Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The electoral college is not at fault for their current type of partisanship seen in the country. This type of partisanship will not last indefinitely. The founders WANTED smaller states to have an equal vote in deciding Supreme Court justices. It was the only way the states would agree to the union and smaller states are not going to give up that power.
Again, the system was DESIGNED to give some power back to the smaller states. That's not a problem, it was designed that way so the country could EXIST!
Think so huh?
Here's the result of the first 20 years of that system:
1. Washington - Virginia - two terms
2. Adams - Massachusetts - one term
3. Jefferson - Virginia - two terms
4. Madison - Virginia - two terms
5. Monroe - Virginia - two terms
See a pattern? You'll note that Virginia, THE largest and most populated state, runs the country for 16 of the first 20 years. If this is a system designed to assist the Rhode Islands and the New Jerseys and the Delawares get into play it seems to have failed miserably. And the fact that Virginia was also propped up by the Slave Power Compromise, it would seem that that "small state" mythology was not the intention at all.
The current political dynamics of the country are simply a moment in time that won't last forever. Its great that the some of the least populated states were finally able to decide a Presidential election. It does not usually happen that way, and the fact that it finally did after a while shows how the system is well balanced.
Nope. It was not the "least populated states that were finally able to decide" at all --- those states did what they always do. RATHER, it was the Wisonsins and Michigans and Pennsylvanias and Floridas, ALL of which as a whole voted for somebody other than who their electors cast 100% of their votes for.
And North Carolina was in that same bag --- I notice no response to post 1397.
You forget New Hampshire in the year 2000. If New Hampshire had gone for Al Gore, Al Gore would have been President.
Let's not forget his own State....TN
So how do you feel about Bill Clinton's 43% win in 1992 and 49% win in 1996 in becoming President?
I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton so your tribalism tactic fails.
I never asked whether you were a fan of Bill Clinton. I'm asking about what you think about his becoming President despite not winning 50% of the vote?
What I think is that we never had a choice. We got the same old shit from the same old Duopoly, where you have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or IOW to vote not "for" one but to block another like a grand game of Tic Tac Toe.
1992 was in fact when I got really interested. I noticed a million Democrats crawling out of the woodwork for the chance to run against Bush. Since Bush's run was a foregone conclusion I examined and ranked the challengers. I don't remember the whole list but Bull Clinton was dead last and stayed there. Sure enough, the worst one got the nomination, and we were all fucked yet again.
That's the Duopoly for ya. And the EC as it's practiced ensures that that Duopoly will run the table, FOREVER. There's no chance of any incursion by anyone outside the Duopoly. Ross Perot ran in that election (which is why Clinton skidded in on 43%).. Perot got just under 19% of the country's vote, yet pulled ZERO in the EC. And that's directly the fault of WTA. In any and every state that was "competitive" every voter knew that if they cast a vote for Perot it removed their chance to block the R or D candidate, so they weren't going to waste it. And in locked "red" or "blue" states there was no way Perot, or the D or R candy, was going to win because that state was a foregone conclusion.
That's one of the most insidious effects of WTA. If you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state.......... there's no reason to go vote AT ALL. You can vote with your state, you can vote against your state, you can vote third party, or you can just stay home and bake cookies and all four options give exactly the same result, with the exception that in the fourth scenario you actually get some cookies.
The EC as practiced grossly depresses voter turnout (it was just 55% even in 2016), dumps millions upon millions of votes directly into the crapper, ensures candidates will never visit most states because either they or their opponent has it "locked up", makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day, and perhaps worst of all perpetuates that same Duopoly that keeps trotting out a Hobson's Choice between "Bad" and "Even Worse". Why do you think we keep getting choices like that? Because the Duopoly has no competition, that's why. And the EC as it's currently done ensures it stays that way.
There's no argument to defend that.
Again, the whole thing of having a state locked up is a temporary feature of current political dynamics which won't last Forever. In 1964 almost all states went Democrat and voted Johnson. 8 years later they voted for Republicans and Nixon.
A third party can break into the system, but it has to be strong enough to replace one of the two parties dominating the system at the current time. Perot was not going to be President no matter what system was used. The Republican Party was not around before 1854, yet it successfully won and became one of the major two parties.
And we've had Duopoly virtually ever since. Which was not the case before 1854 (or in this case we should say 1860).
It's not "temporary" at all; it's a permanent fixture until it gets fixed. Your allusions to 1964 and 1972 just affirm that.
So does this:
ah, yes, good one. I wonder when the last time Tennessee went Blue.
Exactly. Tennessee is going red no matter what any individual voter does so they might as well stay home and bake cookies. That's why our election turnout is dozens of points behind the civilised world. Because for most people, what's the point?
Let's face it, the only way for a third party to make an incursion on the system is to siphon off enough Duopoly votes so that nobody gets a majority in the EC, which then throws the whole election to the House of Reps who can do whatever they want. In other words the only way a 3P can have a chance of winning is to negate the entire election itself. And that's because under the WTA system 100% of a state's vote is going to whoever gets the most even if the most is 33.4%. That's tantamount to telling 3P voters to stay home.
The electoral college is not at fault for their current type of partisanship seen in the country. This type of partisanship will not last indefinitely. The founders WANTED smaller states to have an equal vote in deciding Supreme Court justices. It was the only way the states would agree to the union and smaller states are not going to give up that power.
Again, the system was DESIGNED to give some power back to the smaller states. That's not a problem, it was designed that way so the country could EXIST!
Think so huh?
Here's the result of the first 20 years of that system:
1. Washington - Virginia - two terms
2. Adams - Massachusetts - one term
3. Jefferson - Virginia - two terms
4. Madison - Virginia - two terms
5. Monroe - Virginia - two terms
See a pattern? You'll note that Virginia, THE largest and most populated state, runs the country for 16 of the first 20 years. If this is a system designed to assist the Rhode Islands and the New Jerseys and the Delawares get into play it seems to have failed miserably. And the fact that Virginia was also propped up by the Slave Power Compromise, it would seem that that "small state" mythology was not the intention at all.
The current political dynamics of the country are simply a moment in time that won't last forever. Its great that the some of the least populated states were finally able to decide a Presidential election. It does not usually happen that way, and the fact that it finally did after a while shows how the system is well balanced.
Nope. It was not the "least populated states that were finally able to decide" at all --- those states did what they always do. RATHER, it was the Wisonsins and Michigans and Pennsylvanias and Floridas, ALL of which as a whole voted for somebody other than who their electors cast 100% of their votes for.
And North Carolina was in that same bag --- I notice no response to post 1397.
You forget New Hampshire in the year 2000. If New Hampshire had gone for Al Gore, Al Gore would have been President.
Let's not forget his own State....TN
Meaningless. Tennessee is a red state, you're not going to get it if you're blue. Same for Rump in New York -- that was never going to happen.
However if we were not saddles with the WTA, both of them would have scored at least something in the EC. Far more importantly, if Rump voters in NY and Gore voters in TN knew their vote would have actually counted for something, a lot more of them would have turned out to vote, wouldn't they.
I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.
That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.
You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?
Those states do have the power to award their electors differently, but they have decided up to this point, to do it this way. If you win the election within the state, you win the prize. They could do it differently where everyone gets some of the prize despite not winning.
And they should. Which again, was Ray's question.
But that won't happen because WTA wasn't declared as some law, it was snowballed by a mob mentality. One state wanted to maximize its impact, and its neighbor state wasn't going to let that happen so they did it too. Eventually they were all in the same sewer at the expense of the electorate. That can't be undone because of the same mob mentality. It would have to be a federal law mandating that they can't do it that way --- as Madison suggested.
That of course is almost as big a Constitutional hurdle as eliminating the EC altogether, but the best solution proposed so far is still the NPV compact, which was cleverly designed to negate the effect of that.
A bunch of posts back you asked "what would happen if North Carolina did that". I never did hear an answer to that.
I don't think North Carolina would like a situation where all their electoral votes went to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the state popular vote. Another system where the winner does not win the entire prize might be supported. But again that would not be free of controversy especially if the votes are awarded based on who won the current congressional districts, given the controversy on re-districting.
Whelp --- I live here and I can tell you we'd like it just fine, since most of our votes didn't come to a conclusion in 2016 yet ALL of our EVs went to one who got under 50%. That means more than half the voters were already disenfranchised anyway.
We've already touched on the mob mentality that prevents states from giving up the WTA system. No 'one' will do it unless they all do it.
I'd much rather the states that are signing on to the popular vote compact just changed the way they award delegates to actually reflect how people in the state voted. ie no winner take all.
That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.
You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?
Those states do have the power to award their electors differently, but they have decided up to this point, to do it this way. If you win the election within the state, you win the prize. They could do it differently where everyone gets some of the prize despite not winning.
And they should. Which again, was Ray's question.
But that won't happen because WTA wasn't declared as some law, it was snowballed by a mob mentality. One state wanted to maximize its impact, and its neighbor state wasn't going to let that happen so they did it too. Eventually they were all in the same sewer at the expense of the electorate. That can't be undone because of the same mob mentality. It would have to be a federal law mandating that they can't do it that way --- as Madison suggested.
That of course is almost as big a Constitutional hurdle as eliminating the EC altogether, but the best solution proposed so far is still the NPV compact, which was cleverly designed to negate the effect of that.
A bunch of posts back you asked "what would happen if North Carolina did that". I never did hear an answer to that.
I don't think North Carolina would like a situation where all their electoral votes went to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the state popular vote. Another system where the winner does not win the entire prize might be supported. But again that would not be free of controversy especially if the votes are awarded based on who won the current congressional districts, given the controversy on re-districting.
Whelp --- I live here and I can tell you we'd like it just fine, since most of our votes didn't come to a conclusion in 2016 yet ALL of our EVs went to one who got under 50%. That means more than half the voters were already disenfranchised anyway.
We've already touched on the mob mentality that prevents states from giving up the WTA system. No 'one' will do it unless they all do it.
They were not disenfranchised. Its just that their candidate failed to win the popular vote in the state. The winner receives the prize, not the loser.
The electoral college is not at fault for their current type of partisanship seen in the country. This type of partisanship will not last indefinitely. The founders WANTED smaller states to have an equal vote in deciding Supreme Court justices. It was the only way the states would agree to the union and smaller states are not going to give up that power.
Again, the system was DESIGNED to give some power back to the smaller states. That's not a problem, it was designed that way so the country could EXIST!
Think so huh?
Here's the result of the first 20 years of that system:
1. Washington - Virginia - two terms
2. Adams - Massachusetts - one term
3. Jefferson - Virginia - two terms
4. Madison - Virginia - two terms
5. Monroe - Virginia - two terms
See a pattern? You'll note that Virginia, THE largest and most populated state, runs the country for 16 of the first 20 years. If this is a system designed to assist the Rhode Islands and the New Jerseys and the Delawares get into play it seems to have failed miserably. And the fact that Virginia was also propped up by the Slave Power Compromise, it would seem that that "small state" mythology was not the intention at all.
The current political dynamics of the country are simply a moment in time that won't last forever. Its great that the some of the least populated states were finally able to decide a Presidential election. It does not usually happen that way, and the fact that it finally did after a while shows how the system is well balanced.
Nope. It was not the "least populated states that were finally able to decide" at all --- those states did what they always do. RATHER, it was the Wisonsins and Michigans and Pennsylvanias and Floridas, ALL of which as a whole voted for somebody other than who their electors cast 100% of their votes for.
And North Carolina was in that same bag --- I notice no response to post 1397.
You forget New Hampshire in the year 2000. If New Hampshire had gone for Al Gore, Al Gore would have been President.
Let's not forget his own State....TN
Meaningless. Tennessee is a "red" state, you're not going to get it if you're blue. Same for Rump in New York -- that was never going to happen.
However if we were not saddled with the WTA, both of them would have scored at least something in the EC. Far more importantly, if Rump voters in NY and Gore voters in TN knew their vote would have actually counted for something, a lot more of them would have turned out to vote, wouldn't they. And that means it's a whole new ballgame.
I'd much rather the states that are signing on to the popular vote compact just changed the way they award delegates to actually reflect how people in the state voted. ie no winner take all.
That would be far better than the present system of course, and most if not all of this criticism of the EC wouldn't exist. But in practical terms no state would do that, because as long as the other states are doing it that gives them more impact and therefore, more attention. It's a catch-22.
Those states do have the power to award their electors differently, but they have decided up to this point, to do it this way. If you win the election within the state, you win the prize. They could do it differently where everyone gets some of the prize despite not winning.
And they should. Which again, was Ray's question.
But that won't happen because WTA wasn't declared as some law, it was snowballed by a mob mentality. One state wanted to maximize its impact, and its neighbor state wasn't going to let that happen so they did it too. Eventually they were all in the same sewer at the expense of the electorate. That can't be undone because of the same mob mentality. It would have to be a federal law mandating that they can't do it that way --- as Madison suggested.
That of course is almost as big a Constitutional hurdle as eliminating the EC altogether, but the best solution proposed so far is still the NPV compact, which was cleverly designed to negate the effect of that.
A bunch of posts back you asked "what would happen if North Carolina did that". I never did hear an answer to that.
I don't think North Carolina would like a situation where all their electoral votes went to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the state popular vote. Another system where the winner does not win the entire prize might be supported. But again that would not be free of controversy especially if the votes are awarded based on who won the current congressional districts, given the controversy on re-districting.
Whelp --- I live here and I can tell you we'd like it just fine, since most of our votes didn't come to a conclusion in 2016 yet ALL of our EVs went to one who got under 50%. That means more than half the voters were already disenfranchised anyway.
We've already touched on the mob mentality that prevents states from giving up the WTA system. No 'one' will do it unless they all do it.
They were not disenfranchised. Its just that their candidate failed to win the popular vote in the state. The winner receives the prize, not the loser.
We were disenfranchised. More than half of us went out to vote and had our votes tossed in the shitcan. And those of us whose candidate did get the votes, got more than they deserved because the state didn't vote that way either.
That 15 electoral votes was not our choice. It was the system's choice. The same shitstem that perpetuates the Duopoly.
I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton so your tribalism tactic fails.
I never asked whether you were a fan of Bill Clinton. I'm asking about what you think about his becoming President despite not winning 50% of the vote?
What I think is that we never had a choice. We got the same old shit from the same old Duopoly, where you have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or IOW to vote not "for" one but to block another like a grand game of Tic Tac Toe.
1992 was in fact when I got really interested. I noticed a million Democrats crawling out of the woodwork for the chance to run against Bush. Since Bush's run was a foregone conclusion I examined and ranked the challengers. I don't remember the whole list but Bull Clinton was dead last and stayed there. Sure enough, the worst one got the nomination, and we were all fucked yet again.
That's the Duopoly for ya. And the EC as it's practiced ensures that that Duopoly will run the table, FOREVER. There's no chance of any incursion by anyone outside the Duopoly. Ross Perot ran in that election (which is why Clinton skidded in on 43%).. Perot got just under 19% of the country's vote, yet pulled ZERO in the EC. And that's directly the fault of WTA. In any and every state that was "competitive" every voter knew that if they cast a vote for Perot it removed their chance to block the R or D candidate, so they weren't going to waste it. And in locked "red" or "blue" states there was no way Perot, or the D or R candy, was going to win because that state was a foregone conclusion.
That's one of the most insidious effects of WTA. If you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state.......... there's no reason to go vote AT ALL. You can vote with your state, you can vote against your state, you can vote third party, or you can just stay home and bake cookies and all four options give exactly the same result, with the exception that in the fourth scenario you actually get some cookies.
The EC as practiced grossly depresses voter turnout (it was just 55% even in 2016), dumps millions upon millions of votes directly into the crapper, ensures candidates will never visit most states because either they or their opponent has it "locked up", makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day, and perhaps worst of all perpetuates that same Duopoly that keeps trotting out a Hobson's Choice between "Bad" and "Even Worse". Why do you think we keep getting choices like that? Because the Duopoly has no competition, that's why. And the EC as it's currently done ensures it stays that way.
There's no argument to defend that.
Again, the whole thing of having a state locked up is a temporary feature of current political dynamics which won't last Forever. In 1964 almost all states went Democrat and voted Johnson. 8 years later they voted for Republicans and Nixon.
A third party can break into the system, but it has to be strong enough to replace one of the two parties dominating the system at the current time. Perot was not going to be President no matter what system was used. The Republican Party was not around before 1854, yet it successfully won and became one of the major two parties.
And we've had Duopoly virtually ever since. Which was not the case before 1854 (or in this case we should say 1860).
It's not "temporary" at all; it's a permanent fixture until it gets fixed. Your allusions to 1964 and 1972 just affirm that.
So does this:
ah, yes, good one. I wonder when the last time Tennessee went Blue.
Exactly. Tennessee is going red no matter what any individual voter does so they might as well stay home and bake cookies. That's why our election turnout is dozens of points behind the civilised world. Because for most people, what's the point?
Let's face it, the only way for a third party to make an incursion on the system is to siphon off enough Duopoly votes so that nobody gets a majority in the EC, which then throws the whole election to the House of Reps who can do whatever they want. In other words the only way a 3P can have a chance of winning is to negate the entire election itself. And that's because under the WTA system 100% of a state's vote is going to whoever gets the most even if the most is 33.4%. That's tantamount to telling 3P voters to stay home.
Again, the electoral college is not at fault for the current political dynamics in the country or the alleged duopoly. Any third party could break into the system just as the Republican party did in the 1850s. It just has to have enough support to replace one of the two dominate political parties.
I'd much rather the states that are signing on to the popular vote compact just changed the way they award delegates to actually reflect how people in the state voted. ie no winner take all.
You could have a system where the winner of the popular vote gets the 2 electoral votes representing each senator. The other popular votes would be awarded based on who won in each congressional district. Of course, given the controversy over re-districting that happens do to the population changes, that might not be very popular either.
Trump would have still beat Hillary in that scenario.
And they should. Which again, was Ray's question.
But that won't happen because WTA wasn't declared as some law, it was snowballed by a mob mentality. One state wanted to maximize its impact, and its neighbor state wasn't going to let that happen so they did it too. Eventually they were all in the same sewer at the expense of the electorate. That can't be undone because of the same mob mentality. It would have to be a federal law mandating that they can't do it that way --- as Madison suggested.
That of course is almost as big a Constitutional hurdle as eliminating the EC altogether, but the best solution proposed so far is still the NPV compact, which was cleverly designed to negate the effect of that.
A bunch of posts back you asked "what would happen if North Carolina did that". I never did hear an answer to that.
I don't think North Carolina would like a situation where all their electoral votes went to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the state popular vote. Another system where the winner does not win the entire prize might be supported. But again that would not be free of controversy especially if the votes are awarded based on who won the current congressional districts, given the controversy on re-districting.
Whelp --- I live here and I can tell you we'd like it just fine, since most of our votes didn't come to a conclusion in 2016 yet ALL of our EVs went to one who got under 50%. That means more than half the voters were already disenfranchised anyway.
We've already touched on the mob mentality that prevents states from giving up the WTA system. No 'one' will do it unless they all do it.
They were not disenfranchised. Its just that their candidate failed to win the popular vote in the state. The winner receives the prize, not the loser.
We were disenfranchised. More than half of us went out to vote and had our votes tossed in the shitcan. And those of us whose candidate did get the votes, got more than they deserved because the state didn't vote that way either.
That 15 electoral votes was not our choice. It was the system's choice. The same shitstem that perpetuates the Duopoly.
The 15 Electoral votes were the prize. Everyone in the state had a chance to impact their candidates chance of winning the prize. An equal chance. So no one was disenfranchised. Most people in North Carolina don't feel that they were disenfranchised.
I never asked whether you were a fan of Bill Clinton. I'm asking about what you think about his becoming President despite not winning 50% of the vote?
What I think is that we never had a choice. We got the same old shit from the same old Duopoly, where you have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or IOW to vote not "for" one but to block another like a grand game of Tic Tac Toe.
1992 was in fact when I got really interested. I noticed a million Democrats crawling out of the woodwork for the chance to run against Bush. Since Bush's run was a foregone conclusion I examined and ranked the challengers. I don't remember the whole list but Bull Clinton was dead last and stayed there. Sure enough, the worst one got the nomination, and we were all fucked yet again.
That's the Duopoly for ya. And the EC as it's practiced ensures that that Duopoly will run the table, FOREVER. There's no chance of any incursion by anyone outside the Duopoly. Ross Perot ran in that election (which is why Clinton skidded in on 43%).. Perot got just under 19% of the country's vote, yet pulled ZERO in the EC. And that's directly the fault of WTA. In any and every state that was "competitive" every voter knew that if they cast a vote for Perot it removed their chance to block the R or D candidate, so they weren't going to waste it. And in locked "red" or "blue" states there was no way Perot, or the D or R candy, was going to win because that state was a foregone conclusion.
That's one of the most insidious effects of WTA. If you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state.......... there's no reason to go vote AT ALL. You can vote with your state, you can vote against your state, you can vote third party, or you can just stay home and bake cookies and all four options give exactly the same result, with the exception that in the fourth scenario you actually get some cookies.
The EC as practiced grossly depresses voter turnout (it was just 55% even in 2016), dumps millions upon millions of votes directly into the crapper, ensures candidates will never visit most states because either they or their opponent has it "locked up", makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day, and perhaps worst of all perpetuates that same Duopoly that keeps trotting out a Hobson's Choice between "Bad" and "Even Worse". Why do you think we keep getting choices like that? Because the Duopoly has no competition, that's why. And the EC as it's currently done ensures it stays that way.
There's no argument to defend that.
Again, the whole thing of having a state locked up is a temporary feature of current political dynamics which won't last Forever. In 1964 almost all states went Democrat and voted Johnson. 8 years later they voted for Republicans and Nixon.
A third party can break into the system, but it has to be strong enough to replace one of the two parties dominating the system at the current time. Perot was not going to be President no matter what system was used. The Republican Party was not around before 1854, yet it successfully won and became one of the major two parties.
And we've had Duopoly virtually ever since. Which was not the case before 1854 (or in this case we should say 1860).
It's not "temporary" at all; it's a permanent fixture until it gets fixed. Your allusions to 1964 and 1972 just affirm that.
So does this:
ah, yes, good one. I wonder when the last time Tennessee went Blue.
Exactly. Tennessee is going red no matter what any individual voter does so they might as well stay home and bake cookies. That's why our election turnout is dozens of points behind the civilised world. Because for most people, what's the point?
Let's face it, the only way for a third party to make an incursion on the system is to siphon off enough Duopoly votes so that nobody gets a majority in the EC, which then throws the whole election to the House of Reps who can do whatever they want. In other words the only way a 3P can have a chance of winning is to negate the entire election itself. And that's because under the WTA system 100% of a state's vote is going to whoever gets the most even if the most is 33.4%. That's tantamount to telling 3P voters to stay home.
Again, the electoral college is not at fault for the current political dynamics in the country or the alleged duopoly. Any third party could break into the system just as the Republican party did in the 1850s. It just has to have enough support to replace one of the two dominate political parties.
"Alleged" Duopoly??
When's the last time we had a POTUS who was not a Democrat or Republican?
Save your Wiki click, it was Whig Zachary Taylor in 1848 ---- before the Duopoly existed.
The Republican Party was not a "third" party; it was another party in a time when multiple parties existed and two major ones --- Whigs and Know Nothings --- were taking their last gasps because neither one would address the elephant in the room of the era -- Slavery.
Duopoly means a closed system. It runs everything right down to the Presidential debates, and it's not about to allow any third party in on its racket. And the WTA/EC perpetuates that racket and ensures that we never get out of it.
As I said -- there's no argument to defend that.
I don't think North Carolina would like a situation where all their electoral votes went to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the state popular vote. Another system where the winner does not win the entire prize might be supported. But again that would not be free of controversy especially if the votes are awarded based on who won the current congressional districts, given the controversy on re-districting.
Whelp --- I live here and I can tell you we'd like it just fine, since most of our votes didn't come to a conclusion in 2016 yet ALL of our EVs went to one who got under 50%. That means more than half the voters were already disenfranchised anyway.
We've already touched on the mob mentality that prevents states from giving up the WTA system. No 'one' will do it unless they all do it.
They were not disenfranchised. Its just that their candidate failed to win the popular vote in the state. The winner receives the prize, not the loser.
We were disenfranchised. More than half of us went out to vote and had our votes tossed in the shitcan. And those of us whose candidate did get the votes, got more than they deserved because the state didn't vote that way either.
That 15 electoral votes was not our choice. It was the system's choice. The same shitstem that perpetuates the Duopoly.
The 15 Electoral votes were the prize. Everyone in the state had a chance to impact their candidates chance of winning the prize. An equal chance. So no one was disenfranchised. Most people in North Carolina don't feel that they were disenfranchised.
Really. You speak for us now?
NC was one of the minority of states where it actually mattered going to the polls on election day since the predicted outcome was not clear. THAT meant that our only choice was to vote for one to block the other and also meant that any 3P vote were going to get lost in the wash because those 15 votes would be either red or blue but nothing else.
That means for one thing that we had exactly two (2) choices, not three or four or five. And the Duopoly foisted those choices upon us, knowing that their only competition was going to be the other side of the Duopoly --- which means neither one has to make an effort. And that, at the risk of being even more repetitive, is why we keep getting a bullshit binary choice.
What I think is that we never had a choice. We got the same old shit from the same old Duopoly, where you have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or IOW to vote not "for" one but to block another like a grand game of Tic Tac Toe.
1992 was in fact when I got really interested. I noticed a million Democrats crawling out of the woodwork for the chance to run against Bush. Since Bush's run was a foregone conclusion I examined and ranked the challengers. I don't remember the whole list but Bull Clinton was dead last and stayed there. Sure enough, the worst one got the nomination, and we were all fucked yet again.
That's the Duopoly for ya. And the EC as it's practiced ensures that that Duopoly will run the table, FOREVER. There's no chance of any incursion by anyone outside the Duopoly. Ross Perot ran in that election (which is why Clinton skidded in on 43%).. Perot got just under 19% of the country's vote, yet pulled ZERO in the EC. And that's directly the fault of WTA. In any and every state that was "competitive" every voter knew that if they cast a vote for Perot it removed their chance to block the R or D candidate, so they weren't going to waste it. And in locked "red" or "blue" states there was no way Perot, or the D or R candy, was going to win because that state was a foregone conclusion.
That's one of the most insidious effects of WTA. If you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state.......... there's no reason to go vote AT ALL. You can vote with your state, you can vote against your state, you can vote third party, or you can just stay home and bake cookies and all four options give exactly the same result, with the exception that in the fourth scenario you actually get some cookies.
The EC as practiced grossly depresses voter turnout (it was just 55% even in 2016), dumps millions upon millions of votes directly into the crapper, ensures candidates will never visit most states because either they or their opponent has it "locked up", makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day, and perhaps worst of all perpetuates that same Duopoly that keeps trotting out a Hobson's Choice between "Bad" and "Even Worse". Why do you think we keep getting choices like that? Because the Duopoly has no competition, that's why. And the EC as it's currently done ensures it stays that way.
There's no argument to defend that.
Again, the whole thing of having a state locked up is a temporary feature of current political dynamics which won't last Forever. In 1964 almost all states went Democrat and voted Johnson. 8 years later they voted for Republicans and Nixon.
A third party can break into the system, but it has to be strong enough to replace one of the two parties dominating the system at the current time. Perot was not going to be President no matter what system was used. The Republican Party was not around before 1854, yet it successfully won and became one of the major two parties.
And we've had Duopoly virtually ever since. Which was not the case before 1854 (or in this case we should say 1860).
It's not "temporary" at all; it's a permanent fixture until it gets fixed. Your allusions to 1964 and 1972 just affirm that.
So does this:
ah, yes, good one. I wonder when the last time Tennessee went Blue.
Exactly. Tennessee is going red no matter what any individual voter does so they might as well stay home and bake cookies. That's why our election turnout is dozens of points behind the civilised world. Because for most people, what's the point?
Let's face it, the only way for a third party to make an incursion on the system is to siphon off enough Duopoly votes so that nobody gets a majority in the EC, which then throws the whole election to the House of Reps who can do whatever they want. In other words the only way a 3P can have a chance of winning is to negate the entire election itself. And that's because under the WTA system 100% of a state's vote is going to whoever gets the most even if the most is 33.4%. That's tantamount to telling 3P voters to stay home.
Again, the electoral college is not at fault for the current political dynamics in the country or the alleged duopoly. Any third party could break into the system just as the Republican party did in the 1850s. It just has to have enough support to replace one of the two dominate political parties.
"Alleged" Duopoly??
When's the last time we had a POTUS who was not a Democrat or Republican?
Save your Wiki click, it was Whig Zachary Taylor in 1848 ---- before the Duopoly existed. The Republican Party was years in the future and the Democrat Taylor defeated, van Buren, had himself organized that party just 15 years prior (and the Whigs were the same age).
The Republican Party was not a "third" party; it was another party in a time when multiple parties existed and two major ones --- Whigs and Know Nothings --- were taking their last gasps because neither one would address the elephant in the room of the era -- Slavery.
Duopoly means a closed system. It runs everything right down to the Presidential debates, and it's not about to allow any third party in on its racket. And the WTA/EC perpetuates that racket and ensures that we never get out of it.
As I said -- there's no argument to defend that.
The 1850s can occur again, so there is no hard Duopoly. Lots people like the current two parties, even more so today, but things change, and the electoral college won't stop things from changing. Teddy Roosevelt came close to unseating the two parties with his progressive run in 1912. He certainly sent Taft and the Republicans down into the gutter.
I'd much rather the states that are signing on to the popular vote compact just changed the way they award delegates to actually reflect how people in the state voted. ie no winner take all.
You could have a system where the winner of the popular vote gets the 2 electoral votes representing each senator. The other popular votes would be awarded based on who won in each congressional district. Of course, given the controversy over re-districting that happens do to the population changes, that might not be very popular either.
Trump would have still beat Hillary in that scenario.
Maybe, I have not given it a close look.
Again, the whole thing of having a state locked up is a temporary feature of current political dynamics which won't last Forever. In 1964 almost all states went Democrat and voted Johnson. 8 years later they voted for Republicans and Nixon.
A third party can break into the system, but it has to be strong enough to replace one of the two parties dominating the system at the current time. Perot was not going to be President no matter what system was used. The Republican Party was not around before 1854, yet it successfully won and became one of the major two parties.
And we've had Duopoly virtually ever since. Which was not the case before 1854 (or in this case we should say 1860).
It's not "temporary" at all; it's a permanent fixture until it gets fixed. Your allusions to 1964 and 1972 just affirm that.
So does this:
ah, yes, good one. I wonder when the last time Tennessee went Blue.
Exactly. Tennessee is going red no matter what any individual voter does so they might as well stay home and bake cookies. That's why our election turnout is dozens of points behind the civilised world. Because for most people, what's the point?
Let's face it, the only way for a third party to make an incursion on the system is to siphon off enough Duopoly votes so that nobody gets a majority in the EC, which then throws the whole election to the House of Reps who can do whatever they want. In other words the only way a 3P can have a chance of winning is to negate the entire election itself. And that's because under the WTA system 100% of a state's vote is going to whoever gets the most even if the most is 33.4%. That's tantamount to telling 3P voters to stay home.
Again, the electoral college is not at fault for the current political dynamics in the country or the alleged duopoly. Any third party could break into the system just as the Republican party did in the 1850s. It just has to have enough support to replace one of the two dominate political parties.
"Alleged" Duopoly??
When's the last time we had a POTUS who was not a Democrat or Republican?
Save your Wiki click, it was Whig Zachary Taylor in 1848 ---- before the Duopoly existed. The Republican Party was years in the future and the Democrat Taylor defeated, van Buren, had himself organized that party just 15 years prior (and the Whigs were the same age).
The Republican Party was not a "third" party; it was another party in a time when multiple parties existed and two major ones --- Whigs and Know Nothings --- were taking their last gasps because neither one would address the elephant in the room of the era -- Slavery.
Duopoly means a closed system. It runs everything right down to the Presidential debates, and it's not about to allow any third party in on its racket. And the WTA/EC perpetuates that racket and ensures that we never get out of it.
As I said -- there's no argument to defend that.
The 1850s can occur again, so there is no hard Duopoly. Lots people like the current two parties, even more so today, but things change, and the electoral college won't stop things from changing. Teddy Roosevelt came close to unseating the two parties with his progressive run in 1912. He certainly sent Taft and the Republicans down into the gutter.
It's very much a "hard" Duopoly, I like the term. Again, the last non-Republican non-Democrat POTUS arrived 171 years ago at a time when both major parties were approximately fifteen years old. Today the major parties are 165, so they've had eleven times as much time to entrench Want to start a third party that gets enough attention to compete? Sure. All you have to do is deconstruct the monstrous two-headed system that runs the joint now, and rotsa ruck getting that Duopoly to let you into any debates, because they literally run it.
Which reminds of a quote by Al Gore's relative Gore Vidal:
"As far as a third party, we tried that in 1972, the People's Party. Unfortunately we hadn't remembered that in order to have a third party, you must first have two other parties". --- which just underscores that this entrenched Duopoly is not something I just discovered.
TR in 1912 siphoned off enough votes to come in second and push the Republican to third, which is the last time any 3P even achieved that much, but he was (a) a former POTUS well-known and (b) had come to the Republican convention with most of the primary delegates, so that was essentially the party deciding to go the corporate route and nix the progressive one, which cost them the election and enabled Wilson to take office with his 41% of the PV. But when Wilson left office, the next Republican challenger Harding won with the then-largest landslide ever, and barely had to campaign at all. So if the Duopoly was challenged by that, it sure shook it off with a quickness.
Just to put that in perspective.
And we've had Duopoly virtually ever since. Which was not the case before 1854 (or in this case we should say 1860).
It's not "temporary" at all; it's a permanent fixture until it gets fixed. Your allusions to 1964 and 1972 just affirm that.
So does this:
Exactly. Tennessee is going red no matter what any individual voter does so they might as well stay home and bake cookies. That's why our election turnout is dozens of points behind the civilised world. Because for most people, what's the point?
Let's face it, the only way for a third party to make an incursion on the system is to siphon off enough Duopoly votes so that nobody gets a majority in the EC, which then throws the whole election to the House of Reps who can do whatever they want. In other words the only way a 3P can have a chance of winning is to negate the entire election itself. And that's because under the WTA system 100% of a state's vote is going to whoever gets the most even if the most is 33.4%. That's tantamount to telling 3P voters to stay home.
Again, the electoral college is not at fault for the current political dynamics in the country or the alleged duopoly. Any third party could break into the system just as the Republican party did in the 1850s. It just has to have enough support to replace one of the two dominate political parties.
"Alleged" Duopoly??
When's the last time we had a POTUS who was not a Democrat or Republican?
Save your Wiki click, it was Whig Zachary Taylor in 1848 ---- before the Duopoly existed. The Republican Party was years in the future and the Democrat Taylor defeated, van Buren, had himself organized that party just 15 years prior (and the Whigs were the same age).
The Republican Party was not a "third" party; it was another party in a time when multiple parties existed and two major ones --- Whigs and Know Nothings --- were taking their last gasps because neither one would address the elephant in the room of the era -- Slavery.
Duopoly means a closed system. It runs everything right down to the Presidential debates, and it's not about to allow any third party in on its racket. And the WTA/EC perpetuates that racket and ensures that we never get out of it.
As I said -- there's no argument to defend that.
The 1850s can occur again, so there is no hard Duopoly. Lots people like the current two parties, even more so today, but things change, and the electoral college won't stop things from changing. Teddy Roosevelt came close to unseating the two parties with his progressive run in 1912. He certainly sent Taft and the Republicans down into the gutter.
It's very much a "hard" Duopoly, I like the term. Again, the last non-Republican non-Democrat POTUS arrived 171 years ago at a time when both major parties were approximately fifteen years old. Today the major parties are 165, so they've had eleven times as much time to entrench Want to start a third party that gets enough attention to compete? Sure. All you have to do is deconstruct the monstrous two-headed system that runs the joint now, and rotsa ruck getting that Duopoly to let you into any debates, because they literally run it.
Which reminds of a quote by Al Gore's relative Gore Vidal:
"As far as a third party, we tried that in 1972, the People's Party. Unfortunately we hadn't remembered that in order to have a third party, you must first have two other parties". --- which just underscores that this entrenched Duopoly is not something I just discovered.
TR in 1912 siphoned off enough votes to come in second and push the Republican to third, which is the last time any 3P even achieved that much, but he was (a) a former POTUS well-known and (b) had come to the Republican convention with most of the primary delegates, so that was essentially the party deciding to go the corporate route and nix the progressive one, which cost them the election and enabled Wilson to take office with his 41% of the PV. But when Wilson left office, the next Republican challenger Harding won with the then-largest landslide ever, and barely had to campaign at all. So if the Duopoly was challenged by that, it sure shook it off with a quickness.
Just to put that in perspective.
A third party is not impossible in this country and you don't need to dissolve anything. What it takes is a pissed off electorate. If not for Trump winning the presidency, that might have happened to the Republican party already. And if they don't get off their ass and stop playing politics with the issues we care most about, you may see conservatives starting their own party in the near future.
Again, the electoral college is not at fault for the current political dynamics in the country or the alleged duopoly. Any third party could break into the system just as the Republican party did in the 1850s. It just has to have enough support to replace one of the two dominate political parties.
"Alleged" Duopoly??
When's the last time we had a POTUS who was not a Democrat or Republican?
Save your Wiki click, it was Whig Zachary Taylor in 1848 ---- before the Duopoly existed. The Republican Party was years in the future and the Democrat Taylor defeated, van Buren, had himself organized that party just 15 years prior (and the Whigs were the same age).
The Republican Party was not a "third" party; it was another party in a time when multiple parties existed and two major ones --- Whigs and Know Nothings --- were taking their last gasps because neither one would address the elephant in the room of the era -- Slavery.
Duopoly means a closed system. It runs everything right down to the Presidential debates, and it's not about to allow any third party in on its racket. And the WTA/EC perpetuates that racket and ensures that we never get out of it.
As I said -- there's no argument to defend that.
The 1850s can occur again, so there is no hard Duopoly. Lots people like the current two parties, even more so today, but things change, and the electoral college won't stop things from changing. Teddy Roosevelt came close to unseating the two parties with his progressive run in 1912. He certainly sent Taft and the Republicans down into the gutter.
It's very much a "hard" Duopoly, I like the term. Again, the last non-Republican non-Democrat POTUS arrived 171 years ago at a time when both major parties were approximately fifteen years old. Today the major parties are 165, so they've had eleven times as much time to entrench Want to start a third party that gets enough attention to compete? Sure. All you have to do is deconstruct the monstrous two-headed system that runs the joint now, and rotsa ruck getting that Duopoly to let you into any debates, because they literally run it.
Which reminds of a quote by Al Gore's relative Gore Vidal:
"As far as a third party, we tried that in 1972, the People's Party. Unfortunately we hadn't remembered that in order to have a third party, you must first have two other parties". --- which just underscores that this entrenched Duopoly is not something I just discovered.
TR in 1912 siphoned off enough votes to come in second and push the Republican to third, which is the last time any 3P even achieved that much, but he was (a) a former POTUS well-known and (b) had come to the Republican convention with most of the primary delegates, so that was essentially the party deciding to go the corporate route and nix the progressive one, which cost them the election and enabled Wilson to take office with his 41% of the PV. But when Wilson left office, the next Republican challenger Harding won with the then-largest landslide ever, and barely had to campaign at all. So if the Duopoly was challenged by that, it sure shook it off with a quickness.
Just to put that in perspective.
A third party is not impossible in this country and you don't need to dissolve anything. What it takes is a pissed off electorate. If not for Trump winning the presidency, that might have happened to the Republican party already. And if they don't get off their ass and stop playing politics with the issues we care most about, you may see conservatives starting their own party in the near future.
Wake me when that happens. You have my permission to dig up the grave.
Washington Post:
"A Pew Research Center poll last year found a 55 percent majority support picking presidents by popular vote, compared to 41 percent who prefer keeping the electoral college"
