Popular vote ramblings

[King Of Dirk]

There are a lot of people (generally on the "side" that lost the last presidential election in the 'States) who believe we should switch to a popular vote for national elections. This appears to be a product of the belief that at least two losing candidates would have been victors had we counted heads instead of electoral college numbers. They may be right.

But they may be wrong.

Much is made of the fact that HRC won California in 2016 by a little over four million votes. That's good, if you're an HRC supporter. What's even better, if you're an HRC supporter is that she got 100% of the electoral college votes in 2016. She won 61 to 39 in the raw vote, but got 100% of the votes that currently matter.

Little seems to be made of the fact that republican voters are completely disincentivized to vote in California under the current system. Why should they? The democrat will get all of the important votes anyway. But if each person's vote actually counted, would the margin be so great, or would the GOP be able to find another couple million people to get up and go vote?

To be fair and balanced, the same can be said for democrats; they'll win anyway, so the incentive to get up and vote isn't really there...maybe HRC would have gotten 10 million votes in CA instead of "only" 8 million. I don't know.

But if that's the case, aren't there an awful lot of red states where a lot of GOP voters also don't bother because it doesn't matter? Like KS, OK, MS, ND, SD, UT et cetera?

This isn't meant to be a defense or an indictment of the electoral college system. I get why it's there and why it was implemented. I just wonder if those who would cheer its demise might be careful what they ask for? Put another way: I'm interested to hear if you're a democrat (or at least a non-republican) and favor a popular vote. If that happens, and your horse gets walloped - what will you say then? Would you be able to accept the results of such an election? Conversely, if you're a republican, do you think your principles can compete on a national stage, or is your party's survival tied to the current system?


ETA: it may be that everyone would be more likely to participate in such a system. Win lose or draw, it may end up in better voter turnout. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[theflashunc]

If you look at the electoral college's application throughout our history, you'll find by and large it's done more harm than good.

Overall, the electoral college devalues the weight of votes from high-populous states, and overweights those from low-populous, more rural states. Given the urban/rural divide that is growing into a chasm in this country, in terms of both population and a whole host of other factors, this over- and under-weighting is only becoming more outsized and out of balance.

Determination by popular vote for the country's president by popular vote -- an easily accesible, widely encouraged franchise -- is the only proper solution to an outmoded portion of our country's elective process.

Washington Post had a decent analysis of this after, well, you know:

That means that in the electoral college, each individual Wyoming vote weighs 3.6 times more than an individual Californian’s vote. That’s the most extreme example, but if you average the 10 most populous states and compare the power of their residents’ votes to those of the 10 least populous states, you get a ratio of 1 to 2.5.

When the electoral college was first instituted, the ratio of vote weight from state to state was much smaller. Direct parallels are difficult to draw, given the distortions in population caused by the three-fifths compromise and the fact that many residents were not able to vote. But in the election of 1792, residents of Delaware, the least-populous state, had a vote that weighed 1.6 times that of residents of Virginia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ea814712f3f9

[King Of Dirk]

If you look at the electoral college's application throughout our history, you'll find by and large it's done more harm than good.

Overall, the electoral college devalues the weight of votes from high-populous states, and overweights those from low-populous, more rural states. Given the urban/rural divide that is growing into a chasm in this country, in terms of both population and a whole host of other factors, this over- and under-weighting is only becoming more outsized and out of balance.

Determination by popular vote for the country's president by popular vote -- an easily accesible, widely encouraged franchise -- is the only proper solution to an outmoded portion of our country's elective process.

Washington Post had a decent analysis of this after, well, you know:

That means that in the electoral college, each individual Wyoming vote weighs 3.6 times more than an individual Californian’s vote. That’s the most extreme example, but if you average the 10 most populous states and compare the power of their residents’ votes to those of the 10 least populous states, you get a ratio of 1 to 2.5.

When the electoral college was first instituted, the ratio of vote weight from state to state was much smaller. Direct parallels are difficult to draw, given the distortions in population caused by the three-fifths compromise and the fact that many residents were not able to vote. But in the election of 1792, residents of Delaware, the least-populous state, had a vote that weighed 1.6 times that of residents of Virginia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ea814712f3f9

Thanks.

This isn't meant to be a defense or an indictment of the electoral college system.

In addition to my original question, do you think we as a nation are currently capable of counting the piss poor number of actual votes? What if that number tripled? Who should be in charge of implementing a system in which every citizen's vote is counted properly? What about states that do or don't allow felons to vote? How do we harmonize this stuff?

[j44ke]

The states are in charge of elections. That duty is provided for by Article 1 of the US Constitution. The states can make laws about who can or cannot vote as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution, its Amendments or acts of Congress. And they are responsible for counting the votes and presenting their delegates to the Electoral College.

Wyoming was the first state to give women the right to vote in 1890. Other states were under no obligation to do the same until the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Congress has also passed laws that protected individuals' rights to vote, like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that protected voters from procedural rules made by states that made it more difficult to vote for some voters than others.

I don't think that it would be possible to triple the number of votes. In 2016, the Census Bureau reported 245 million people ages 18 or above in the US,. 157 million said they were registered to vote, and 136 million voted in the 2016 election. So that's about 56% turnout of voting age individuals. Since 1976, voter turnout has been between 50 and 58%. That's a flat figure and doesn't eliminate ineligible voters (felons for example) but generally gives an idea of how many possible voters there are and how many actually vote (figures here from Pew Research.)

[theflashunc]

Thanks.



In addition to my original question, do you think we as a nation are currently capable of counting the piss poor number of actual votes? What if that number tripled? Who should be in charge of implementing a system in which every citizen's vote is counted properly? What about states that do or don't allow felons to vote? How do we harmonize this stuff?

You don't. In theory its one of the bulwarks against election tampering.

You're not trying to rig a single election, because the U.S. doesn't have a single election for president. We have thousands of local elections, all held on the same day with the same choice run by local authorities.

[BSUdude]

I would rather see electoral college votes allocated based on percentage of popular vote instead of all going to the majority candidate in that state. So in my case if Indiana had 63% R popular and 37% D popular, 7 electoral votes would go R and 4 would go D. The whole winner takes all approach is as asinine as gerrymandering, but no one seems to question it. Probably because it makes campaigning easier and further devalues individual votes.

Probably more conceivable to implement that incremental change than doing away with the electoral college in favor of a popular vote in one fell swoop.

[Sbti]

The stable genius.
"There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!"
Tertiary late stage syphilis is a terrible thing..

[Too Tall]

The stable genius.
"There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!"
Tertiary late stage syphilis is a terrible thing..

SBTI >> Clipping. We are trying to have a conversation here.

Hey OZ give us your take on mandatory voter laws in your country?

[King Of Dirk]

Never mind. I think I was either under- or overmedicated when I posted the OP. I was hoping for a discussion about what challenges a popular vote for President would present, and whether they'd be worth it. I don't think I did a very good job of presenting that. I'm familiar with the content of the U.S. Constitution, and my hyperbole about tripling the number of votes was less about the raw math than hoping to highlight the painfully obvious fact that we can't even count the votes we get now with any reliability, and that anything that serves to increase turnout would exacerbate that incompetence further.

In the meantime, I'll allow my friends to the left of me to ponder the wisdom of a candidate telling coal miners you'll be putting them out of work...in coal country. The only popular vote I'd worry over if I were a democrat is the 80,000 people who decided this race in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin combined. Southeastern Ohio - normally solid blue - goes red after her comments. Was she taken out of context? Yes, as a matter of fact I believe she was. Should she have known better than to try to make such a nuanced - and thus easily misconstrued - point so close to election day? Yes, as a matter of fact I believe she should have.

Blame the system all you want, but she lost a winnable election by being a terrible candidate. The President may be a fool, but the democrats failed to come up with a candidate who could defeat a fool. I hope they won't make that mistake again in 2020, because I, for one, would like to see some dignity restored to that office. I don't care if it's a primary challenger or a democrat nominee; I hope there's a new face in the Oval Office come January 2021.

Mods, go ahead and euthanize this one, please. I give up.

[Too Tall]

I understood what you hoped to elicit from your questions. We are kinda burned out on "what if".

Nah, this is a very interesting topic if I may help direct the question?

Popular Vote > Merits / Demerits
Electoral College > Same as above

The entire notion that "your vote counts" seems to be more apparent apres vous? It is always the case.

Let's leave coal miners out of it ;)

[caleb]

I would rather see electoral college votes allocated based on percentage of popular vote instead of all going to the majority candidate in that state. So in my case if Indiana had 63% R popular and 37% D popular, 7 electoral votes would go R and 4 would go D. The whole winner takes all approach is as asinine as gerrymandering, but no one seems to question it. Probably because it makes campaigning easier and further devalues individual votes.

Probably more conceivable to implement that incremental change than doing away with the electoral college in favor of a popular vote in one fell swoop.

Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes.

Any state could do similarly with a simple statute.

[guido]

Interesting that McConnell has come out against the Dem's proposal to make election day a national holiday. He clearly know which direction the demographic winds are blowing...

[HorsCat]

Interesting that McConnell has come out against the Dem's proposal to make election day a national holiday. He clearly know which direction the demographic winds are blowing...

The GOP has figured out that the only way they can win elections and / or push their agenda is to lie, cheat and steal. And they're damn good at it.

[Too Tall]

The GOP has figured out that the only way they can win elections and / or push their agenda is to lie, cheat and steal. And they're damn good at it.

(cough) The old joke about politicians yo.

Mitch, I'll talk about Mitchell. It is cruel to lead his party away from civility.

I'll be real 'ing happy to hear from both sides once they decide it is fashionable to say yes again.

[theflashunc]

There is a reasonable argument to be made -- and its the one the Founders had -- around the concentration of voting and political power in high populous urban centers drowning out the voice of those in rural areas. Hence the Electoral College. (Now, there's some abolition and pro-slavery underpinnings to that, but that's a discussion for another time.)

The downside to a popular vote is you're getting the will of those major population centers more directly reflected in the outcome. But given the demographic changes in this country -- increasingly urban/suburban, drastically less rural -- there's a valid question about whether this disproportionate power to the rural voter reflects the broader interests and will of the populace. When a candidate in a democracy loses and election despite garnering millions of more votes, it grates against this sense that we have for every other election that the most votes wins.

I don't see how further access to the franchise is somehow a negative and everything should be done to encourage all Americans to have a voice at the ballot box.

[King Of Dirk]

If I were one who leans left, I'd insist the system stay exactly as it is. Why?

'Cause Texas is going blue soon, no two ways about it. Once it does, the GOP will never win another Presidential election. With Texas, California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, New England and almost always Florida an unassailable blue, we might as well skip the elections; they'll be a foregone conclusion once the Dem primaries wrap up.

[Matthew Strongin]

If I were one who leans left, I'd insist the system stay exactly as it is. Why?

'Cause Texas is going blue soon, no two ways about it. Once it does, the GOP will never win another Presidential election. With Texas, California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, New England and almost always Florida an unassailable blue, we might as well skip the elections; they'll be a foregone conclusion once the Dem primaries wrap up.

Florida has gone red 7 out of the last 10 elections. As much as I'd love to say it's a blue state, it's not. I hope you're right about Texas, but I have doubts.

[King Of Dirk]

Florida has gone red 7 out of the last 10 elections. As much as I'd love to say it's a blue state, it's not. I hope you're right about Texas, but I have doubts.

Understood and agreed, that's why I prefaced Florida with the "almost always." I hear ya on the last 10, but the next 10 will have a different result, methinks.

Re: Texas - an abject dipshit came very, very close to beating Ted Cruz last year. Cruz is a sharp guy, but even his supporters around these parts find him, well, hard to like. Cornyn isn't as vulnerable as Cruz, and would have been a better yardstick for how the winds blow here (I think Cornyn would'be beaten O'Rourke by double digits fairly easily). But the Current Occupant of the White House only beat Hillary by 800,000 votes here. A far more gringo-fied Texas gave you LBJ, and Lloyd Bentsen, and Anne Richards. Given the demographic shifts that have happened (and continue to happen) here, I think if the democrats actually bothered to run a serious candidate for Senate they might win, and a Julián Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand or Joe Biden just might have a shot in 2020 for the Big One...if not 2024 is a lock if the dems don't run someone like Warren, who to be fair wouldn't win a few democrat strongholds so shouldn't sweat what Florida and Texas do or don't do.

[fortyfour]

I for one am for the popular vote.

By and large, we tend to make a pretty simple and straight forward process, relatively complicated.

When you step back (if there are two candidates, for example): It's candidate A vs candidate B. Every citizen gets one vote. All the A votes get counted. All the B votes get counted. The one with the most votes wins.

It's not all that complicated. Yet, here we are...

[thollandpe]

I think ranked choice voting is a great concept for local and state elections. Among the claims:

• gets away from having to choose the lesser of two evils
• neutralizes the effect of spoiler candidates
• helps blunt a fundraising advantage
• discourages negative campaigning

Could this also be a winner for national?