERO chance of his candidate winning California. However, in a national vote, both of votes go somewhere and to an idea that is completely unimpeachable.
What you are talking about is addressed by the existence of State governments, and (especially) the Senate. But no one's vote is going to be "meaningless" in a national popular vote election for President, unless the idea that 1=1 is somehow no longer a valid mathematical concept.
Here is the problem with pure democracy with regional differences. I am going to use Canada as an example:
Saskatchewan had a population of approx 1 million people and Manitoba has about 1.3 million. Compare that to Alberta’s 4 million and Ontario’s 13.5 million. (Hell Toronto alone has 6.1 million).
Assume a federal government ran on a campaign to create a pipeline running from Alberta to Ontario going through both Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the process. This would create permanent jobs in Ontario (oil refinery) and boost Manitoba’s GDP significantly because they’d no longer have to deal with America.
It would however have a negative impact on farming in Saskatchewan and Manitoba lowering their GDP, but the boost to both Ontario and Alberta would be greater by comparison.
In a situation like this it’s easy to ignore the negative consequences of 2.3 million people as it’s benefiting 17.5 million.
Another example would be a political party promising to help Toronto with a major vanity project (a new stadium for example), and to pay for it, they will have a tax on potash production (one of Saskatchewan’s main exports). The trade off in votes (6 to 1) would be enough to ignore Saskatchewan’s concern about the tax and help lead the party to victory.
And I'd venture to guess if you broke down even certain sections of individual cities you'd see the same thing. It's CERTAINLY true about states themselves just as much as the country at large. The city of Minneapolis has nothing in common with the needs of my hometown of 500 people in Minnesota. The suburban outskirts of the same city have little in common with the needs of those living in apartments downtown. The need to use public transportation probably being key among them. We could go down this rabbit-hole all day. Eventually, we just end up with neighborhood councils of 50 people controlling separate city blocks if we follow this through to it's conclusion. Without an overarching template, you'd have complete chaos.
But that’s where ‘weighted’ democracy comes in. Democracy is pretty much just mob rule. And it’s easy for a politician or party to promise a group of people something with someone else’s money (México will pay for the wall).
And yes, Cities themselves also have (or should have) weighted democracy. Let me keep it simple and use Ottawa as an example. On the municipal level, Ottawa has 23 Councillors. Osgoode county (rural) has a population of 24,445 while Orleans (suburb) has 47,670. They both have one councillor each even though Orleans is almost double it’s size for population.
If it wasn’t like this, it is very easy for rural areas to get neglected when it comes to city services.
There does need to be a happy medium that need to be found. It does get harder though the larger the land mass, let alone population, and I don’t think either Canada or the United States has found it.
Canada, in my opinion, gives too much weight to Urban Ontarians and Quebec. It’s said if you win Quebec and Toronto, you will win the election (and that’s pretty much what the Liberals did the last time around). And you will see every political party attempting to appease Quebec in some way because of it.
The US is the reverse however giving too much weight to the rural areas. But as long as politicians are the ones in charge of how voting takes place, nothing will change (the system can’t be flawed if meant they got elected).
The US is the reverse however giving too much weight to the rural areas. But as long as politicians are the ones in charge of how voting takes place, nothing will change (the system can’t be flawed if meant they got elected).
The State Legislature elections are *extremely* important this election cycle. 2020 is a Census Year; the State Legislatures will be able to redistrict their States based on Census data, so the gerrymandering will be in full force during 2021, after which the districts are set for another 10 years.
Then I guess you're gonna have to explain why conservatives consistently make more charitable donations than liberals.
Have the data on that? I'd like to see it. That being said, Blue states pay more into welfare than red ones do.
Good luck finding non-biased data on that--I just tried, but every article was heavily skewed or pure opinion. I will note that "welfare" is not "charity"--"charity" is defined by voluntary contributions and paying in to government-funded program via taxation is not voluntary.
Say we're taking a vote in school to decide what kind of milk we are going to drink at lunch each day. The choices are white, chocolate, and strawberry. I think we'd all concede that only the first two have any chance of winning, even if my personal choice is the later. If I vote for strawberry, I'm simply taking away a vote from the either white or chocolate, and lessening the chances my preference between THOSE TWO will come out on top.
There is the problem--we would not all concede that the winner will be white or chocolate. We have far too many people who have bought into the mindset "I *have* to for this party because the other side is *evil*". Still, I have to concede that inertia works in politics like it does in physics. Ideally, the Democrat party splits into "Democrats" and "Democratic Socialists" while the Republican Party splits in to "Trumpists" and "Never-Trumpers" (I don't have any other good names for them right now). I suspect both parties do want to split like that but neither one can do so until the other one does. The problem there is that volcanoes which build too much pressure explode violently.
Except every experience I've ever had in my life will tell me that strawberry in no way can compete on the level of vanilla or chocolate. Moreover, at this point, 3rd Party votes are little more than "I don't like these other people and I'm making a statement". Can anyone honestly tell me what Gary Johnson and Jill Stein's platform was?? I sure as hell couldn't have told you about Ralph Nader's in 2000. It was basically "there is no difference between Bush and Gore".
That isn't true. It was never true. A Gore victory means a better than average chance of no 9/11 and no Iraq War for a certainty. The idea that there is no difference between the parties is a line that is used to create voter apathy, and voter apathy (ie. low participation) only benefits ONE party historically.
Both sides are right and wrong. When the dynamics are 50/50 (polarized) both charitable giving by conservatives, and public safety net spending are lower. Who knew? When people hate each other everybody loses...
Then I guess you're gonna have to explain why conservatives consistently make more charitable donations than liberals.
Have the data on that? I'd like to see it. That being said, Blue states pay more into welfare than red ones do.
Good luck finding non-biased data on that--I just tried, but every article was heavily skewed or pure opinion. I will note that "welfare" is not "charity"--"charity" is defined by voluntary contributions and paying in to government-funded program via taxation is not voluntary.
Say we're taking a vote in school to decide what kind of milk we are going to drink at lunch each day. The choices are white, chocolate, and strawberry. I think we'd all concede that only the first two have any chance of winning, even if my personal choice is the later. If I vote for strawberry, I'm simply taking away a vote from the either white or chocolate, and lessening the chances my preference between THOSE TWO will come out on top.
There is the problem--we would not all concede that the winner will be white or chocolate. We have far too many people who have bought into the mindset "I *have* to for this party because the other side is *evil*". Still, I have to concede that inertia works in politics like it does in physics. Ideally, the Democrat party splits into "Democrats" and "Democratic Socialists" while the Republican Party splits in to "Trumpists" and "Never-Trumpers" (I don't have any other good names for them right now). I suspect both parties do want to split like that but neither one can do so until the other one does. The problem there is that volcanoes which build too much pressure explode violently.
Except every experience I've ever had in my life will tell me that strawberry in no way can compete on the level of vanilla or chocolate. Moreover, at this point, 3rd Party votes are little more than "I don't like these other people and I'm making a statement". Can anyone honestly tell me what Gary Johnson and Jill Stein's platform was?? I sure as hell couldn't have told you about Ralph Nader's in 2000. It was basically "there is no difference between Bush and Gore".
That isn't true. It was never true. A Gore victory means a better than average chance of no 9/11 and no Iraq War for a certainty. The idea that there is no difference between the parties is a line that is used to create voter apathy, and voter apathy (ie. low participation) only benefits ONE party historically.
There are more than two parties in lterally EVERY true Democratic nation other than this one. You're telling me there's no fix for that? We should just settle for the party that ignores us less than the other one? We're literally headed straight for a Goddamned cliff because of these bozos that brought us Trump vs. Clinton. What a shitshow...
Then I guess you're gonna have to explain why conservatives consistently make more charitable donations than liberals.
Have the data on that? I'd like to see it. That being said, Blue states pay more into welfare than red ones do.
Good luck finding non-biased data on that--I just tried, but every article was heavily skewed or pure opinion. I will note that "welfare" is not "charity"--"charity" is defined by voluntary contributions and paying in to government-funded program via taxation is not voluntary.
Say we're taking a vote in school to decide what kind of milk we are going to drink at lunch each day. The choices are white, chocolate, and strawberry. I think we'd all concede that only the first two have any chance of winning, even if my personal choice is the later. If I vote for strawberry, I'm simply taking away a vote from the either white or chocolate, and lessening the chances my preference between THOSE TWO will come out on top.
There is the problem--we would not all concede that the winner will be white or chocolate. We have far too many people who have bought into the mindset "I *have* to for this party because the other side is *evil*". Still, I have to concede that inertia works in politics like it does in physics. Ideally, the Democrat party splits into "Democrats" and "Democratic Socialists" while the Republican Party splits in to "Trumpists" and "Never-Trumpers" (I don't have any other good names for them right now). I suspect both parties do want to split like that but neither one can do so until the other one does. The problem there is that volcanoes which build too much pressure explode violently.
Except every experience I've ever had in my life will tell me that strawberry in no way can compete on the level of vanilla or chocolate. Moreover, at this point, 3rd Party votes are little more than "I don't like these other people and I'm making a statement". Can anyone honestly tell me what Gary Johnson and Jill Stein's platform was?? I sure as hell couldn't have told you about Ralph Nader's in 2000. It was basically "there is no difference between Bush and Gore".
That isn't true. It was never true. A Gore victory means a better than average chance of no 9/11 and no Iraq War for a certainty. The idea that there is no difference between the parties is a line that is used to create voter apathy, and voter apathy (ie. low participation) only benefits ONE party historically.
There are more than two parties in lterally EVERY true Democratic nation other than this one. You're telling me there's no fix for that? We should just settle for the party that ignores us less than the other one? We're literally headed straight for a Goddamned cliff because of these bozos that brought us Trump vs. Clinton. What a shitshow...
Take Buffalo Wings. In theory, there are probably dozens of generic brands of sauce you can use to make them. But the only ones relevant to any discussion about sales figures would be Frank's and Louisiana Brand Hot Sauce. If you are buying sliced processed cheese singles, the same thing applies. It's going to be Velveeta or Kraft. How easy to you think it would be for another company to break into their level in these particular markets??
Then I guess you're gonna have to explain why conservatives consistently make more charitable donations than liberals.
Have the data on that? I'd like to see it. That being said, Blue states pay more into welfare than red ones do.
Good luck finding non-biased data on that--I just tried, but every article was heavily skewed or pure opinion. I will note that "welfare" is not "charity"--"charity" is defined by voluntary contributions and paying in to government-funded program via taxation is not voluntary.
Say we're taking a vote in school to decide what kind of milk we are going to drink at lunch each day. The choices are white, chocolate, and strawberry. I think we'd all concede that only the first two have any chance of winning, even if my personal choice is the later. If I vote for strawberry, I'm simply taking away a vote from the either white or chocolate, and lessening the chances my preference between THOSE TWO will come out on top.
There is the problem--we would not all concede that the winner will be white or chocolate. We have far too many people who have bought into the mindset "I *have* to for this party because the other side is *evil*". Still, I have to concede that inertia works in politics like it does in physics. Ideally, the Democrat party splits into "Democrats" and "Democratic Socialists" while the Republican Party splits in to "Trumpists" and "Never-Trumpers" (I don't have any other good names for them right now). I suspect both parties do want to split like that but neither one can do so until the other one does. The problem there is that volcanoes which build too much pressure explode violently.
Except every experience I've ever had in my life will tell me that strawberry in no way can compete on the level of vanilla or chocolate. Moreover, at this point, 3rd Party votes are little more than "I don't like these other people and I'm making a statement". Can anyone honestly tell me what Gary Johnson and Jill Stein's platform was?? I sure as hell couldn't have told you about Ralph Nader's in 2000. It was basically "there is no difference between Bush and Gore".
That isn't true. It was never true. A Gore victory means a better than average chance of no 9/11 and no Iraq War for a certainty. The idea that there is no difference between the parties is a line that is used to create voter apathy, and voter apathy (ie. low participation) only benefits ONE party historically.
There are more than two parties in lterally EVERY true Democratic nation other than this one. You're telling me there's no fix for that? We should just settle for the party that ignores us less than the other one? We're literally headed straight for a Goddamned cliff because of these bozos that brought us Trump vs. Clinton. What a shitshow...
Take Buffalo Wings. In theory, there are probably dozens of generic brands of sauce you can use to make them. But the only ones relevant to any discussion about sales figures would be Frank's and Louisiana Brand Hot Sauce. If you are buying sliced processed cheese singles, the same thing applies. It's going to be Velveeta or Kraft. How easy to you think it would be for another company to break into their level in these particular markets??
Velveeta sucks and so does Kraft. Budweiser sucks and so does Miller. All of those brands are losing market-share because they are just plain bad. Just like our two shitty political parties...
@jjstraka34 You just gave me flashbacks to being the only kid who wanted strawberry in class.
@Balrog99 I'd say there's multiple solutions, but they are all tricky. Every democracy in the world is structured differently, so fixes applied and their potential results could swing wildly. A small example would be India's democracy. The way it works, you specifically vote for the party, rather than individuals. The field there is DESIGNED to accomodate different parties and the way voting works there reflects that. One of our fellow forumites expressed surprise that we would have a system so complicated as to vote for individual candidates.
I can't personally think of any solution to our particular system only realistically accomidating 2 parties that wouldn't require some breaking down and restructuring of some sort.
That isn't true. It was never true. A Gore victory means a better than average chance of no 9/11 and no Iraq War for a certainty.
I concur that Gore probably would not have launched any endless war--we have been over there so long now that the *second* generation of people are seeing combat--there is one case where the daughter of a guy deployed has been deployed in the same region. 11 Sept was going to happen regardless of who won--it had already been in the works for a year or two.
We won't get viable third parties until one of the two major parties splits, as I noted earlier. That may sound far-fetched but it is really just a matter of time since both major parties are showing signs of splintering.
Meanwhile, in Nevada....early numbers are in and so far it isn't even close: Sanders 56.1%, Biden 20.2%, Steyer 9.4% (this number actually surprised me), Warren 8%, Buttigieg 5.5%, and no one else matters at this point. Of course, this is with 2% of precincts reporting so take those numbers with an entire shaker of salt.
That isn't true. It was never true. A Gore victory means a better than average chance of no 9/11 and no Iraq War for a certainty.
I concur that Gore probably would not have launched any endless war--we have been over there so long now that the *second* generation of people are seeing combat--there is one case where the daughter of a guy deployed has been deployed in the same region. 11 Sept was going to happen regardless of who won--it had already been in the works for a year or two.
We won't get viable third parties until one of the two major parties splits, as I noted earlier. That may sound far-fetched but it is really just a matter of time since both major parties are showing signs of splintering.
Meanwhile, in Nevada....early numbers are in and so far it isn't even close: Sanders 56.1%, Biden 20.2%, Steyer 9.4% (this number actually surprised me), Warren 8%, Buttigieg 5.5%, and no one else matters at this point. Of course, this is with 2% of precincts reporting so take those numbers with an entire shaker of salt.
Bernie is going to be near impossible to stop at this point. I read an article about Bloomberg's favorables dropping 30 points OVERNIGHT after the debate in internal polling. It is just as well he bought himself into the debate, because it allowed Elizabeth Warren to skin him alive on national TV. Thank God for small favors.
Sanders's support is way deeper and has more enthusiasm behind it than even the most optimistic protections. And don't underestimate how much people want to support a "winner" (just look at bandwagon sports fans if you think I'm wrong). The train is leaving the station, and it isn't coming back. If the Democratic Party attempts to broker the convention, it will destroy them.
While it may seem.....odd, that a 78-year old curmudgeon has become the avatar of their discontent, he is, without question, the choice of a generation of young people who believe they have been screwed by previous ones, especially the generation of their grandparents. And, by and large, they aren't wrong.
That isn't true. It was never true. A Gore victory means a better than average chance of no 9/11 and no Iraq War for a certainty.
I concur that Gore probably would not have launched any endless war--we have been over there so long now that the *second* generation of people are seeing combat--there is one case where the daughter of a guy deployed has been deployed in the same region. 11 Sept was going to happen regardless of who won--it had already been in the works for a year or two.
We won't get viable third parties until one of the two major parties splits, as I noted earlier. That may sound far-fetched but it is really just a matter of time since both major parties are showing signs of splintering.
Meanwhile, in Nevada....early numbers are in and so far it isn't even close: Sanders 56.1%, Biden 20.2%, Steyer 9.4% (this number actually surprised me), Warren 8%, Buttigieg 5.5%, and no one else matters at this point. Of course, this is with 2% of precincts reporting so take those numbers with an entire shaker of salt.
Bernie is going to be near impossible to stop at this point. I read an article about Bloomberg's favorables dropping 30 points OVERNIGHT after the debate in internal polling. It is just as well he bought himself into the debate, because it allowed Elizabeth Warren to skin him alive on national TV. Thank God for small favors.
Sanders's support is way deeper and has more enthusiasm behind it than even the most optimistic protections. And don't underestimate how much people want to support a "winner" (just look at bandwagon sports fans if you think I'm wrong). The train is leaving the station, and it isn't coming back. If the Democratic Party attempts to broker the convention, it will destroy them.
While it may seem.....odd, that a 78-year old curmudgeon has become the avatar of their discontent, he is, without question, the choice of a generation of young people who believe they have been screwed by previous ones, especially the generation of their grandparents. And, by and large, they aren't wrong.
Bernie appeals to me for the same reason that Trump appealed to me at first (before I saw what a true douchebag he was). Will the Democrats close ranks like the Republicans did with Trump? I'm not so sure. The Democrats are not as pragmatic as Republicans are, by and large. At least from what I see...
@jjstraka34 You just gave me flashbacks to being the only kid who wanted strawberry in class.
@Balrog99 I'd say there's multiple solutions, but they are all tricky. Every democracy in the world is structured differently, so fixes applied and their potential results could swing wildly. A small example would be India's democracy. The way it works, you specifically vote for the party, rather than individuals. The field there is DESIGNED to accomodate different parties and the way voting works there reflects that. One of our fellow forumites expressed surprise that we would have a system so complicated as to vote for individual candidates.
I can't personally think of any solution to our particular system only realistically accomidating 2 parties that wouldn't require some breaking down and restructuring of some sort.
If both parties fractured I think we'd see some pretty strange bedfellows!
That isn't true. It was never true. A Gore victory means a better than average chance of no 9/11 and no Iraq War for a certainty.
I concur that Gore probably would not have launched any endless war--we have been over there so long now that the *second* generation of people are seeing combat--there is one case where the daughter of a guy deployed has been deployed in the same region. 11 Sept was going to happen regardless of who won--it had already been in the works for a year or two.
We won't get viable third parties until one of the two major parties splits, as I noted earlier. That may sound far-fetched but it is really just a matter of time since both major parties are showing signs of splintering.
Meanwhile, in Nevada....early numbers are in and so far it isn't even close: Sanders 56.1%, Biden 20.2%, Steyer 9.4% (this number actually surprised me), Warren 8%, Buttigieg 5.5%, and no one else matters at this point. Of course, this is with 2% of precincts reporting so take those numbers with an entire shaker of salt.
Bernie is going to be near impossible to stop at this point. I read an article about Bloomberg's favorables dropping 30 points OVERNIGHT after the debate in internal polling. It is just as well he bought himself into the debate, because it allowed Elizabeth Warren to skin him alive on national TV. Thank God for small favors.
Sanders's support is way deeper and has more enthusiasm behind it than even the most optimistic protections. And don't underestimate how much people want to support a "winner" (just look at bandwagon sports fans if you think I'm wrong). The train is leaving the station, and it isn't coming back. If the Democratic Party attempts to broker the convention, it will destroy them.
While it may seem.....odd, that a 78-year old curmudgeon has become the avatar of their discontent, he is, without question, the choice of a generation of young people who believe they have been screwed by previous ones, especially the generation of their grandparents. And, by and large, they aren't wrong.
Bernie appeals to me for the same reason that Trump appealed to me at first (before I saw what a true douchebag he was). Will the Democrats close ranks like the Republicans did with Trump? I'm not so sure. The Democrats are not as pragmatic as Republicans are, by and large. At least from what I see...
What we're seeing is what was recently described as "grandparent envy", but it's not so much "envy" as "pissed off". They know they were able to pay for college on a part-time job. You could get a house and car loan just walking into a bank. Saving for retirement was a thing that existed. This generation looks around, sees it's all gone, and asks "why did you pull up the ladder after you"?? It's a legitimate question.
That isn't true. It was never true. A Gore victory means a better than average chance of no 9/11 and no Iraq War for a certainty.
I concur that Gore probably would not have launched any endless war--we have been over there so long now that the *second* generation of people are seeing combat--there is one case where the daughter of a guy deployed has been deployed in the same region. 11 Sept was going to happen regardless of who won--it had already been in the works for a year or two.
We won't get viable third parties until one of the two major parties splits, as I noted earlier. That may sound far-fetched but it is really just a matter of time since both major parties are showing signs of splintering.
Meanwhile, in Nevada....early numbers are in and so far it isn't even close: Sanders 56.1%, Biden 20.2%, Steyer 9.4% (this number actually surprised me), Warren 8%, Buttigieg 5.5%, and no one else matters at this point. Of course, this is with 2% of precincts reporting so take those numbers with an entire shaker of salt.
Bernie is going to be near impossible to stop at this point. I read an article about Bloomberg's favorables dropping 30 points OVERNIGHT after the debate in internal polling. It is just as well he bought himself into the debate, because it allowed Elizabeth Warren to skin him alive on national TV. Thank God for small favors.
Sanders's support is way deeper and has more enthusiasm behind it than even the most optimistic protections. And don't underestimate how much people want to support a "winner" (just look at bandwagon sports fans if you think I'm wrong). The train is leaving the station, and it isn't coming back. If the Democratic Party attempts to broker the convention, it will destroy them.
While it may seem.....odd, that a 78-year old curmudgeon has become the avatar of their discontent, he is, without question, the choice of a generation of young people who believe they have been screwed by previous ones, especially the generation of their grandparents. And, by and large, they aren't wrong.
Bernie appeals to me for the same reason that Trump appealed to me at first (before I saw what a true douchebag he was). Will the Democrats close ranks like the Republicans did with Trump? I'm not so sure. The Democrats are not as pragmatic as Republicans are, by and large. At least from what I see...
What we're seeing is what was recently described as "grandparent envy", but it's not so much "envy" as "pissed off". They know they were able to pay for college on a a part-time job. You could get a house and car loan just walking into a bank. Saving for retirement was a thing that existed. This generation looks around, sees it's all gone, and asks "why did you pull up the ladder after you"?? It's a legitimate question.
No option for 'wholeheartedly agree' so thought I'd put it out there for all to see.
Time to get out some fresh thoughts while I still have them compartmentalized in my head:
1.) The fat-lady hasn't sung yet, but she is in front of the mirror in her dressing room warming up her vocal chords. Her performance is likely in 10 days. Centrism, for the moment, is dead in the Democratic Party. For now, they either get on the freight train, or get run over by it. While my core views are very left, I have no problem with centrist candidates. Kamala Harris was my first choice, Elizabeth Warren was my second. It's immaterial. Bernie Sanders is going to be the nominee.
2.) Which means the progressive wing of the party has it's first shot in almost 40 years. If Bernie wins, it will change the party forever. If he loses, the left-wing of the party will be in the wilderness for at least 20 years.
3.) The pundit class has no more of a clue about Bernie than they did about Trump. While it is true I didn't think he could win the general, I was CONVINCED long before most that he would be the Republican nominee, as soon as I saw the first polls after he called Mexicans "rapists". He was AM talk radio, and AM talk radio was what the Republican primary voter had been injecting for 30 years.
4.) Trump and Bernie are both striking at the heart of the same issue. Trump says you life sucks because some brown person took a job they didn't deserve. Bernie says your life sucks because billionaires and fat cats have taken everything for themselves. One is imaginary, one is what the real problem is.
5.) Trump can't use some of the same issues he's staked out in contrast to Democrats in the Rust Belt against Bernie. Bernie has been against free trade since jump street. He's been taking unpopular votes for years. The upside to that being he doesn't have to twist himself like a pretzel to explain why he has changed positions on something, because he almost never does so.
6.) I have no idea if he'll win. As I said before, the left-wing of the party is CONVINCED he will. I don't think they quite know what they're in for from the Republicans. It's going to make whatever they think the Democrats are throwing at them look like a game of dominoes. But Bernie has knife-fighters. His supporters are rabid. For the last 4 years, their anger has been aimed at the Democratic establishment. They are on the cusp of temporarily vanquishing that opponent. Let's see what happens when they aim it at the real target.
Comments
This is a specious argument. Suggesting that Democrat voters are somehow unprincipled if they voted for Obama in 2012 when there was no serious primary to speak of, and the Republican candidate didnt appear to be any better with respect to those supposed principles doesnt track. This being the case, we cannot infer the supposed principles of the voters in question.
In some respects, you argument also doesnt track that Democrats only favor abolishing the Electoral College when it favors Republicans. You should look into the National Popular Vote Compact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
You should take special notice of the states that have enacted laws to join the compact (Everyone of which is a Democrat or lean-democrat state, perhaps Colorado being the closes to independent). You should also take note of when the compact legislation were signed. The first in 2007 (Bush Presidency, in the run up to Obama. As you noted, Obama enjoyed a tremendous Electoral College advantage). More were signed even *after* Obama was elected, 7 more states joined, including 3 after the 2012 election.
The other way your argument doesnt exactly make sense is: You're suggesting that the Democrats will support the EC so long as it benefits them. What you're not addressing is that a Democrat has only lost the National popular vote once in the past 30 years (2004 was the last time, and before that was 1988). Based on that alone, it would make sense for Democrats to favor abolishing the EC.
As a final, parting thought: Your overarching argument paints with far too broad of a brush. The democratic party is not some monolithic hivemind. It is comported with people up and down the political spectrum. There are some who believe institutions like the EC should be preserved. There are others (like myself) who feel like the EC should be abolished, regardless of whom it favors.
That article is making a different point, i.e. that reliably Democratic states would get Obama close to victory - meaning that Romney would need to win all the closely contested states in order to win the electoral college. If he had done that though, he would probably not have got the majority of votes. That's because the reliably Democratic states include some big ones (California in particular) and big states get proportionally fewer electors than small states (less than 1/3).
Unless states like California and New York swing more back into balance between the parties, a narrow electoral college win for the Republicans is extremely likely to be associated with a minority of the popular vote. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the vote for Republicans in the states they win is significantly stronger than the vote for Democrats in the states they win, i.e. if both sides win 60:40 in their states, the Republicans would definitely get a minority of the popular vote if the electoral college was almost evenly split. If the Democrats won 60:40, but the Republicans won 70:30 the Republicans might also shade the popular vote.
So yes, I realize it is the system we have and the system we are going to be stuck with because Republicans KNOW their policies are dogshit and unpopular. But it doesn't change the fact that people in the largest states in this country are de-facto second-class citizens based on the power of their vote. They have LESS of a vote than other people. It's not my opinion, it's a mathematical fact.
In other words, if you live in any of those 34 States neither you nor your vote matter. At all. Well, at least as far as Presidential elections are concerned.
Yes, the allure of pure democracy is strong and at certain levels it works perfectly--city council elections, etc. The problem with pure democracy is that the 51% are always kicking the 49% in the teeth. Of course, the problem with plurality is that "the biggest minority group" is always kicking all the other minority groups in the teeth. No system is perfect.
If you really wanted to introduce some chaos then the person who wins the most votes in a Presidential election becomes POTUS and the person who wins the second-most votes becomes VPOTUS. That would probably not be a very good idea at all, though, would it Ancient Rome?
Russian meddling. *sigh* Whether real or imagined, and regardless of its level of success (which is probably extremely low, since voting machines are not remotely accessible by any means), what we are left with are tainted results regardless of who wins. There will always now be a question as to whether the winner really won or if meddling caused them to win. My advice: let the intelligence community continue to monitor for possible interference via some means, ignore social media altogether, and just accept the results even if they aren't what you would have preferred. Some people won't, of course--they simply cannot bring themselves to accept certain truths--but that is their problem.
However, as it stands now, there is too much weight given to the “little guys.” I mentioned prior that the easiest solution is to give each state (and then each US territory) one electoral vote and then split the rest up by population. It would even it up slightly, while still giving more weight to rural areas.
Actually, their votes would count.......exactly the same as everyone else's. You are operating under the assumption that there are no rural areas in California and Illinois, and that there are no cities or liberal enclaves in North Dakota or Nebraska. That somehow the TOTALITY of how a state votes would somehow invalidate the individual vote of a single person for President. That isn't true in any reality. It would be hard to see how it would be true in fiction. The individual preferences of a state would be meaningless if the votes of those people were going into a total pool. We wouldn't even need to discuss it.
The CURRENT system is what makes votes useless. My preferred candidate will have ZERO chance to win North Dakota (where I vote). A conservative in Orange County has ZERO chance of his candidate winning California. However, in a national vote, both of votes go somewhere and to an idea that is completely unimpeachable.
What you are talking about is addressed by the existence of State governments, and (especially) the Senate. But no one's vote is going to be "meaningless" in a national popular vote election for President, unless the idea that 1=1 is somehow no longer a valid mathematical concept.
Donald Trump had a 0% chance of winning Michigan in 2016 yet he did. Reagan had a 0% chance of winning every state except Minnesota in 1984. This bullshit of it being impossible for a Republican to win California or a Democrat to win Texas is totally due to the same big data analytics crap that's also ruining sports. There are dynamics in elections that are impossible to predict and there always will be.
Here is the problem with pure democracy with regional differences. I am going to use Canada as an example:
Saskatchewan had a population of approx 1 million people and Manitoba has about 1.3 million. Compare that to Alberta’s 4 million and Ontario’s 13.5 million. (Hell Toronto alone has 6.1 million).
Assume a federal government ran on a campaign to create a pipeline running from Alberta to Ontario going through both Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the process. This would create permanent jobs in Ontario (oil refinery) and boost Manitoba’s GDP significantly because they’d no longer have to deal with America.
It would however have a negative impact on farming in Saskatchewan and Manitoba lowering their GDP, but the boost to both Ontario and Alberta would be greater by comparison.
In a situation like this it’s easy to ignore the negative consequences of 2.3 million people as it’s benefiting 17.5 million.
Another example would be a political party promising to help Toronto with a major vanity project (a new stadium for example), and to pay for it, they will have a tax on potash production (one of Saskatchewan’s main exports). The trade off in votes (6 to 1) would be enough to ignore Saskatchewan’s concern about the tax and help lead the party to victory.
Have the data on that? I'd like to see it. That being said, Blue states pay more into welfare than red ones do.
I would't say it's "ruining" sports. What it amounts to in basketball, despite all the complicated numbers under the hood, is that taking long 2-point shots instead of 3's is statistically stupid, and that big men are basically obsolete next to wings who can shoot the aforementioned 3 and guard on the perimeter. There are certain teams like the Houston Rockets who are horrible to watch, but that's because one player has learned how to just BARELY not get called for travels on his signature moves and draw alot of bullshit fouls. Thing is, he only gets those calls in the regular season. Now, if you are gonna call the current generation "soft" because of how the games get officiated, that's entirely true. Michael Jordan would AVERAGE 45 points a game in this climate compared to the beatings he took in the paint from the Pistons and Knicks for a decade.
And I'd venture to guess if you broke down even certain sections of individual cities you'd see the same thing. It's CERTAINLY true about states themselves just as much as the country at large. The city of Minneapolis has nothing in common with the needs of my hometown of 500 people in Minnesota. The suburban outskirts of the same city have little in common with the needs of those living in apartments downtown. The need to use public transportation probably being key among them. We could go down this rabbit-hole all day. Eventually, we just end up with neighborhood councils of 50 people controlling separate city blocks if we follow this through to it's conclusion. Without an overarching template, you'd have complete chaos.
The only real presumption I made is that the percentage of eligible and likely voters is the same in all States. California is listed at 38,421,464 but not all those people can vote--children, nonresident aliens, people who have not yet attained citizenship status, etc. There *are* rural areas in California but they are irrelevant when compared to the cities--if Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego vote one way the entire rest of the State can vote the other way but the majority rules. With that in mind, the large cities--Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Houtson, etc--outweigh individual States.
The point is that doing away with the EC means voting as pure democracy--the person with the most votes wins, so the campaigns will then focus on population centers and ignore the rest. You already feel ignored as it is; not having the EC will not change your situation in the slightest, so I also presume you are concerned with the principle of the matter even if it won't change anything for you.
I am still unconvinced that the NPVIC is the correct way to resolve the problem. The EC votes would all go the the person with the greatest popular vote, but that means plurality--someone can win with only 48.6% of the popular vote but they get *all* the EC votes?
The problem really isn't the Electoral College, per se. The problem is that we need viable third parties.
*************
Uncertain when we will get Nevada results, but I expect Sanders to win it.
There hasn't been a "viable" third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and even giving HIM that designation that year is pushing it. They are nothing but spoilers at best for one party or the other at this point. Perot certainly helped Clinton get elected in 1992 (though the impact of this is exaggerated) and Nader and Stein absolutely cost Al Gore and Hillary Clinton the Presidency. If they aren't in the race, I 100% believe the outcomes are different. In a situation where the ACTUAL choices are binary, voting for a third party is the functional equivalent of voting for the candidate of the two major parties their run is helping the most.
Say we're taking a vote in school to decide what kind of milk we are going to drink at lunch each day. The choices are white, chocolate, and strawberry. I think we'd all concede that only the first two have any chance of winning, even if my personal choice is the later. If I vote for strawberry, I'm simply taking away a vote from the either white or chocolate, and lessening the chances my preference between THOSE TWO will come out on top.
Good luck finding non-biased data on that--I just tried, but every article was heavily skewed or pure opinion. I will note that "welfare" is not "charity"--"charity" is defined by voluntary contributions and paying in to government-funded program via taxation is not voluntary.
There is the problem--we would not all concede that the winner will be white or chocolate. We have far too many people who have bought into the mindset "I *have* to for this party because the other side is *evil*". Still, I have to concede that inertia works in politics like it does in physics. Ideally, the Democrat party splits into "Democrats" and "Democratic Socialists" while the Republican Party splits in to "Trumpists" and "Never-Trumpers" (I don't have any other good names for them right now). I suspect both parties do want to split like that but neither one can do so until the other one does. The problem there is that volcanoes which build too much pressure explode violently.
But that’s where ‘weighted’ democracy comes in. Democracy is pretty much just mob rule. And it’s easy for a politician or party to promise a group of people something with someone else’s money (México will pay for the wall).
And yes, Cities themselves also have (or should have) weighted democracy. Let me keep it simple and use Ottawa as an example. On the municipal level, Ottawa has 23 Councillors. Osgoode county (rural) has a population of 24,445 while Orleans (suburb) has 47,670. They both have one councillor each even though Orleans is almost double it’s size for population.
If it wasn’t like this, it is very easy for rural areas to get neglected when it comes to city services.
There does need to be a happy medium that need to be found. It does get harder though the larger the land mass, let alone population, and I don’t think either Canada or the United States has found it.
Canada, in my opinion, gives too much weight to Urban Ontarians and Quebec. It’s said if you win Quebec and Toronto, you will win the election (and that’s pretty much what the Liberals did the last time around). And you will see every political party attempting to appease Quebec in some way because of it.
The US is the reverse however giving too much weight to the rural areas. But as long as politicians are the ones in charge of how voting takes place, nothing will change (the system can’t be flawed if meant they got elected).
The State Legislature elections are *extremely* important this election cycle. 2020 is a Census Year; the State Legislatures will be able to redistrict their States based on Census data, so the gerrymandering will be in full force during 2021, after which the districts are set for another 10 years.
Except every experience I've ever had in my life will tell me that strawberry in no way can compete on the level of vanilla or chocolate. Moreover, at this point, 3rd Party votes are little more than "I don't like these other people and I'm making a statement". Can anyone honestly tell me what Gary Johnson and Jill Stein's platform was?? I sure as hell couldn't have told you about Ralph Nader's in 2000. It was basically "there is no difference between Bush and Gore".
That isn't true. It was never true. A Gore victory means a better than average chance of no 9/11 and no Iraq War for a certainty. The idea that there is no difference between the parties is a line that is used to create voter apathy, and voter apathy (ie. low participation) only benefits ONE party historically.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/
Both sides are right and wrong. When the dynamics are 50/50 (polarized) both charitable giving by conservatives, and public safety net spending are lower. Who knew? When people hate each other everybody loses...
There are more than two parties in lterally EVERY true Democratic nation other than this one. You're telling me there's no fix for that? We should just settle for the party that ignores us less than the other one? We're literally headed straight for a Goddamned cliff because of these bozos that brought us Trump vs. Clinton. What a shitshow...
Take Buffalo Wings. In theory, there are probably dozens of generic brands of sauce you can use to make them. But the only ones relevant to any discussion about sales figures would be Frank's and Louisiana Brand Hot Sauce. If you are buying sliced processed cheese singles, the same thing applies. It's going to be Velveeta or Kraft. How easy to you think it would be for another company to break into their level in these particular markets??
Velveeta sucks and so does Kraft. Budweiser sucks and so does Miller. All of those brands are losing market-share because they are just plain bad. Just like our two shitty political parties...
@Balrog99 I'd say there's multiple solutions, but they are all tricky. Every democracy in the world is structured differently, so fixes applied and their potential results could swing wildly. A small example would be India's democracy. The way it works, you specifically vote for the party, rather than individuals. The field there is DESIGNED to accomodate different parties and the way voting works there reflects that. One of our fellow forumites expressed surprise that we would have a system so complicated as to vote for individual candidates.
I can't personally think of any solution to our particular system only realistically accomidating 2 parties that wouldn't require some breaking down and restructuring of some sort.
I concur that Gore probably would not have launched any endless war--we have been over there so long now that the *second* generation of people are seeing combat--there is one case where the daughter of a guy deployed has been deployed in the same region. 11 Sept was going to happen regardless of who won--it had already been in the works for a year or two.
We won't get viable third parties until one of the two major parties splits, as I noted earlier. That may sound far-fetched but it is really just a matter of time since both major parties are showing signs of splintering.
Meanwhile, in Nevada....early numbers are in and so far it isn't even close: Sanders 56.1%, Biden 20.2%, Steyer 9.4% (this number actually surprised me), Warren 8%, Buttigieg 5.5%, and no one else matters at this point. Of course, this is with 2% of precincts reporting so take those numbers with an entire shaker of salt.
Bernie is going to be near impossible to stop at this point. I read an article about Bloomberg's favorables dropping 30 points OVERNIGHT after the debate in internal polling. It is just as well he bought himself into the debate, because it allowed Elizabeth Warren to skin him alive on national TV. Thank God for small favors.
Sanders's support is way deeper and has more enthusiasm behind it than even the most optimistic protections. And don't underestimate how much people want to support a "winner" (just look at bandwagon sports fans if you think I'm wrong). The train is leaving the station, and it isn't coming back. If the Democratic Party attempts to broker the convention, it will destroy them.
While it may seem.....odd, that a 78-year old curmudgeon has become the avatar of their discontent, he is, without question, the choice of a generation of young people who believe they have been screwed by previous ones, especially the generation of their grandparents. And, by and large, they aren't wrong.
Bernie appeals to me for the same reason that Trump appealed to me at first (before I saw what a true douchebag he was). Will the Democrats close ranks like the Republicans did with Trump? I'm not so sure. The Democrats are not as pragmatic as Republicans are, by and large. At least from what I see...
If both parties fractured I think we'd see some pretty strange bedfellows!
What we're seeing is what was recently described as "grandparent envy", but it's not so much "envy" as "pissed off". They know they were able to pay for college on a part-time job. You could get a house and car loan just walking into a bank. Saving for retirement was a thing that existed. This generation looks around, sees it's all gone, and asks "why did you pull up the ladder after you"?? It's a legitimate question.
No option for 'wholeheartedly agree' so thought I'd put it out there for all to see.
1.) The fat-lady hasn't sung yet, but she is in front of the mirror in her dressing room warming up her vocal chords. Her performance is likely in 10 days. Centrism, for the moment, is dead in the Democratic Party. For now, they either get on the freight train, or get run over by it. While my core views are very left, I have no problem with centrist candidates. Kamala Harris was my first choice, Elizabeth Warren was my second. It's immaterial. Bernie Sanders is going to be the nominee.
2.) Which means the progressive wing of the party has it's first shot in almost 40 years. If Bernie wins, it will change the party forever. If he loses, the left-wing of the party will be in the wilderness for at least 20 years.
3.) The pundit class has no more of a clue about Bernie than they did about Trump. While it is true I didn't think he could win the general, I was CONVINCED long before most that he would be the Republican nominee, as soon as I saw the first polls after he called Mexicans "rapists". He was AM talk radio, and AM talk radio was what the Republican primary voter had been injecting for 30 years.
4.) Trump and Bernie are both striking at the heart of the same issue. Trump says you life sucks because some brown person took a job they didn't deserve. Bernie says your life sucks because billionaires and fat cats have taken everything for themselves. One is imaginary, one is what the real problem is.
5.) Trump can't use some of the same issues he's staked out in contrast to Democrats in the Rust Belt against Bernie. Bernie has been against free trade since jump street. He's been taking unpopular votes for years. The upside to that being he doesn't have to twist himself like a pretzel to explain why he has changed positions on something, because he almost never does so.
6.) I have no idea if he'll win. As I said before, the left-wing of the party is CONVINCED he will. I don't think they quite know what they're in for from the Republicans. It's going to make whatever they think the Democrats are throwing at them look like a game of dominoes. But Bernie has knife-fighters. His supporters are rabid. For the last 4 years, their anger has been aimed at the Democratic establishment. They are on the cusp of temporarily vanquishing that opponent. Let's see what happens when they aim it at the real target.