This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Is it even fun? I’ve only ever done driving ranges and mini-golf. Somehow I doubt I’d enjoy spending every weekend golfing.
its better than sitting in an office all day
This is probably a true statement.
The blue elephant in the room.
Going by the popular vote isn’t going to fix the underlying problems with the first-past-the-post system.
No, but the electoral college is a problem that can be fixed without a constitutional amendment.
Such a fix is a workaround, not the true solution, and I’m not sure I favor workarounds. I’m pretty firm in my conviction that if the Constitution isn’t working in some way, then the Constitution should get fixed instead of finding loopholes. Unfortunetly, the Constitution may be just a tad more difficult than desirable to amend.
The National Popular Vote is one workaround, but there are other things that I’d classify a lot closer to actual fixes which also do not require a Constitutional Amendment. The NPV is merely the method that, at least at the moment, is most likely to succeed.
The following is a thought experiment, so please do not take too much umbrage.
In the 2016 election, Trump [earned] 58,501,015 votes and Clinton [earned] 57,099,728 votes - if we exclude the votes in California for both candidates. Considering the matter on a state-by-state basis, it’s funny that California would negate the popular choice of the 49 other states. Consider further that even if we also exclude Texas’s votes, Trump still wins the popular vote in the remaining 48 states. That is how big a difference the people of California can make in a popular vote system.
I want a candidate to be made to appeal to as broad a swath of America as possible. I abhor that pretty much every GOP candidate in the 2016 primary bowed to the ethanol lobby in states like Iowa. And yet, it is one example of how candidates are made to appeal to interests in individual states. If you think the ethanol subsidies are great, this should appeal to you.
The blue elephant in the room.
Yes, but we are one United States of America. We can’t just remove one state’s votes Judy because we want to. One’s vote in California should count the same as one vote in Wyoming, since we are all equal citizens of the United States.
Cherry picking one state to remove, even as a thought experiment, makes zero sense to me.
But we all agree that Florida should be removed, correct?
The following is a thought experiment, so please do not take too much umbrage.
In the 2016 election, Trump [earned] 58,501,015 votes and Clinton [earned] 57,099,728 votes - if we exclude the votes in California for both candidates. Considering the matter on a state-by-state basis, it’s funny that California would negate the popular choice of the 49 other states. Consider further that even if we also exclude Texas’s votes, Trump still wins the popular vote in the remaining 48 states. That is how big a difference the people of California can make in a popular vote system.
I want a candidate to be made to appeal to as broad a swath of America as possible. I abhor that pretty much every GOP candidate in the 2016 primary bowed to the ethanol lobby in states like Iowa. And yet, it is one example of how candidates are made to appeal to interests in individual states. If you think the ethanol subsidies are great, this should appeal to you.
California only negates the choice of the other states cause the because of how all the other states voted. The numbers were just close enough that California could make the difference. But Trump or Clinton had been ahead of the other by enough votes, California wouldn’t make a difference.
But we all agree that Florida should be removed, correct?
This is a joke, correct?
Yes, but we are one United States of America. We can’t just remove one state’s votes Judy because we want to. One’s vote in California should count the same as one vote in Wyoming, since we are all equal citizens of the United States.
Again: thought experiment.
Of course we shouldn’t actually remove one state’s votes!
That we are equal citizens of the United States doesn’t dictate what voting system we should have. I presented one argument for keeping the present system.
(However, I do think we should expand the size of Congress which would greatly mitigate the problem of a disparity between the Electoral and Popular vote.)
The blue elephant in the room.
(However, I do think we should expand the size of Congress which would greatly mitigate the problem of a disparity between the Electoral and Popular vote.)
I’m not so are about the Congress idea. 535 people is already quite a a lot to know, and increasing the size of Congress might introduce new inefficiencies and make it harder for Congesspeople to collaborate. I hear this is a problem in the EU legislature.
But we all agree that Florida should be removed, correct?
This is a joke, correct?
I don’t know, Warb. All I know is that it’s an idea that’s been floated and it might have some merit to it.
Cherry picking one state to remove, even as a thought experiment, makes zero sense to me.
The discussion concerns, in part, a perceived unfairness based on state size/population. I chose the most populated state. And then I chose the second most populated state. Also, by virtue of its size and partisan voting trend, California is - I believe - the only state that would have made a difference in 2016 under a popular vote system. I thought it helpful that the 2nd biggest state had an opposite partisan voting trend. So there are some analytical reasons for choosing these particular states given part of the discussion here.
The blue elephant in the room.
The following is a thought experiment, so please do not take too much umbrage.
In the 2016 election, Trump [earned] 58,501,015 votes and Clinton [earned] 57,099,728 votes - if we exclude the votes in California for both candidates. Considering the matter on a state-by-state basis, it’s funny that California would negate the popular choice of the 49 other states. Consider further that even if we also exclude Texas’s votes, Trump still wins the popular vote in the remaining 48 states. That is how big a difference the people of California can make in a popular vote system.
I want a candidate to be made to appeal to as broad a swath of America as possible. I abhor that pretty much every GOP candidate in the 2016 primary bowed to the ethanol lobby in states like Iowa. And yet, it is one example of how candidates are made to appeal to interests in individual states. If you think the ethanol subsidies are great, this should appeal to you.
Voting demographics are not divided along state lines. You don’t have one state full of liberals and another full of conservatives. You just have all states with slightly different mixes of all the national voting demographics. You simply cannot target California voters as a whole for no other reason than that Dana Rohrabacher and Maxine Waters are both Californians. You can only target one voting demographic or another, and pick up ideologically-aligned supporters across the country, possibly picking up states in the process.
Yes, there are state issues like ethanol which may gain you a few more percentage points in specific states, but that’s really only a few percentage points (offset in an NPV system by equivalent losses in other states–these offsets exist in the electoral system too, but they may be in states you have written off). Also, larger states with more diversified economies tend not to have one issue that appeals to the whole state, except in that it may appeal to whatever’s the dominant demographic in that state.
So sure, California can throw the election one way or another. Or Texas, or Florida. But the margin of the last election was 2.9 million votes. That’s Kansas–consider how many Kansas Democrats don’t vote because the current system ensures their votes will never count. If nothing else, the NPV should improve opposition turnout in “safe” states on both sides.
(However, I do think we should expand the size of Congress which would greatly mitigate the problem of a disparity between the Electoral and Popular vote.)
I’m not so are about the Congress idea. 535 people is already quite a a lot to know, and increasing the size of Congress might introduce new inefficiencies and make it harder for Congesspeople to collaborate. I hear this is a problem in the EU legislature.
There are downsides. As you politely observe we have quite a lot of uncooperative nitwits already. The Capitol would end up looking like the Republic Senate too. But there could be some way to work out the logistics. I don’t know how the Chinese National People’s Congress works but I guess it does.
The blue elephant in the room.
(However, I do think we should expand the size of Congress which would greatly mitigate the problem of a disparity between the Electoral and Popular vote.)
I’m not so are about the Congress idea. 535 people is already quite a a lot to know, and increasing the size of Congress might introduce new inefficiencies and make it harder for Congesspeople to collaborate. I hear this is a problem in the EU legislature.
There are downsides. As you politely observe we have quite a lot of uncooperative nitwits already. The Capitol would end up looking like the Republic Senate too. But there could be some way to work out the logistics. I don’t know how the Chinese National People’s Congress works but I guess it does.
There are also additional upsides. In addition to making the Electoral College more closely match the popular vote (I should say again, because they used to be much more closely aligned than they are today), smaller Congressional districts are harder to gerrymander to very much effect.
The following is a thought experiment, so please do not take too much umbrage.
In the 2016 election, Trump [earned] 58,501,015 votes and Clinton [earned] 57,099,728 votes - if we exclude the votes in California for both candidates. Considering the matter on a state-by-state basis, it’s funny that California would negate the popular choice of the 49 other states. Consider further that even if we also exclude Texas’s votes, Trump still wins the popular vote in the remaining 48 states. That is how big a difference the people of California can make in a popular vote system.
I want a candidate to be made to appeal to as broad a swath of America as possible. I abhor that pretty much every GOP candidate in the 2016 primary bowed to the ethanol lobby in states like Iowa. And yet, it is one example of how candidates are made to appeal to interests in individual states. If you think the ethanol subsidies are great, this should appeal to you.
Voting demographics are not divided along state lines. You don’t have one state full of liberals and another full of conservatives. You just have all states with slightly different mixes of all the national voting demographics. You simply cannot target California voters as a whole for no other reason than that Dana Rohrabacher and Maxine Waters are both Californians. You can only target one voting demographic or another, and pick up ideologically-aligned supporters across the country, possibly picking up states in the process.
Yes, there are state issues like ethanol which may gain you a few more percentage points in specific states, but that’s really only a few percentage points (offset in an NPV system by equivalent losses in other states–these offsets exist in the electoral system too, but they may be in states you have written off). Also, larger states with more diversified economies tend not to have one issue that appeals to the whole state, except in that it may appeal to whatever’s the dominant demographic in that state.
So sure, California can throw the election one way or another. Or Texas, or Florida. But the margin of the last election was 2.9 million votes. That’s Kansas–consider how many Kansas Democrats don’t vote because the current system ensures their votes will never count. If nothing else, the NPV should improve opposition turnout in “safe” states on both sides.
Clinton was faulted for not making the efforts she needed to in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The idea that a Republican - let alone Trump - would win those three states was far-fetched. If a candidate thought they could ignore those three states now, they certainly would under a NPV. I think that shows that one can’t count on simply picking up ideologically-aligned supporters across the country - there are people who can be swayed one way or another. It shows that, as you rightly point out, demographics cross state lines. But they’re not just ideological. The idea now is that a future Democratic candidate won’t take those voters and those states for granted. I think that’s a really good thing.
The blue elephant in the room.
On the “Michigan-Wisconsin-Pennsylvania” ppoint, yes, that’s true, but even if Clinton had won Michigan and Wisconsin, she still would have ended up short in the Electoral College. And, to my memory, she did campaign pretty extensively in Pennsylvania, so, in order to win, she would have had to win either that or, say, Florida.
The following is a thought experiment, so please do not take too much umbrage.
In the 2016 election, Trump [earned] 58,501,015 votes and Clinton [earned] 57,099,728 votes - if we exclude the votes in California for both candidates. Considering the matter on a state-by-state basis, it’s funny that California would negate the popular choice of the 49 other states. Consider further that even if we also exclude Texas’s votes, Trump still wins the popular vote in the remaining 48 states. That is how big a difference the people of California can make in a popular vote system.
I want a candidate to be made to appeal to as broad a swath of America as possible. I abhor that pretty much every GOP candidate in the 2016 primary bowed to the ethanol lobby in states like Iowa. And yet, it is one example of how candidates are made to appeal to interests in individual states. If you think the ethanol subsidies are great, this should appeal to you.
Voting demographics are not divided along state lines. You don’t have one state full of liberals and another full of conservatives. You just have all states with slightly different mixes of all the national voting demographics. You simply cannot target California voters as a whole for no other reason than that Dana Rohrabacher and Maxine Waters are both Californians. You can only target one voting demographic or another, and pick up ideologically-aligned supporters across the country, possibly picking up states in the process.
Yes, there are state issues like ethanol which may gain you a few more percentage points in specific states, but that’s really only a few percentage points (offset in an NPV system by equivalent losses in other states–these offsets exist in the electoral system too, but they may be in states you have written off). Also, larger states with more diversified economies tend not to have one issue that appeals to the whole state, except in that it may appeal to whatever’s the dominant demographic in that state.
So sure, California can throw the election one way or another. Or Texas, or Florida. But the margin of the last election was 2.9 million votes. That’s Kansas–consider how many Kansas Democrats don’t vote because the current system ensures their votes will never count. If nothing else, the NPV should improve opposition turnout in “safe” states on both sides.
Clinton was faulted for not making the efforts she needed to in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The idea that a Republican - let alone Trump - would win those three states was far-fetched. If a candidate thought they could ignore those three states now, they certainly would under a NPV. I think that shows that one can’t count on simply picking up ideologically-aligned supporters across the country - there are people who can be swayed one way or another. It shows that, as you rightly point out, demographics cross state lines. But they’re not just ideological. The idea now is that a future Democratic candidate won’t take those voters and those states for granted. I think that’s a really good thing.
The only system under which a Democratic Presidential candidate would make appeals to voters in Wyoming, Alabama, and Oklahoma would be something like the NPV, where those votes would actually be counted for something. Similarly, Republicans candidates may visit Hawaii for more than just the golf courses. The EC encourages candidates to focus exclusively on swing states and ignore the rest of the country (but they should, as you point out, know what the swing states are). A popular vote means they focus on getting the most voters, in any state with voters. Sure, big states have more voters, but every state has some, and they all count equally. And I think that’s really a better thing.
EDIT: Example – last election, I had someone come to my door to encourage me to vote for Hillary. I live in what’s known as a non-swing state. That’s the first time anyone has ever come to my door to ask me to vote for a particular Presidential candidate, over several decades. Now, yes, that’s a good thing–the Dems cared to send someone, I feel special like a desired voter, yay for that. But it’s also a bad thing–I knew the Dems were wasting money sending people to doorbell my street when my state was in the bag. If we had the NPV, it would not have been a wasted outreach, plus I’d have likely also had the opportunity to tell some redcap to get the fuck off my porch.
California isn’t a monolithic hive mind. No states are. That’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily remove one to make a point.
California isn’t a monolithic hive. No states are. That’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily remove one to make a point.
Thought experiment: what if I removed one word from your post?
California isn’t a monolithic hive mind. No states are. That’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily remove one to make a point.
Nice try, Massachusetts liberal. You just wNt to protect your own interests!!!1!!!
On the “Michigan-Wisconsin-Pennsylvania” ppoint, yes, that’s true, but even if Clinton had won Michigan and Wisconsin, she still would have ended up short in the Electoral College. And, to my memory, she did campaign pretty extensively in Pennsylvania, so, in order to win, she would have had to win either that or, say, Florida.
And there are solid critiques of her failings in Florida too. There are ample examples of how Clinton really tried to appeal to an ideological constituency but took all kinds of non-ideological demographics for granted.
The blue elephant in the room.
On the “Michigan-Wisconsin-Pennsylvania” ppoint, yes, that’s true, but even if Clinton had won Michigan and Wisconsin, she still would have ended up short in the Electoral College. And, to my memory, she did campaign pretty extensively in Pennsylvania, so, in order to win, she would have had to win either that or, say, Florida.
And there are solid critiques of her failings in Florida too. There are ample examples of how Clinton really tried to appeal to an ideological constituency but took all kinds of non-ideological demographics for granted.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but Clinton’s campaigning decisions is just one part of a multi-faceted lost that cuts deep into American society. Yes, one apart of that is that Clinton didn’t play in enough states. But there were other factors at play.
California isn’t a monolithic hive mind. No states are. That’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily remove one to make a point.
Of course it’s not. Didn’t say it was. Explained data-based reasons for choosing California. I removed Texas too. I wrote about Iowa. Now discussing 4 other states. All while some dwell on perceived secret motivations.
The blue elephant in the room.
All while some dwell on perceived secret motivations.
That post was non-serious.