11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[Pogo]

If Hillary and her campaign team would not have been so stupid, would not have run the worst - and most illegal - campaign in US history....

Really?

What'd she do, have a bouncy-bouncy with Stormy Daniels and then pay her off with a way-over-the-campaign-limits bribe to keep quiet about it just before the election?

Hahaha, I know, that's crazy. What kind of moron would even think of that.

had Hillary WON the election as predicted she would (in a 'landslide' victory), not one mention of the US Electoral Process would have been made.

Hate to tell ya something you could have found out fifteen times over just by reading the thread Princess, but (a) this particular initiative was already a decade old before that election happened, and (b) discussion of the glaring problems the EC foists on the voting public have been in conversation for generations, especially around election times when its flaws really stand out.

Here for example:

Scrape yer shoes, dude.

It's funny...the guy you clowns mock constantly and seek to Impeach based simply on your hatred of him and fact that he beat Hillary is the man you are using to defend your moronic idea (based on a lack of understanding of the Electoral college or the fact that Hillary lost 'because of it'...according to snowflakes_.

Bwuhahahahaha!

Apparently you're too dim to get this but you claimed this initiative emanated out o f2016. I just showed you how it goes back several years. And here you are trying to re-make the same point I just disproved.

That takes a "special"(bus) talent.

I was mocking you snowflakes for claiming Trump can't be believed yet try to use him to make a point..... lol

The desperation is palpable but it STILL in no way relates to the timeline.

 

[FA_Q2]

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

No, it would not. There is absolutely no difference in the outcome with a PV over the EC as it stands now. 3P votes will make exactly the same 'splash.'

People do not vote against one candidate or for the other because the state may take it all - they vote against the candidate because they see voting for a 3P as wasting a vote that is necessary to stop their feared candidate.

The one thing that a PV like this addresses are all those disenfranchised voters in 'pre determined' states that never vote at all because their state will go to the other guy anyway.

What is FAR more likely is that a system like this actually makes things worse for 3P candidates - many of those disenfranchised voters actually vote for a 3P BECAUSE their votes are going to the one candidate they do not want to win anyway so they are free to put in a protest vote for their shitty options - a situation that is erased by PV.

There is only one way that I see of improving the situation that we find ourselves in with the duopoly without going to a parliamentary system and that is what dblack already mentioned. The only real way to give 3P a chance is to utterly remove the fear that one is 'wasting' their vote with a candidate that is almost certainly not going to win. IRV accomplishes this beautifully.

I don't get it. You started out here taking issue with the idea that a PV would help 3P candies, and then proceed to make the same arguments I did supporting that it indeed would do that.

Not that I am aware of. I think that PV is better in general but I think that IRV is how you help 3p candidates.

A protest vote for a 3P in a locked state is pissing into the wind. It's supremely unsatisfying. Literally nobody notices, and it dawns on you that the entire time you went to the polls you could have been doing something more productive like clipping your toenails.

True or not this is irrelevant.

At present under WTA-EC you're in one of three situations -- a state that's going to cast its entire lot with the Democrat, a state that's going to cast its EVs for the Republican, or a state that could swing to either but absolutely not anybody else, therefore if you have a negative preference you're forced to vote for the R to prevent the D (or vice versa). All Three of those scenaria prevent any 3P from having any chance at all of being elected as the People's Choice -- even if they are the people's choice.

That is the perception at least. A 3p candidate can win a state and can get EC votes but it is unlikely because it is perceived as extremely unlikely. As long as that is the case a 3P canidate will never gain enough momentum let alone votes to win anything.

And there is zero difference if we were under a PV system. In a PV WTA system - because that is how our system works as the winner is going to take all - you have the EXACT SAME 3 choices. The nation is either going to elect the red guy or the blue guy and absolutely not to anyone else. How you think that a PV system magically fixes the duopoly is beyond me. There is zero functional difference in your vote when in is placed in the pool of 300 million or 30 million. The majority will still elect the president and that majority is going to be locked into one of 2 candidates.

When was the last time --- in fact I believe the only time since the Duopoly established itself --- that any 3P candy pulled enough EVs to eclipse either Duopoly candidate? 1912. And that was only because the 3P candy Teddy Roosevelt was a well-known former POTUS who had dominated the primaries before being denied nomination.

The Ross Perots, the John Andersons, the Ralph Naders, even the George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds, could only hope to suck enough votes from one side of Duopoly or the other, arguably from both, which in the end produces exactly the same non-result as does my 3P vote in a locked state --- less productive than clipping one's toenails.

And a PV does nothing to address the WHY people are selecting one or the other party member. It is not and has never been because EV or residing in a blue or red state. It has always been because voting for the duopoly means my vote 'counts' or that the worse candidate of the two will take the WH.

In US elections, fear rules the day and PV does not address that fear.

All of which is closely related to my other point of the same WTA-EC system heavily depressing voter turnout because what's the point of voting when chances are the vote will be ignored. One might get lucky and see one's Duopoly choice voted in but one will never get the opportunity to overthrow the Duopoly. The system is rigged.

On this I agree and stated as much in my post. PV elections will improve participation because your vote is no longer a lock for the red candidate if you are in a red state even if you vote for the blue candidate.

What is in contention is that the reasons people vote one way or another with a PV are unchanged.

 

[Pogo]

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

No, it would not. There is absolutely no difference in the outcome with a PV over the EC as it stands now. 3P votes will make exactly the same 'splash.'

People do not vote against one candidate or for the other because the state may take it all - they vote against the candidate because they see voting for a 3P as wasting a vote that is necessary to stop their feared candidate.

The one thing that a PV like this addresses are all those disenfranchised voters in 'pre determined' states that never vote at all because their state will go to the other guy anyway.

What is FAR more likely is that a system like this actually makes things worse for 3P candidates - many of those disenfranchised voters actually vote for a 3P BECAUSE their votes are going to the one candidate they do not want to win anyway so they are free to put in a protest vote for their shitty options - a situation that is erased by PV.

There is only one way that I see of improving the situation that we find ourselves in with the duopoly without going to a parliamentary system and that is what dblack already mentioned. The only real way to give 3P a chance is to utterly remove the fear that one is 'wasting' their vote with a candidate that is almost certainly not going to win. IRV accomplishes this beautifully.

I don't get it. You started out here taking issue with the idea that a PV would help 3P candies, and then proceed to make the same arguments I did supporting that it indeed would do that.

Not that I am aware of. I think that PV is better in general but I think that IRV is how you help 3p candidates.

A protest vote for a 3P in a locked state is pissing into the wind. It's supremely unsatisfying. Literally nobody notices, and it dawns on you that the entire time you went to the polls you could have been doing something more productive like clipping your toenails.

True or not this is irrelevant.

At present under WTA-EC you're in one of three situations -- a state that's going to cast its entire lot with the Democrat, a state that's going to cast its EVs for the Republican, or a state that could swing to either but absolutely not anybody else, therefore if you have a negative preference you're forced to vote for the R to prevent the D (or vice versa). All Three of those scenaria prevent any 3P from having any chance at all of being elected as the People's Choice -- even if they are the people's choice.

That is the perception at least. A 3p candidate can win a state and can get EC votes but it is unlikely because it is perceived as extremely unlikely. As long as that is the case a 3P canidate will never gain enough momentum let alone votes to win anything.

And there is zero difference if we were under a PV system. In a PV WTA system - because that is how our system works as the winner is going to take all - you have the EXACT SAME 3 choices. The nation is either going to elect the red guy or the blue guy and absolutely not to anyone else. How you think that a PV system magically fixes the duopoly is beyond me. There is zero functional difference in your vote when in is placed in the pool of 300 million or 30 million. The majority will still elect the president and that majority is going to be locked into one of 2 candidates.

When was the last time --- in fact I believe the only time since the Duopoly established itself --- that any 3P candy pulled enough EVs to eclipse either Duopoly candidate? 1912. And that was only because the 3P candy Teddy Roosevelt was a well-known former POTUS who had dominated the primaries before being denied nomination.

The Ross Perots, the John Andersons, the Ralph Naders, even the George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds, could only hope to suck enough votes from one side of Duopoly or the other, arguably from both, which in the end produces exactly the same non-result as does my 3P vote in a locked state --- less productive than clipping one's toenails.

And a PV does nothing to address the WHY people are selecting one or the other party member. It is not and has never been because EV or residing in a blue or red state. It has always been because voting for the duopoly means my vote 'counts' or that the worse candidate of the two will take the WH.

In US elections, fear rules the day and PV does not address that fear.

All of which is closely related to my other point of the same WTA-EC system heavily depressing voter turnout because what's the point of voting when chances are the vote will be ignored. One might get lucky and see one's Duopoly choice voted in but one will never get the opportunity to overthrow the Duopoly. The system is rigged.

On this I agree and stated as much in my post. PV elections will improve participation because your vote is no longer a lock for the red candidate if you are in a red state even if you vote for the blue candidate.

What is in contention is that the reasons people vote one way or another with a PV are unchanged.

As I read it we're making the same points here but you're addressing a different question from the one I am.

I'm not opining, and have not opined, that 'in order to give anyone outside the Duopoly a chance we must go to a PV' or to any other particular system. Nor do I believe the current scheme Connecticut just joined is the ideal way to do it. That's full of its own flaws. It's at best addressing the symptom rather than the underlying disease.

What I am saying is that the current WTA-EC system very definitely shuts out any threat to the Duopoly, and as such, serves to protect the Duopoly's interest in its own self-perpetuation. And as long as it's in place, the Duopoly stands unchallenged.

What the answer to get out of that situation is, is a whole 'nother question, which you've already touched on and is open to ideas. But the first step to me is to universally recognize what the current disease IS. As long as there are other posters here denying that's the case, I'm not confident that case has been made persuasively.

 

[dblack]

Not that I am aware of. I think that PV is better in general but I think that IRV is how you help 3p candidates.

Exactly. The biggest impediment to third parties gaining traction is the spoiler effect, the aspect of plurality voting that pushes people to vote for the 'lesser-of-two-evils'. And switching to a national popular vote wouldn't have much impact on that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

The way that's done in other countries is that there are rounds of elections, if no one gets 50%, the top two go to the second round.

The difference with the US is that most of these countries have to get signatures for a candidate nationwide, not usually split up into smaller units like states that are all or nothing, and the votes are also counted as nationwide totals.

Although they may still use the local concept in some elections, for local officials or representatives to their parliament or whatever they call it.

At what point did anyone ever decide that the United States was panting to imitate and follow in the footsteps of "what they do in other countries"? Pretty sure the whole reason the United States was here was because other countries sucked and weren't doing it right.

 

[xyz]

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

The way that's done in other countries is that there are rounds of elections, if no one gets 50%, the top two go to the second round.

The difference with the US is that most of these countries have to get signatures for a candidate nationwide, not usually split up into smaller units like states that are all or nothing, and the votes are also counted as nationwide totals.

Although they may still use the local concept in some elections, for local officials or representatives to their parliament or whatever they call it.

At what point did anyone ever decide that the United States was panting to imitate and follow in the footsteps of "what they do in other countries"? Pretty sure the whole reason the United States was here was because other countries sucked and weren't doing it right.

Then if the United States becomes a dictatorship, it's o.k. because it's the United States, right?

But then there were other countries who abolished slavery first, that means the U.S. sucks, right? Or, more likely, you wish slavery was still around.

 

[xyz]

At what point did anyone ever decide that the United States was panting to imitate and follow in the footsteps of "what they do in other countries"?

Probably when they wrote the Constitution and decided to imitate the Iroquois Confederation:
IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION: A FORERUNNER TO COLONISTS' DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

 

[JoeB131]

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Well, no, it would just mean the person who won the popular vote would win the election.

Which is what happened in all but five of 57 National Elections.

 

[FA_Q2]

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

No, it would not. There is absolutely no difference in the outcome with a PV over the EC as it stands now. 3P votes will make exactly the same 'splash.'

People do not vote against one candidate or for the other because the state may take it all - they vote against the candidate because they see voting for a 3P as wasting a vote that is necessary to stop their feared candidate.

The one thing that a PV like this addresses are all those disenfranchised voters in 'pre determined' states that never vote at all because their state will go to the other guy anyway.

What is FAR more likely is that a system like this actually makes things worse for 3P candidates - many of those disenfranchised voters actually vote for a 3P BECAUSE their votes are going to the one candidate they do not want to win anyway so they are free to put in a protest vote for their shitty options - a situation that is erased by PV.

There is only one way that I see of improving the situation that we find ourselves in with the duopoly without going to a parliamentary system and that is what dblack already mentioned. The only real way to give 3P a chance is to utterly remove the fear that one is 'wasting' their vote with a candidate that is almost certainly not going to win. IRV accomplishes this beautifully.

I don't get it. You started out here taking issue with the idea that a PV would help 3P candies, and then proceed to make the same arguments I did supporting that it indeed would do that.

Not that I am aware of. I think that PV is better in general but I think that IRV is how you help 3p candidates.

A protest vote for a 3P in a locked state is pissing into the wind. It's supremely unsatisfying. Literally nobody notices, and it dawns on you that the entire time you went to the polls you could have been doing something more productive like clipping your toenails.

True or not this is irrelevant.

At present under WTA-EC you're in one of three situations -- a state that's going to cast its entire lot with the Democrat, a state that's going to cast its EVs for the Republican, or a state that could swing to either but absolutely not anybody else, therefore if you have a negative preference you're forced to vote for the R to prevent the D (or vice versa). All Three of those scenaria prevent any 3P from having any chance at all of being elected as the People's Choice -- even if they are the people's choice.

That is the perception at least. A 3p candidate can win a state and can get EC votes but it is unlikely because it is perceived as extremely unlikely. As long as that is the case a 3P canidate will never gain enough momentum let alone votes to win anything.

And there is zero difference if we were under a PV system. In a PV WTA system - because that is how our system works as the winner is going to take all - you have the EXACT SAME 3 choices. The nation is either going to elect the red guy or the blue guy and absolutely not to anyone else. How you think that a PV system magically fixes the duopoly is beyond me. There is zero functional difference in your vote when in is placed in the pool of 300 million or 30 million. The majority will still elect the president and that majority is going to be locked into one of 2 candidates.

When was the last time --- in fact I believe the only time since the Duopoly established itself --- that any 3P candy pulled enough EVs to eclipse either Duopoly candidate? 1912. And that was only because the 3P candy Teddy Roosevelt was a well-known former POTUS who had dominated the primaries before being denied nomination.

The Ross Perots, the John Andersons, the Ralph Naders, even the George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds, could only hope to suck enough votes from one side of Duopoly or the other, arguably from both, which in the end produces exactly the same non-result as does my 3P vote in a locked state --- less productive than clipping one's toenails.

And a PV does nothing to address the WHY people are selecting one or the other party member. It is not and has never been because EV or residing in a blue or red state. It has always been because voting for the duopoly means my vote 'counts' or that the worse candidate of the two will take the WH.

In US elections, fear rules the day and PV does not address that fear.

All of which is closely related to my other point of the same WTA-EC system heavily depressing voter turnout because what's the point of voting when chances are the vote will be ignored. One might get lucky and see one's Duopoly choice voted in but one will never get the opportunity to overthrow the Duopoly. The system is rigged.

On this I agree and stated as much in my post. PV elections will improve participation because your vote is no longer a lock for the red candidate if you are in a red state even if you vote for the blue candidate.

What is in contention is that the reasons people vote one way or another with a PV are unchanged.

As I read it we're making the same points here but you're addressing a different question from the one I am.

I'm not opining, and have not opined, that 'in order to give anyone outside the Duopoly a chance we must go to a PV' or to any other particular system. Nor do I believe the current scheme Connecticut just joined is the ideal way to do it. That's full of its own flaws. It's at best addressing the symptom rather than the underlying disease.

What I am saying is that the current WTA-EC system very definitely shuts out any threat to the Duopoly, and as such, serves to protect the Duopoly's interest in its own self-perpetuation. And as long as it's in place, the Duopoly stands unchallenged.

What the answer to get out of that situation is, is a whole 'nother question, which you've already touched on and is open to ideas. But the first step to me is to universally recognize what the current disease IS. As long as there are other posters here denying that's the case, I'm not confident that case has been made persuasively.

And my supposition is that the current EC has literally zero to do with the duopoly. We would be better off KEEPING the EC and going to an IRV - it would do FAR more for helping 3P than PV though it would do much for disenfranchised voters.

The Republicans and Democrats do not have a lock because the EC, they have a lock because they have managed to convince virtually everyone that there is a zero chance that no one else will ever be able to succeed and that the other candidate means the end of the world.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This can only backfire on Democrats.

1: They are allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment, which protects the right of individuals states to determine their elections and their allocation of their electoral votes.

However,

1: These States always vote Democrat...so this change won't matter if the popular voter winner is a Democrat.
2: These States might end up voting Republican (by accident)...because the national popular vote has often been won by the Republican candidate throughout the last several decades as well...

So...they're only setting themselves up for failure. Let them go forward with this idea, it will allow us to pick up more votes every other presidential election.

 

[FA_Q2]

This can only backfire on Democrats.

1: They are allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment, which protects the right of individuals states to determine their elections and their allocation of their electoral votes.

However,

1: These States always vote Democrat...so this change won't matter if the popular voter winner is a Democrat.
2: These States might end up voting Republican (by accident)...because the national popular vote has often been won by the Republican candidate throughout the last several decades as well...

So...they're only setting themselves up for failure. Let them go forward with this idea, it will allow us to pick up more votes every other presidential election.

It does not go into effect until 270 EC votes will be allocated by the PV. The fact they are dem states is irrelevant - should the measure succeed all presidential elections will be held by PV.

 

[skews13]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Wait until we make DC and Puerto Rico states, and add two more justices to the Supreme Court.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Question:

Why don't RWNJs believe that their vote should be counted?

Hmmm ?

Why do LWNJs believe that they should override the voters of a state? If Connecticut votes in favor of a candidate that doesn't get the majority of the nationwide popular vote, their votes are nullified.

It's a rhetorical question. We all understand that you Progs don't respect the Will of the People.

/—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSC

 

[JoeB131]

/—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSC

Meh, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on... the Constitution gives no guidelines on how electors are selected. They could be appointed by the state legislature if that's what the state wants.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSC

Meh, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on... the Constitution gives no guidelines on how electors are selected. They could be appointed by the state legislature if that's what the state wants.

/——/ Meh???? Are you a cat? What does that mean? Anyway you’re wrong:
If the compact ever meets that benchmark, it’s likely that someone would file a challenge. It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court would have to rule on whether the system is permissible.

The Compact Clause of the Constitution states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." The courts have ruled in the past that if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for a compact to be valid.
Could states overturn the electoral college?

 

[JoeB131]

If the compact ever meets that benchmark, it’s likely that someone would file a challenge. It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court would have to rule on whether the system is permissible.

The Compact Clause of the Constitution states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." The courts have ruled in the past that if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for a compact to be valid.

again, going to be kind of tough for anyone to argue a state can't allocate it's electors any way it sees fit.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If the compact ever meets that benchmark, it’s likely that someone would file a challenge. It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court would have to rule on whether the system is permissible.

The Compact Clause of the Constitution states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." The courts have ruled in the past that if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for a compact to be valid.

again, going to be kind of tough for anyone to argue a state can't allocate it's electors any way it sees fit.

/----/ If you read the entire article you'll see this: So far, this is a hypothetical debate. The compact has been passed by blue states, and some experts say it is unlikely that enough red or purple states will sign on to get to 270. Battleground states such as Florida might be the most disinclined to join something because they are heavily courted under the current system.

 

[JoeB131]

/----/ If you read the entire article you'll see this: So far, this is a hypothetical debate. The compact has been passed by blue states, and some experts say it is unlikely that enough red or purple states will sign on to get to 270. Battleground states such as Florida might be the most disinclined to join something because they are heavily courted under the current system

Guy, after Trump fucks this all up, the REDDEST states will want to sign on to the compact to keep that from ever happening again.

 

[Cellblock2429]

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Well, no, it would just mean the person who won the popular vote would win the election.

Which is what happened in all but five of 57 National Elections.

/----/ Then the campaigns would run differently aimed at the popular vote. Trump would have focused on Blue states to encourage Republicans and Blue dog Democrats to vote for him. Under the EC, candidates focus on battleground states. I live in the People's Republic of New York and know Republicans who have to be consoled to vote because they know the state will go democRAT and their vote doesn't matter.
In New York, there were 5,792,497 registered Democrats as of April 1, 2016 — a puny increase of 14,037 since November, state Board of Elections show. The Republican Party had 2,731,688 members, up just 12,358 over the same period.

Now would Hildabeast have gotten off her lazy butt and campaigned in the Blue states knowing they were up for grabs with the popular votes?

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ If you read the entire article you'll see this: So far, this is a hypothetical debate. The compact has been passed by blue states, and some experts say it is unlikely that enough red or purple states will sign on to get to 270. Battleground states such as Florida might be the most disinclined to join something because they are heavily courted under the current system

Guy, after Trump fucks this all up, the REDDEST states will want to sign on to the compact to keep that from ever happening again.

/----/ So you either can't understand the article or refuse to accept it and rely instead on a strawman argument.