Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 12:11:20 GMT -5
I would absolutely argue for each state to award its EVs according to its own statewide popular vote. That would be constitutional, today. It would be a rounded version of national popular vote.
For example, Minnesota has 10 EVs. They could award 1 EV to each 10% of statewide popular vote earned. That would've given Clinton and Trump 4 each, guaranteed, and then some reasonable, fair method could be used to award the remainder.
But I have no idea how he calculated the numbers above.
What’s the difference between that and just doing it by popular vote? You’re just making it less accurate because of rounding. The results are likely to be the same. As I said: constitutional today, vs needs a constitutional amendment.
Maybe (hopefully?) I'm wrong, and we will be able to have a constitutional amendment again one day, as opposed to another civil war. But I'm a pretty hard pessimist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 12:12:13 GMT -5
What are the rules of the EV? Simple, whoever has the most wins, and that's it?
Or do they have anything more complex than that? Like reallocating the fringe votes?
If someone gets a majority (270+) they win outright. If there's no majority, it goes to the house, where each state delegation votes for president out of the 3 candidates who did best (26 to win). Each senator votes individually for vice president out of the two candidates who did the best (51 to win). No tiebreakers, so in an even split in either chamber there would have to be some politicking to figure it out. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 8, 2020 12:12:17 GMT -5
I would absolutely argue for each state to award its EVs according to its own statewide popular vote. That would be constitutional, today. It would be a rounded version of national popular vote. For example, Minnesota has 10 EVs. They could award 1 EV to each 10% of statewide popular vote earned. That would've given Clinton and Trump 4 each, guaranteed, and then some reasonable, fair method could be used to award the remainder. But I have no idea how he calculated the numbers above.
What’s the difference between that and just doing it by popular vote? You’re just making it less accurate because of rounding. The results are likely to be the same. A few things might be different. There would be a matter of turnout. Two states with the same number of electors would still have the same impact even if turnout is 50% in one state and 65% in the other. Also - the number of electors is more or less based on the number of people counted at each census, where not all are eligible to vote or even choose to register.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 8, 2020 12:20:36 GMT -5
There are about 300 million people in the US. So if all votes count the same, your vote is only going to be one in 100s of millions. That's just reality.
Arguing that we need to make some people's vote more important so it will increase voter turnout is a zero-sum game -- it will make somebody else's vote less important. Why should the favored one have their vote be more important? Why is their opinion more important?
But in a fair system, "voter turnout" is a fine way for people to say "I don't care who wins". If you don't care, don't vote. If you do care, vote.
The dark side to all this, however, is vote suppression. That makes some people's votes count more because other people aren't being allowed to vote. It is stealing the government from some of the people and giving it to some other of the people.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Oct 8, 2020 12:42:23 GMT -5
There are about 300 million people in the US. So if all votes count the same, your vote is only going to be one in 100s of millions. That's just reality. Arguing that we need to make some people's vote more important so it will increase voter turnout is a zero-sum game -- it will make somebody else's vote less important. Why should the favored one have their vote be more important? Why is their opinion more important? But in a fair system, "voter turnout" is a fine way for people to say "I don't care who wins". If you don't care, don't vote. If you do care, vote. The dark side to all this, however, is vote suppression. That makes some people's votes count more because other people aren't being allowed to vote. It is stealing the government from some of the people and giving it to some other of the people. More horse manure.
|
|
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: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2020 13:26:53 GMT -5
Nobody is arguing for this. Unless you're doing your thing where you game it all out because it amuses you. In that case, proceed. I would absolutely argue for each state to award its EVs according to its own statewide popular vote. That would be constitutional, today. It would be a rounded version of national popular vote.
For example, Minnesota has 10 EVs. They could award 1 EV to each 10% of statewide popular vote earned. That would've given Clinton and Trump 4 each, guaranteed, and then some reasonable, fair method could be used to award the remainder.
But I have no idea how he calculated the numbers above.
I took the vote % for each candidate and multiplied by the # of EVs. I would then round and make sure the total equals the State's EV. For Minnesota it would look like this before rounding: Clinton - 4.64 Trump - 4.49 Johnson - 0.38 McMullin - 0.18 Stein - 0.13 Others - 0.17 Clinton would round up to 5. Then we would have to calc where the last EV goes. Trump at 0.49 is more than Johnson at 0.38 - so that last one would go to Trump so he and Clinton end up with 5.
|
|
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: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2020 13:28:08 GMT -5
There are about 300 million people in the US. So if all votes count the same, your vote is only going to be one in 100s of millions. That's just reality. Arguing that we need to make some people's vote more important so it will increase voter turnout is a zero-sum game -- it will make somebody else's vote less important. Why should the favored one have their vote be more important? Why is their opinion more important? But in a fair system, "voter turnout" is a fine way for people to say "I don't care who wins". If you don't care, don't vote. If you do care, vote. The dark side to all this, however, is vote suppression. That makes some people's votes count more because other people aren't being allowed to vote. It is stealing the government from some of the people and giving it to some other of the people. Is it voter suppression if I decide the cost of voting (mostly time) is more than the value of my vote (which is pretty close to zero)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 13:30:42 GMT -5
It is if that cost of voting is intentional.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Oct 8, 2020 13:34:20 GMT -5
There are about 300 million people in the US. So if all votes count the same, your vote is only going to be one in 100s of millions. That's just reality. Arguing that we need to make some people's vote more important so it will increase voter turnout is a zero-sum game -- it will make somebody else's vote less important. Why should the favored one have their vote be more important? Why is their opinion more important? But in a fair system, "voter turnout" is a fine way for people to say "I don't care who wins". If you don't care, don't vote. If you do care, vote. The dark side to all this, however, is vote suppression. That makes some people's votes count more because other people aren't being allowed to vote. It is stealing the government from some of the people and giving it to some other of the people. Is it voter suppression if I decide the cost of voting (mostly time) is more than the value of my vote (which is pretty close to zero)? Have you even tried to understand the voter suppression issue? Because this post makes it clear you haven’t.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 8, 2020 14:05:34 GMT -5
It is if that cost of voting is intentional. Exactly. If somebody artificially raises the cost to you until it exceeds your self-perceived value of voting, they are suppressing your vote.
|
|
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: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2020 14:14:41 GMT -5
Ah - I don't know how it is possible for the cost to be less than the 'gain' from voting. But then, how one values voting can be dramatically different depending on the person. Are you sure you aren't overvaluing the personal gain of voting for many people?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 14:17:18 GMT -5
It is if that cost of voting is intentional. And maybe targeted towards a specific group. But even this could be considered moot if one accepts that conventional wisdom that higher turnout favors Dems.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Oct 8, 2020 14:21:52 GMT -5
Ah - I don't know how it is possible for the cost to be less than the 'gain' from voting. But then, how one values voting can be dramatically different depending on the person. Are you sure you aren't overvaluing the personal gain of voting for many people? No. Voting is the only way most people are heard in democracy. It's the most valuable thing the average American can do to affect how government works. Just because you don't feel your vote matters doesn't mean most people think that. Either way, it's besides the point. This order in Texas, and most of the orders restricting voting across the US are put in place to solve a "problem" that doesn't exist. It's raising the cost of voting with 0 gain as far as election integrity or security goes. The people making and opposing the laws both know this. Which leads back to the point, why make it more difficult to vote with no benefit to security? Because it will affect the vote of the least heard people in the country, and Greg Abbott doesn't want those people to have a say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 14:26:24 GMT -5
Ah - I don't know how it is possible for the cost to be less than the 'gain' from voting. But then, how one values voting can be dramatically different depending on the person. Are you sure you aren't overvaluing the personal gain of voting for many people? This makes no sense. Maybe it's my fault. But you already proposed a scenario where YOUR cost would exceed the gain. Doesn't that mean you have a point where it wouldn't? Or is your cost always going to exceed your gain? That's a shame. But it does explain some things. I would think your apathy pretty much disqualifies most of your input here. If you don't care, fine. Some of us do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 14:32:50 GMT -5
I think the cost-benefit approach to talking about voters belies a certain cynicism about who votes and why they vote. I've been involved in get-out-the-vote efforts for the past few years, specifically registered Democrats. A very clear instruction that we receive is that given the choice between saying to a potential voter: 1. "Vote" or "Please Vote" OR 2. "Be a voter" or "Please be a voter" The 2nd option is the preferred exhortation. And this more so than working any issues into the conversation. I may presume too much, but I'm assuming that a well organized, well funded group telling me that it's more important to get to the point where I can say, "Be a voter" than it is to say "Be sure to vote so that such and such candidate can do such and such" says something to me about how people think about themselves in relation to the democratic process.
|
|