The Electoral College

[jamo]

24 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

Because it is in the Constitution left to the states as to how their electoral college representatives are apportioned.  so having a federal law that requires they be proportioned consistent with the popular vote in the state would be a violation of the states right. 

We're not talking about passing a federal law. We're talking about state laws, 11 of which have already been passed (per @iacas).

If somehow the federal government were to force the states to do it a certain way, I agree that a constitutional amendment would be required (which itself would require passing state legislatures, so really we're back where we started).

[ghalfaire]

51 minutes ago, jamo said:

We're not talking about passing a federal law. We're talking about state laws, 11 of which have already been passed (per @iacas).

If somehow the federal government were to force the states to do it a certain way, I agree that a constitutional amendment would be required (which itself would require passing state legislatures, so really we're back where we started).

I guess I, again, misread the web site.  Of course the individual states can change their laws as long as they are consistent with the individual state's constitution.

[toto]

14 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

I would say that is support.  But the term "bill" and "jurisdiction" confused me I guess.  Whoever authors a "bill" usually intends for it to become law.  But in this case such a law would be unconstitutional.  But all of the states could adopt such a method if they choose.  I did know some of our population would, or at least think they would, like to see the President directly elected by direct popular vote.  There are pros and cons to the argument.  From our history I'd say little would change. 

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

 

In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.

 

One analyst is predicting two million voters in seven counties are going to determine who wins the presidency in 2016. 

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of three-quarters of all Americans is now finished for the presidential election. 

In the 2016 general election campaign

Two-thirds (158 of 234) of the general-election campaign events up to the 3rd debate were in just 6 states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Iowa).

 

92% of the events (214 of 234) were in the 11 closely divided "battleground states" identified by Politico and The Hill.

In the 2012 general election campaign

38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states.. 

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). 

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually. 

Charlie Cook reported in 2004:

“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:

“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

The political reality is that campaign strategies in ordinary elections are based on trying to change a reasonably achievable small percentage of the votes—1%, 2%, or 3%. The only 12 states that received any attention in the 2012 general election campaign for President were states where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican — that is, within 3 percentage points of Romney’s eventual nationwide percentage of 48%.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

                                               

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, from the free-trade party. 

 

Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

 

Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years is skewed to battleground states

The National Popular Vote bill ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

                                                           

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

                                          

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. 

Current and past presidential candidates with a public record of support for the National Popular Vote bill:  Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL), and Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).

More than 2,710 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, toto said:

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constituti.

.

{oh for gosh sakes just stop it}

.

.

.NationalPopularVote

What are you, some kind of search reply-bot?

I oppose the current pres candidates because of the way they campaign - under the "if you can only be a jerk to the other guy and have nothing to say about your own stuff, you must not know jack about your own philosophy" rationalization.

I'll oppose the NPV solely because of this Toto-bot.  Obnoxious political in-your-face overkill is sufficient justification for me to take another side under the "methinks one doth protest too much" rationalization.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

What are you, some kind of search reply-bot?

@toto, please post in other threads. You didn't even reply to the PM I sent you. This is a golf site.

[ghalfaire]

@toto  You can slice it anyway you want but only four times in our history has a candidate won the popular vote and lost the Election (Electoral College) and one of those times (Andrew Jackson I believe) actually won both the popular and Electoral vote and lost the election.  He didn't get a majority of the Electoral College votes and so it was decided in congress.  But my point is this doesn't happen often and so I'll stick with not much would change.

[imsys0042]

@toto mis-spelled his/her username.   I believe they misspelled troll. 

Wrt to the EC.  It's hard to change.  Personally I think its fine for a number of reasons.   There is no reason to not do a national popular vote and have it be just as valid.  I think a better change would not be the ridiculous drawn out primary process where early states control who the nominees are.  

Changing to a straight popular vote doesn't change the fact that democrats in urban areas balance against republicans in more rural areas.  That's an over simplification but essentially changing something so entrenched is probably more trouble than it's worth. 

[Golfingdad]

12 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

I think a better change would not be the ridiculous drawn out primary process where early states control who the nominees are.

Could probably be its own thread, but, yes, this is a great point.  Along these same lines, but in a more "micro" sense, would be to have the polls open at the same time nationwide.  It's not uncommon (less common now than prior to 2000 and 2004, but it can still happen) for news stations to call election results before the polls even close out here.  Maybe they should make the times a little more uniform and have them open, say, 9:30-9:30 out east and 6:30-6:30 out here.  (Tied in with that, election day should/could be a National holiday)

All of those things would increase voter turnout quite a bit, I imagine.

[Golfingdad]

On 10/21/2016 at 7:45 PM, 14ledo81 said:

This is a very interesting topic. If you don't live in the "battleground" states, your vote is probably meaningless.

Here's a way to change that under the current system: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13478042/third-party-clinton-vote-trading

(Not quite sure how I feel about that yet - I had never heard of it until yesterday)

[Phil McGleno]

25 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Here's a way to change that under the current system: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13478042/third-party-clinton-vote-trading

(Not quite sure how I feel about that yet - I had never heard of it until yesterday)

I know how I feel-This is just voter fraud.

WHy not just have Clinton pay people to vote for her?

Vote in your state for the candidate you want.-It is the moral and maybe legal thing to do.-Plus you are giving evidence and credence to those who say the election is RIGGED.

[14ledo81]

11 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

I know how I feel-This is just voter fraud.

WHy not just have Clinton pay people to vote for her?

Vote in your state for the candidate you want.-It is the moral and maybe legal thing to do.-Plus you are giving evidence and credence to those who say the election is RIGGED.

 

Agreed.  

Also, it is an "honor system"....  A lot of "honor" in politics.  I don't see it working all that well.

[Golfingdad]

2 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

I know how I feel-This is just voter fraud.

The article sites a court case that says otherwise.

 

3 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Plus you are giving evidence and credence to those who say the election is RIGGED.

Agree 100%.  Note that I don't necessarily agree with them about it being rigged, just that I know they would use this as evidence.

[Phil McGleno]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

The article sites a court case that says otherwise.

The law is murky at best.-I can not sell my vote to someone can I? So why should I be able to trade it?

At best this is like putting out of turn so your buddy can get a read on the line of his putt to win the club championship.

[Golfingdad]

5 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

The law is murky at best.-I can not sell my vote to someone can I? So why should I be able to trade it?

At best this is like putting out of turn so your buddy can get a read on the line of his putt to win the club championship.

Seems like a fair comparison.

Even if somebody convinced me that it was totally ethical, I'd still have trouble trusting that stranger to actually vote how I wanted them to.  Seems like there would be no way to know.

---

Sort of general comment that applies to a lot of stuff I post, including this link:  I posted it without any opinion and solely because I thought it relevant to this topic.  At the time of posting, I didn't endorse it, and I didn't not endorse it - I was just putting it out there for discussion.  (For the record, my wife first heard about it and when she mentioned it to me, my gut reaction was "huh, that definitely sounds illegal.")

[Phil McGleno]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Seems like a fair comparison.

Even if somebody convinced me that it was totally ethical, I'd still have trouble trusting that stranger to actually vote how I wanted them to.  Seems like there would be no way to know.

Maybe a bunch of Trump supporters should catfish the Hillary supporters in NY and CA-And unknowingly turn them into swing states by taking a Clinton vote to a Stein or Johnson vote.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Maybe a bunch of Trump supporters should catfish the Hillary supporters in NY and CA-And unknowingly turn them into swing states by taking a Clinton vote to a Stein or Johnson vote.

Yeah that would only take millions…

No politics, guys. No current events. @Golfingdad didn't really step over the line, but since the article isn't even about vote swapping generally, and is just about Clinton/Trump, he kinda did, too.

[Golfingdad]

31 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Maybe a bunch of Trump supporters should catfish the Hillary supporters in NY and CA-And unknowingly turn them into swing states by taking a Clinton vote to a Stein or Johnson vote.

Heck, they wouldn't even need to be duped.  If enough people thought that was a smart idea, they'd dupe themselves.  Reminds me of an old Yogi Berra quote:

"No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."

 

26 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yeah that would only take millions…

No politics, guys. No current events. @Golfingdad didn't really step over the line, but since the article isn't even about vote swapping generally, and is just about Clinton/Trump, he kinda did, too.

[Lihu]

Well, despite the odds, Trump won!