|
Post by ironhammer on Oct 7, 2020 0:10:01 GMT -5
Fair point. America did have some sordid authoritarian allies during the Cold War. Not to mention we are still good buddies with Saudi Arabia, a regime known for flouting the most basic human rights. Still, America has never officially abandoned its approach of upholding democratic principles and rule of law until Trump came along. Not conceding? Implying there won't be a peaceful transfer of power? Abandoning science for pseudoscience? All of that is unprecedented. Until Trump. His views are more in line with dictatorial regimes than a democracy. Whereas America once led by example, now Trump is following the example of Putin and other authoritarians. Yes and this entirely semantic distinction matters a great deal to the developing world. Sarcasm does not help your point. What a president say matters. As flawed as America has been in practice, some of its ideal still holds appeal to people around the world. They may not like certain US policies or action, but foundational values they can find appealing. But Trump is now destroying that very foundation.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 7, 2020 6:54:32 GMT -5
Since the most likely tipping point states - in the off chance this election is actually close - are Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Both run by Democrat Governors - problem solved. There's some talk about all sorts of things including Governors possibly trying to send their own slate of electors. Or perhaps state legislatures literally reading the Constitution and directly assigning their own electors without the input of Governors or the courts. I think it's pretty silly, but it's just one of those weird things that might be tried. I mentioned this in reference to certifying the state's election results. In other words, if PA/WI are very close like 2000 FL, the Dems will have more control over the process. At least at the margins.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 7, 2020 7:22:54 GMT -5
I may have taken this out of context - but whoever wins the EV wins the election regardless of the popular vote. You cannot walk back the popular vote when way over half the country is free to vote on conscious instead of a binary choice. The EC needs to go. It's never been the case that a President lost the popular vote twice but was elected by the EC twice. That would be a bad precedent all by itself -- a serious sign of illegitimacy. But what I was thinking about is more along the lines of if Biden wins the popular vote in enough states to have 270+ electoral votes, but for one reason or another he doesn't get those votes in the EC. The scenario that has been discussed is something like Biden wins Florida and that pushes him over 270, but the election is contested and the governor either names his own pro-Trump EC delegates or else requires all Florida delegates to abstain. The former could give Trump the EC win, while the latter could deny Biden an EC majority and send the election to the House, which is currently stacked pro-GOP on a one-vote-per-state basis. (According to law it would be the incoming House that votes, not the outgoing, but I'm not sure the incoming House will be distributed all that differently from the current House.) Anyway, I think what many people are hoping for is a clear agreement between the popular vote and the EC. That would still leave a lot of people unhappy, but it would calm down the claims of illegitimacy. There was nothing illegitimate about Trump's 2016 win. If Biden clearly wins the popular vote in a tipping state that does something different with their electoral voters - that would be illegitimate. There was *some* work in 2000 to try and get some Bush electors to vote Gore, but that wasn't going to be successful. 3rd parties can skew the popular vote. What do you do in 1992 when Clinton wins only 43% of the vote? Reagan (1980) and Carter (1976) barely exceeded 50% of the vote. Nixon wins just 43% in 1968. Even Kennedy was under 50%. Woodrow Wilson won twice with less than 50% of the vote. In his 1912 win - he got just 41.8% of the vote. The Republican candidate wasn't even on the ballot in California. 3rd party candidates are currently omitted from the ballot in some states, what happens when/if states omit one of the 2 major parties from the ballot? In your idea to eliminate the EC - are you suggesting the plurality be the winner? In some ways this may seem less legitimate. 1992 Clinton wins 43% of the vote, but 69% of the EV. That 69% makes it look so much better. Or are you wanting a UK model of a ruling majority? Thus 1992 - Ross Perot essentially picks the winner between Bush/Clinton. Or Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin picks the winner between Trump/Clinton. Ralph Nader picks the winner between Bush/Gore?
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Oct 7, 2020 7:51:22 GMT -5
It will be seen as illegitimate. It doesn't matter how constitutional the college is or not, it's a backwards system that no other functioning Western democracy uses to elect the head of government. It's bad for democracy, prioritizing the interests of a few select counties over those of the whole country, and one that has resulted in minority rule in 2 of the last 5 elections. Almost 60% of Americans want to get rid of it. People will be very angry about it, even if it's all by the books.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 7, 2020 8:33:04 GMT -5
Eliminate the Electoral College, go to ranked choice/instant runoff voting. Plurality problem solved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 8:38:12 GMT -5
Since the most likely tipping point states - in the off chance this election is actually close - are Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Both run by Democrat Governors - problem solved. Or - it's an even bigger problem. Both are Democratic governors with Republican legislatures (and NC as well). If the outcome is murky, legislatures could make a rule allowing them to just choose what electors are sent, regardless of what vote totals are certified (under the state executive branch). This probably doesn't matter, as Biden will win in a landslide if current polling holds, especially since Trump seems to be doing his best to destroy his chances a months out. Wild guess from left field: Trump is trying to tank. He wants out. He's done with it. Hates the job, hates the pressure, hates the media attention. Just wants to piss off and be left alone to go make his nine figures off book, TV, and movie deals, build up his brand for his kids, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 8:41:26 GMT -5
Eliminate the Electoral College, go to ranked choice/instant runoff voting. Plurality problem solved. I'd even be fine if states just agreed to stop winner take all EC votes.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 7, 2020 8:48:17 GMT -5
Since the most likely tipping point states - in the off chance this election is actually close - are Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Both run by Democrat Governors - problem solved. Or - it's an even bigger problem. Both are Democratic governors with Republican legislatures (and NC as well). If the outcome is murky, legislatures could make a rule allowing them to just choose what electors are sent, regardless of what vote totals are certified (under the state executive branch). Right. I don't know where people get the idea that governors are the deciding factor here. It's clearly the legislatures who decide how electors are appointed.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 7, 2020 8:49:40 GMT -5
Eliminate the Electoral College, go to ranked choice/instant runoff voting. Plurality problem solved. I'd even be fine if states just agreed to stop winner take all EC votes. This would hurt the Democrats more right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 8:53:50 GMT -5
I'd even be fine if states just agreed to stop winner take all EC votes. This would hurt the Democrats more right now. How so?
Regardless, it's tough for me to believe that a government more representative of its voters is a bad thing.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 7, 2020 8:54:55 GMT -5
It will be seen as illegitimate. It doesn't matter how constitutional the college is or not, it's a backwards system that no other functioning Western democracy uses to elect the head of government. It's bad for democracy, prioritizing the interests of a few select counties over those of the whole country, and one that has resulted in minority rule in 2 of the last 5 elections. Almost 60% of Americans want to get rid of it. People will be very angry about it, even if it's all by the books. It is actually 4 of the last 7 elections where no one got 50%. And how do you handle candidates not getting on the ballot? What if Texas doesn't have a Democrat on the ballot - that would have a material impact on the overall national popular vote for which the EC would solve.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 7, 2020 8:57:00 GMT -5
It will be seen as illegitimate. It doesn't matter how constitutional the college is or not, it's a backwards system that no other functioning Western democracy uses to elect the head of government. It's bad for democracy, prioritizing the interests of a few select counties over those of the whole country, and one that has resulted in minority rule in 2 of the last 5 elections. Almost 60% of Americans want to get rid of it. People will be very angry about it, even if it's all by the books. It is actually 4 of the last 7 elections where no one got 50%. And how do you handle candidates not getting on the ballot? What if Texas doesn't have a Democrat on the ballot - that would have a material impact on the overall national popular vote for which the EC would solve. How do they handle it now? States have well-established rules about ballot access. When's the last time a major party candidate didn't make a state ballot somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Oct 7, 2020 8:59:28 GMT -5
It will be seen as illegitimate. It doesn't matter how constitutional the college is or not, it's a backwards system that no other functioning Western democracy uses to elect the head of government. It's bad for democracy, prioritizing the interests of a few select counties over those of the whole country, and one that has resulted in minority rule in 2 of the last 5 elections. Almost 60% of Americans want to get rid of it. People will be very angry about it, even if it's all by the books. It is actually 4 of the last 7 elections where no one got 50%. And how do you handle candidates not getting on the ballot? What if Texas doesn't have a Democrat on the ballot - that would have a material impact on the overall national popular vote for which the EC would solve. Ballot access is not a sufficient problem for keeping the EC. It's a complete nonissue for any competent and relatively popular political party.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 7, 2020 9:00:22 GMT -5
This would hurt the Democrats more right now. How so?
Regardless, it's tough for me to believe that a government more representative of its voters is a bad thing.
If all states awarded their EV's the same way as Nebraska and Maine - winner of each CD gets an EV and 2 EV's for the winner of the state - Trump's total EV would have been more than what he got. For the record - I am not saying we have to keep the EC. I am just saying that eliminating it potentially creates other problems that would need to be dealt with. The biggest problem - the National election of a President isn't done with a singular ballot. It is up to each state to create a ballot and allow or disallow whoever they want. I think to use the popular vote - we would have to Nationalize the election. Also - currently every voter in California is free to vote however they want. Much easier to vote 3rd party or not vote at all. The national vote if it was by popular vote would be different than what it is using the EC. So we cannot just easily say the national popular vote is how it would turn out.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 7, 2020 9:01:28 GMT -5
It is actually 4 of the last 7 elections where no one got 50%. And how do you handle candidates not getting on the ballot? What if Texas doesn't have a Democrat on the ballot - that would have a material impact on the overall national popular vote for which the EC would solve. How do they handle it now? States have well-established rules about ballot access. When's the last time a major party candidate didn't make a state ballot somewhere? Been a while - 1912.
|
|