When Trump refuses to concede...

[mikegarrison]

Oct 7, 2020 9:47:53 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

Oct 7, 2020 9:22:46 GMT -5 @gophers4life said:

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.

There is no reason it wouldn't be legal.

I agree that it would be better to fix the Constitution, but this is another place where I think first we might have to change the status quo before people would be willing to make the Constitutional correction.

[bluepenquin]

Oct 7, 2020 9:48:44 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

Oct 7, 2020 7:22:54 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

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.

If the 2016 election was based on popular vote - we wouldn't know what the outcome would have been.  Candidates would have campaigned in California and New York instead of Florida and Ohio.  People would have voted differently.  It would be like saying a team winning a volleyball match while being outscored was illegitimate.  If the outcome was determined by the overall points (and not 3 out of 5 sets) - the teams would have played differently and the overall points might have been different.  

[Deleted]

Candidates would have campaigned in California and New York instead of Florida and Ohio.

Just like Hillary didn't need to campaign in Wisconsin, right? I know that's not the same point, but it is also the same thing.

You need to win everywhere, not just in CA and NY. I'm sick of that silly, absurd, false argument.

[bluepenquin]

It is very possible that Clinton wins by more if it was based on popular vote. It is possible that 500K more people vote in California or New York. But we don't know.

We don't know if 3M of the Johnson votes wouldn't have gone for Trump. We don't know if the 730K votes for McMullin wouldn't have gone for Trump. We also don't know if 500K people in California just decided not to bother voting who may have voted for Trump.

We don't know what the popular vote would have looked like if the election was based on the popular vote instead of EV.

[BearClause]

Oct 7, 2020 6:54:32 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Oct 6, 2020 20:22:49 GMT -5 BearClause said:

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.

The Republicans still control the state legislatures in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Governor of PA is asking for a fix, but the legislature isn't going to budge now even though they know the rules should be cleaned up. No other state invalidates "naked ballots". Their election law doesn't require signature verification, but it does allow for invalidation if there's no signature. There's no way to "cure" a ballot with an issue. There are a whole lot of things that can be fixed - even at this late point. They're not going to do it though.

[Deleted]

Why shouldn't they be campaigning in California and New York? This is a bad argument. They should be trying to get as many votes as they can, rather than just writing off states.

[Deleted]

Heck, maybe people like Trump would care more about "Blue" states if he knew he needed as many votes as he could get there.

[BearClause]

Oct 7, 2020 10:42:12 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Oct 7, 2020 9:48:44 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

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.

If the 2016 election was based on popular vote - we wouldn't know what the outcome would have been.  Candidates would have campaigned in California and New York instead of Florida and Ohio.  People would have voted differently.  It would be like saying a team winning a volleyball match while being outscored was illegitimate.  If the outcome was determined by the overall points (and not 3 out of 5 sets) - the teams would have played differently and the overall points might have been different.  

First thing is that Florida has a larger population than New York. Second is that with a popular vote there might be more campaigning about specific issues that would appeal to similar voters in different states. Maybe more national ad buys and more targeted local ad buys for specific areas.

The EC does tend to depress voter turnout though.

There's another possibility.  What about ranked choice voting?  Maine is using it for the first time in a Presidential election.  That would have made things really interesting in 2016 with so many votes going for minor candidates, but a plurality still winning an entire state's electors.

[bluepenquin]

Oct 7, 2020 11:02:00 GMT -5 @ruffda said:

Why shouldn't they be campaigning in California and New York? This is a bad argument. They should be trying to get as many votes as they can, rather than just writing off states.

They actually do - that is where the money is at.

D's and R's optimize where they campaign.  I am not saying this a good thing - I am saying that because of the EC system, we don't necessarily know what the popular vote would have been.

28% of the vote in Utah went to a 3rd party candidates in 2016.  Do they do this if it was based on a national popular vote?  Just 4% of the vote in Florida and Pennsylvania went to 3rd party candidates.  The national average was 6%.  People's voting patterns change when working with EV vs. Popular vote.

[bluepenquin]

Oct 7, 2020 11:05:20 GMT -5 BearClause said:

Oct 7, 2020 10:42:12 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

If the 2016 election was based on popular vote - we wouldn't know what the outcome would have been.  Candidates would have campaigned in California and New York instead of Florida and Ohio.  People would have voted differently.  It would be like saying a team winning a volleyball match while being outscored was illegitimate.  If the outcome was determined by the overall points (and not 3 out of 5 sets) - the teams would have played differently and the overall points might have been different.  

First thing is that Florida has a larger population than New York. Second is that with a popular vote there might be more campaigning about specific issues that would appeal to similar voters in different states. Maybe more national ad buys and more targeted local ad buys for specific areas.

The EC does tend to depress voter turnout though.

There's another possibility.  What about ranked choice voting?  Maine is using it for the first time in a Presidential election.  That would have made things really interesting in 2016 with so many votes going for minor candidates, but a plurality still winning an entire state's electors.

FL has a slightly higher population than NY.  They have the same # of electoral votes.  However, the % of eligible voters voting in FL is significantly more than NY - because of the EC.  Florida had more than 2M votes than NY.

Ranked voting could be a better option - there may be a dozen better options than EV.  But this still doesn't get us past trying to know what an outcome would have been if the rules were different.

[mikegarrison]

I will say it again. The very concept of democracy, and supposedly the foundation of our government, is that the government represents the will of the people. And the will is determined by voting. The majority is supposed to win.

Any structure that gets in the way of the majority winning delegitimizes the democratic nature of the government.

We do have some rules that are intentionally undemocratic -- rules that prohibit a majority from voting away basic rights of a minority. But there is pretty broad consensus that these rules are for the common good.

There is *not* a broad consensus that it is good that a small handful of "swing states" determines the outcome of our Presidential elections. In fact, there is pretty much a consensus that this is not good, except for the small fraction of people who live in those "swing states".

Not just in the US but all around the world -- when the majority of people in a country are under the power of a government they voted against, that's a fundamental problem for the legitimacy of that government.

[bluepenquin]

Oct 7, 2020 11:28:15 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

I will say it again. The very concept of democracy, and supposedly the foundation of our government, is that the government represents the will of the people. And the will is determined by voting. The majority is supposed to win.

Any structure that gets in the way of the majority winning delegitimizes the democratic nature of the government.

We do have some rules that are intentionally undemocratic -- rules that prohibit a majority from voting away basic rights of a minority. But there is pretty broad consensus that these rules are for the common good.

There is *not* a broad consensus that it is good that a small handful of "swing states" determines the outcome of our Presidential elections. In fact, there is pretty much a consensus that this is not good, except for the small fraction of people who live in those "swing states".

Not just in the US but all around the world -- when the majority of people in a country are under the power of a government they voted against, that's a fundamental problem for the legitimacy of that government.

Was this a problem from 1992-2004 - or just from 2000-2004?

[mikegarrison]

Oct 7, 2020 11:46:55 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Oct 7, 2020 11:28:15 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

I will say it again. The very concept of democracy, and supposedly the foundation of our government, is that the government represents the will of the people. And the will is determined by voting. The majority is supposed to win.

Any structure that gets in the way of the majority winning delegitimizes the democratic nature of the government.

We do have some rules that are intentionally undemocratic -- rules that prohibit a majority from voting away basic rights of a minority. But there is pretty broad consensus that these rules are for the common good.

There is *not* a broad consensus that it is good that a small handful of "swing states" determines the outcome of our Presidential elections. In fact, there is pretty much a consensus that this is not good, except for the small fraction of people who live in those "swing states".

Not just in the US but all around the world -- when the majority of people in a country are under the power of a government they voted against, that's a fundamental problem for the legitimacy of that government.

Was this a problem from 1992-2004 - or just from 2000-2004?

Yes, pluralities are a problem. That's why we have voting systems designed to try to eliminate them. Primaries, instant-runoff, etc. etc.

But Trump didn't even win the plurality. Bush didn't even win the plurality (in 2000). That's even worse than winning by plurality.

[Deleted]

It's always been a potential problem. But it has become more and more of a problem in the last 20 years. The closer the races have become, the more it becomes an issue.

It is absolutely not right that a POTUS governs based on which states he needs to win AND just ignores (at best) states he cannot.

[cindra]

Oct 7, 2020 11:46:55 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Oct 7, 2020 11:28:15 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

I will say it again. The very concept of democracy, and supposedly the foundation of our government, is that the government represents the will of the people. And the will is determined by voting. The majority is supposed to win.

Any structure that gets in the way of the majority winning delegitimizes the democratic nature of the government.

We do have some rules that are intentionally undemocratic -- rules that prohibit a majority from voting away basic rights of a minority. But there is pretty broad consensus that these rules are for the common good.

There is *not* a broad consensus that it is good that a small handful of "swing states" determines the outcome of our Presidential elections. In fact, there is pretty much a consensus that this is not good, except for the small fraction of people who live in those "swing states".

Not just in the US but all around the world -- when the majority of people in a country are under the power of a government they voted against, that's a fundamental problem for the legitimacy of that government.

Was this a problem from 1992-2004 - or just from 2000-2004?

Reform of the EC has been a topic in politics since at least the 60s. A proposed amendment passed the house and had the votes to pass in the senate with Nixon's endorsement, as well as 30 of the needed 38 states on board. It got filibustered and never made it out of the senate. Jimmy Carter proposed an amendment during his tenure.

Polling shows that a majority want the EC abolished since polls started asking the question.

Opposition to it didn't come about because of 2000 or 2016. It came around because it's a monumentally stupid system that has not infrequently subverted the will of the people. Again, there's a reason no other functioning democracy elects their executive this way. The focus is on it now because 2 of the last 5 presidents haven't won the popular vote, but it's always been a problem.