|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 7, 2020 9:02:56 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. Ballot access is not a sufficient problem for keeping the EC. It's a complete nonissue for any competent and relatively popular political party. The American Green Party, which is neither competent nor relatively popular, managed to get on the ballot in 30 states this year and 44 states in 2016. |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,237 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 7, 2020 9:03:56 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. Ballot access is not a sufficient problem for keeping the EC. It's a complete nonissue for any competent and relatively popular political party. Putting Nader on the ballot for some states, but not others is a big deal. Putting McMullin on some states and not others is a *deal*. Having states decide ballot access for a National election (if we go to popular vote) is a no go. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 7, 2020 9:04:50 GMT -5
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. Eliminating the electoral college doesn't mean awarding electoral votes by congressional district, it means making the popular vote winner the winner. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 7, 2020 9:06:05 GMT -5
Ballot access is not a sufficient problem for keeping the EC. It's a complete nonissue for any competent and relatively popular political party. Putting Nader on the ballot for some states, but not others is a big deal. Putting McMullin on some states and not others is a *deal*. Having states decide ballot access for a National election (if we go to popular vote) is a no go. Why? It has far less an impact than if they're getting on the ballot in tipping point swing states under the EC. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 9:17:24 GMT -5
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. But I didn't say "do it like Nebraska and Maine". I'm talking about every state having to award its EV's exactly proportional to its state vote. Obviously with some rounding. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 9:19:52 GMT -5
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. Eliminating the electoral college doesn't mean awarding electoral votes by congressional district, it means making the popular vote winner the winner. I brought up proportional awarding of EV's. I think you're talking about the NPVIC. |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,237
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 7, 2020 9:21:06 GMT -5
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. Eliminating the electoral college doesn't mean awarding electoral votes by congressional district, it means making the popular vote winner the winner. Yes - but I was responding to the idea of 'stop rewarding winner take all' by state. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 7, 2020 9:21:15 GMT -5
Eliminating the electoral college doesn't mean awarding electoral votes by congressional district, it means making the popular vote winner the winner. I brought up proportional awarding of EV's. I think you're talking about the NPVIC. No, I'm talking about eliminating the Electoral College entirely and having a popular vote to determine the winner. The NPVIC still involved the EC. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 9:22:46 GMT -5
I brought up proportional awarding of EV's. I think you're talking about the NPVIC. No, I'm talking about eliminating the Electoral College entirely and having a popular vote to determine the winner. The NPVIC still involved the EC. Functionally they're equivalent, and the NPVIC doesn't require a constitutional convention. |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,237
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 7, 2020 9:31:26 GMT -5
Putting Nader on the ballot for some states, but not others is a big deal. Putting McMullin on some states and not others is a *deal*. Having states decide ballot access for a National election (if we go to popular vote) is a no go. Why? It has far less an impact than if they're getting on the ballot in tipping point swing states under the EC. True. I still get back to - we would need a National ballot for overall popular vote. At least with the states - usually one that doesn't get on a ballot is because there is really no support. However, for 2016 - Trump wins Wisconsin because McMullin is not on the ballot. Or Clinton wins Minnesota because McMullin is on the ballot. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 7, 2020 9:47:53 GMT -5
No, I'm talking about eliminating the Electoral College entirely and having a popular vote to determine the winner. The NPVIC still involved the EC. Functionally they're equivalent, and the NPVIC doesn't require a constitutional convention. Nobody knows if the NPVIC is legal. The effort going into passing it would be better spent getting states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 7, 2020 9:48:44 GMT -5
There was nothing illegitimate about Trump's 2016 win. Sure there was. There was nothing unconstitutional about it, as far as I know, but in a democracy the popular vote is supposed to matter. Losing it delegitimizes an elected official. Consider the whole Garland thing. McConnell and the GOP kept saying that "the American people deserve the right to decide who picks their next SCOTUS justice". But who did "the American people" select for President? They selected Clinton, by a 3 million vote majority. Who got to select the next justice? Trump. It was not "the American people" who got their say, it was the Electoral College. You may be happy that it'a all Constitutional, but I'm very unhappy that the whole thing was decided by a Senate that is unfairly apportioned and an Electoral College that is unfairly apportioned. |
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Oct 7, 2020 9:54:48 GMT -5
Functionally they're equivalent, and the NPVIC doesn't require a constitutional convention. Nobody knows if the NPVIC is legal. The effort going into passing it would be better spent getting states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. IANAL but doesn't the Chiafalo v. Washington case this year do a lot of work in allowing it? 8-1-0 decision holding that states have pretty broad latitude as far as deciding who electors vote for as long as there's legislation saying as much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 9:57:16 GMT -5
Functionally they're equivalent, and the NPVIC doesn't require a constitutional convention. Nobody knows if the NPVIC is legal. The effort going into passing it would be better spent getting states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. Of course it's legal. States can choose any arbitrary manner they please, to assign their EV's, according to the founders.
But that of course won't stop a lawsuit against it from reaching the SCOTUS, who will then have leeway to interpret the vague language of the constitution in any way they see fit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 9:59:59 GMT -5
Why? It has far less an impact than if they're getting on the ballot in tipping point swing states under the EC. True. I still get back to - we would need a National ballot for overall popular vote. At least with the states - usually one that doesn't get on a ballot is because there is really no support. However, for 2016 - Trump wins Wisconsin because McMullin is not on the ballot. Or Clinton wins Minnesota because McMullin is on the ballot.Bolded: I understand why you make that guess, but I suspect you're wrong. Just a gut feeling, no need for me to justify it more than that.
And of course if state's award EV's exactly proportional to their state vote, McMullin wouldn't get an EV in either state and they both would split their EV's 5 and 5.
|
|
