Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
- 1,940
- Banned
- #161
With just a PV vote there would be no reason for rural states to vote...In a PV only scenario say, the greater Minneapolis area would off-set like five rural states - population wise, how is that fair??Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.
From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time
If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.
Population shifts have converted states that were once solidly Republican into closely divided “battleground” states.
There do not appear to be any Democratic states making the transition to voting Republican in presidential races.
Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988
Opinion.
Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?
Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?
There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?
You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?
I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas
You can't have urban areas telling rural areas what to do with their land and call it fair.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not control the outcome.
One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.
The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of the 10 most 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.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural states
Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S,Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.comwhich were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.