Electoral College and Popular Vote split?

[SwimExpert]

because our whole system was based on an imbalance to counter the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

What link?

To support your claims.

The existence of a constitution, that includes explicit rights, and that requires 3/4 of the States and 2/3 of the Federal legislative branches to remove them is proof itself that the system is designed to protect the rights of the minority for the tyranny of simple majority (there I added simple, happy now?)

False. The constitution requires "super" majorities for a select few purposes of great importance, meant to occur only infrequently, such as conviction of an impeached official, or amendment of the constitution. The vast majority of circumstances yield to a simple majority.

 

[martybegan]

because our whole system was based on an imbalance to counter the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

What link?

To support your claims.

The existence of a constitution, that includes explicit rights, and that requires 3/4 of the States and 2/3 of the Federal legislative branches to remove them is proof itself that the system is designed to protect the rights of the minority for the tyranny of simple majority (there I added simple, happy now?)

False. The constitution requires "super" majorities for a select few purposes of great importance, meant to occur only infrequently, such as conviction of an impeached official, or amendment of the constitution. The vast majority of circumstances yield to a simple majority.

I used the term "enumerated rights", did I not?

Why should I have to link something regarding my opinion of the intent of the founders? I think for myself, I don't need someone else's views to support mine.

 

[SwimExpert]

I used the term "enumerated rights", did I not?

No. And even if you did, it would not matter.

Why should I have to link something regarding my opinion of the intent of the founders? I think for myself, I don't need someone else's views to support mine.

You are making claim which allege facts. If you cannot support your premises, then they are not worthy of acceptance.

 

[mvymvy]

because our whole system was based on an imbalance to counter the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

What link? The existence of a constitution, that includes explicit rights, and that requires 3/4 of the States and 2/3 of the Federal legislative branches to remove them is proof itself that the system is designed to protect the rights of the minority for the tyranny of simple majority (there I added simple, happy now?)

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),

it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

A presidential candidate could lose while winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

If a candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that candidate from being elected President of the United States

 

[mvymvy]

Something has to balance the rural-ish/urban-ish balance between parts of the country.

Why? On what basis do you decide it is necessary to provide voting power based on rural/urban demographics? Why shouldn't rural and urban individuals have equal relative voting power?

because our whole system was based on an imbalance to counter the tyranny of the majority over the minority. These days that split is between concentrated urban corridors and the "flyover" country in between (with specs of urban dotted around the flyover area).
. . . .

The biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

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.

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

In the 2012 general election campaign

38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states and states on the coasts and not on the coast) 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 -- NC, FL, OH, VA, CO, IA, NV, NH, PA - that included coastal and non-coastal 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.

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 federal 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

 

[mvymvy]

Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural states

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

 

[mvymvy]

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 38+ states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

States have the responsibility and exclusive constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

 

[toomuchtime_]

How Trump Could Win The White House While Losing The Popular Vote

This came up earlier in another discussion, but the article above demonstrates why it's more likely for Trump to win the Electoral College and lose the popular than the reverse. From the article:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s why: Several of Trump’s worst demographic groups happen to be concentrated in states, such as California, New York, Texas and Utah, that are either not competitive or that aren’t on Trump’s must-win list. Conversely, whites without a college degree — one of Trump’s strongest groups — represent a huge bloc in three blue states he would need to turn red to have the best chance of winning 270 electoral votes: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FiveThirtyEight posits this as having a 6% chance of happening so it isn't likely, but as the race tightens those odds will grow.

The current momentum would seem to carry Trump to both a popular win and an electoral win.

 

[mvymvy]

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
The 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

 

[martybegan]

I used the term "enumerated rights", did I not?

No. And even if you did, it would not matter.

Why should I have to link something regarding my opinion of the intent of the founders? I think for myself, I don't need someone else's views to support mine.

You are making claim which allege facts. If you cannot support your premises, then they are not worthy of acceptance.

How am I stating facts? I am not saying water is wet.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

A federal ID has too much of that "paper's please" implication for a lot of people. The whole thing with planes needing some specific uber-ID to me is just an excuse. Do you really think someone who really really wants to take a plane down will be unable to get a amped up ID with more difficulty?

On your 2nd point I agree.

Most of the issues with education ARE at the local level, specifically the local level in large cities. But the bigger issue to me in education is we have decided that all paths lead to college, and that simply isn't right for some students. Vocational education must be re-introduced, with apprenticeships taking the place of college for those who's career choices don't need it.

It's not just planes though. To return items at a lot of major chains you need an ID. To reserve storage space, rent a car, etc, you need a photo ID. It is a lot easier to forge an ID right now as there are 50 different ID's and if you live in one state, your familiarity with other state ID's isn't likely to be good. Folks just travel too much for us to have that level of inconsistency in photo ID's. I understand the "Paper's please" argument, but folks want to require IDs to vote, why is this different? IF it is ok to require folks to go get a free ID card to vote, why not require it to be standardized? That would even make it easier to catch fraud in Federal Elections.

As for States and education, my experience is that outside of the large metro school districts, the biggest problems schools face often come from the State. Either state funding issues, compliance, etc. Texas wields out sized influence in education because the State chooses the textbooks, giving them huge influence in the content of the texts that are used across multiple markets. As many complaints as folks have with the Department of Education at the Federal level, I have heard just as many from schools about the State Department of Education. They simply need to go away and that power needs to either move up to the Feds to make it possible to have a national conversation on education, or down to the local level for local control. We need to figure out which is the priority and lean into it.

And yeah, I disagree with college for all students. I went to college and grad school, but neither of my brothers did and they're just fine and happier for it. My youngest brother went back later in life to pursue a degree relevant to his job and was supported by his work, and I have a lot of cousins that are in skilled labor positions such as being a mechanic, bricklayer, etc. They do just fine and will continue to do so. Those are good jobs that give a good quality of life.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

With regard to electoral votes- going to popular election would diminish the voice of smaller states; canidates wouldn't spend time campaigning in rural areas where only a few hundred folks would show up. They would rather concentrate on highly populated areas. Small purple states would be ignored. Bad idea!

Okay, now that is a load of horseshit. A popular vote makes EVERY vote count. The current electoral system reduces the importance of votes such that only a select few swing states have any import. Candidates focus on these few states, and ignore the rest of the country.

And which states are those? They are not the same states decade after decade, as they would be with direct popular vote. Why would a canidate ever bother campaigning in Colorado, Nevada or Iowa? They are relatively small states with few popular votes. Around a third of the US population is in the 4 states of California, Texas, New York and Florida, and only one of those states is considered a swing state in this election. This article might help you understand better why the electoral college protects the interest of all voters, or maybe you still won't get it, but I tried.
Electoral College keeps elections fair

 

[BuckToothMoron]

With regard to electoral votes- going to popular election would diminish the voice of smaller states; canidates wouldn't spend time campaigning in rural areas where only a few hundred folks would show up. They would rather concentrate on highly populated areas. Small purple states would be ignored. Bad idea!

Okay, now that is a load of horseshit. A popular vote makes EVERY vote count. The current electoral system reduces the importance of votes such that only a select few swing states have any import. Candidates focus on these few states, and ignore the rest of the country.

I suggest you read federalist paper No 68 for an explanation of why the founders feared a strict majority rule voting system. Also here is a link which breaks it down in a digested version.

The Reason for the Electoral College

If you don't know and understand history it will be difficult to understand the danger of a strict democracy.

 

[martybegan]

A federal ID has too much of that "paper's please" implication for a lot of people. The whole thing with planes needing some specific uber-ID to me is just an excuse. Do you really think someone who really really wants to take a plane down will be unable to get a amped up ID with more difficulty?

On your 2nd point I agree.

Most of the issues with education ARE at the local level, specifically the local level in large cities. But the bigger issue to me in education is we have decided that all paths lead to college, and that simply isn't right for some students. Vocational education must be re-introduced, with apprenticeships taking the place of college for those who's career choices don't need it.

It's not just planes though. To return items at a lot of major chains you need an ID. To reserve storage space, rent a car, etc, you need a photo ID. It is a lot easier to forge an ID right now as there are 50 different ID's and if you live in one state, your familiarity with other state ID's isn't likely to be good. Folks just travel too much for us to have that level of inconsistency in photo ID's. I understand the "Paper's please" argument, but folks want to require IDs to vote, why is this different? IF it is ok to require folks to go get a free ID card to vote, why not require it to be standardized? That would even make it easier to catch fraud in Federal Elections.

As for States and education, my experience is that outside of the large metro school districts, the biggest problems schools face often come from the State. Either state funding issues, compliance, etc. Texas wields out sized influence in education because the State chooses the textbooks, giving them huge influence in the content of the texts that are used across multiple markets. As many complaints as folks have with the Department of Education at the Federal level, I have heard just as many from schools about the State Department of Education. They simply need to go away and that power needs to either move up to the Feds to make it possible to have a national conversation on education, or down to the local level for local control. We need to figure out which is the priority and lean into it.

And yeah, I disagree with college for all students. I went to college and grad school, but neither of my brothers did and they're just fine and happier for it. My youngest brother went back later in life to pursue a degree relevant to his job and was supported by his work, and I have a lot of cousins that are in skilled labor positions such as being a mechanic, bricklayer, etc. They do just fine and will continue to do so. Those are good jobs that give a good quality of life.

I see asking for an ID every place you go as worse than asking for one when you vote (I also have issues with this "lets vote 3 weeks in advance crap", but that is another thread)
One should be able to be ID'ed when voting, when someone is just going here and there, there has to be a pretty good reason to demand ID from someone.

And as for your issues with State level education, I would prefer to fix it at the State level then to let the feds take it over. and too much local control with schools has other issues as well, there are strings of cases involving corrrupt school board officials that can be used as examples.