US Election Question

[Silent Mistwalker]

Just now, Seicher Rae said:

/me looks sheepish about calling upon George Washington to make a point?

Washington was an active slave owner for 56 years.

 

https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-washington-slavery/

Edited November 6, 2020 by Silent Mistwalker

[Seicher Rae]

8 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

If there were no electoral college nobody would even be wondering who won this election.

Well, technically, I think we would because we're still having the problem of counting all of those paper ballots. But basically, yup.

[Seicher Rae]

2 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Washington was an active slave owner for 56 years.

 

https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-washington-slavery/

Which is why I said what I did in my reply to Rowan, that I was sheepish.

I'm actually fairly well read on American History.

Regardless of the slave ownership, Washington was very much against the two party system. His fears have been born out.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Seicher Rae

[Lyssa Greymoon]

Making a vote from someone in Montana worth three times what a vote from someone in California is worth sounds like a great bulwark against tyranny. It's a shame lower population states can't count 3/5s of their slaves towards their electoral representation anymore. That would be totally freedomy!

[Rowan Amore]

What they wanted was for the actual vote to be in the hands of 'educated white male landowners' because they didn't think the regular people were wise enough to choose.  This may have been the case back then but no longer.  

[Seicher Rae]

2 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

What they wanted was for the actual vote to be in the hands of 'educated white male landowners' because they didn't think the regular people were wise enough to choose.  This may have been the case back then but no longer.  

Well, they... in today's Trumpism (not conservatism) still think and want this. Sadly I am not quipping. Nor am I being hyperbolic.

[Paul Hexem]

13 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

Pesky fact: White males, straight or otherwise, only make up 31% of the American population.

Also fact: There are people alive today that can clearly remember a time when that 31% was the absolute voting majority.

Majority rule has serious scalability problems. It wouldn't be 31% vs 69%, it'd be 31% vs 7% vs 5% vs 15% vs 10% and so on (I don't know the actual numbers off hand). 

[Rowan Amore]

10 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Also fact: There are people alive today that can clearly remember a time when that 31% was the absolute voting majority.

Majority rule has serious scalability problems. It wouldn't be 31% vs 69%, it'd be 31% vs 7% vs 5% vs 15% vs 10% and so on (I don't know the actual numbers off hand). 

Unless we all ganged up on you.  😁🤔

[Theresa Tennyson]

8 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Also fact: There are people alive today that can clearly remember a time when that 31% was the absolute voting majority.

I'm sure there are; memories are funny things. As far as what a majority actually is:

https://www.dictionary.com/e/majority-vs-plurality/

[Qie Niangao]

The main problem with the electoral college is the (mostly) winner-take-all awarding of electors within a state. Hence, it's not who it elects, but how.

The majority of Americans are completely ignored in the presidential general election. No sensible Democratic candidate cares how big their margins are in bright blue New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc because they're sure to win all those electoral votes regardless. Same with Republican candidates in bright red Mississippi, Utah, Idaho, Kansas... they simply can't lose those states, no matter their positions affecting the residents of those states.

And red or blue, candidates who are sure to lose those states are equally sure to ignore their issues.

So that's bad. What's worse, though, is the disproportionate attention the candidates do pay to those in the "purple" swing states. This delivers market-distorting subsidies and pork to swing states because, really, they're the only ones that matter, to the whopping detriment of the US GDP.

The electoral college is the exact opposite of representing states' interests, except those few states that swing between parties each election.

[Paul Hexem]

5 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I'm sure there are; memories are funny things. As far as what a majority actually is:

https://www.dictionary.com/e/majority-vs-plurality/

Technically you're right.

Minorities were also technically allowed to vote in 1871.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Paul Hexem

[Theresa Tennyson]

20 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

What they wanted was for the actual vote to be in the hands of 'educated white male landowners' because they didn't think the regular people were wise enough to choose.  This may have been the case back then but no longer.  

I'd say that the idea of any sort of popular voting at all was restricted to the woo-woo corner at the Constitutional Convention. The big alternative to the Electoral College was one state, one vote (which is how it was under the Articles of Confederation.

[Luna Bliss]

Come on Philly...a few more votes and he'll be gone!  Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes @ItHadToComeToThis

Gone Gone Gone!

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

 

Ah yes. Because majority (mob) rule always works so well. People are clearly always rational, critical thinkers that we can trust to make the right decisions.

As a straight white male, I support your initiative. Majority rule from now on. We'll fix this country!

http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/women-outnumber-men-all-nine-states

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

The main problem with the electoral college is the (mostly) winner-take-all awarding of electors within a state. Hence, it's not who it elects, but how.

This is why I like how Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors.

 

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

The majority of Americans are completely ignored in the presidential general election. No sensible Democratic candidate cares how big their margins are in bright blue New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc because they're sure to win all those electoral votes regardless. Same with Republican candidates in bright red Mississippi, Utah, Idaho, Kansas... they simply can't lose those states, no matter their positions affecting the residents of those states.

And red or blue, candidates who are sure to lose those states are equally sure to ignore their issues.

No matter what system we use, both candidates will still mostly ignore states that are solid blue or solid red -- except during the Primaries.  Why bother campaigning in a state that you already are mostly assured of winning or losing?  

It is the purple states that matter to the candidates and they will always be the ones to get the majority of the campaigning.

 

[Maryanne Solo]

It's a vewy weird political cistern in America isn't it? ->🚽🤔

[Maitimo]

4 hours ago, RowanMinx said:

What they wanted was for the actual vote to be in the hands of 'educated white male landowners' because they didn't think the regular people were wise enough to choose.  This may have been the case back then but no longer.  

Brexit suggests otherwise... 

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

No matter what system we use, both candidates will still mostly ignore states that are solid blue or solid red -- except during the Primaries.  Why bother campaigning in a state that you already are mostly assured of winning or losing?  

It is the purple states that matter to the candidates and they will always be the ones to get the majority of the campaigning.

If there were no electoral college, though, nobody would care about "purple states", but rather "purple voters", the convincible, undecided voter regardless of geography. 

There's certainly some geographic convenience for campaigning. Purple media markets.

Not seeing why selection of the chief exec should be affected at all by state boundaries, when states are the very basis of representation in both legislative houses.

(Admittedly, even with the Electoral College, state geography isn't everything in presidential politics. Jim Clyburn is from bright red South Carolina, and nonetheless he's earned Biden's ear.)

[Lyssa Greymoon]

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com

[Rowan Amore]

Just speaking for myself, I couldn't care less if the campaigned in my state.  All the end up doing is snarling traffic and creating mayhem for anyone living near where they're going to be.  The same goes for all the rubbish I get in the mail.  None of it would sway my vote.  I vote for  the candidate, not the guy who shows up in my state the most or has the prettiest mailers.  I really don't know anyone personally who cares one way or the other if they show up.

[Paul Hexem]

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/women-outnumber-men-all-nine-states

Yeah, and look how long it took for their votes to count!

"Majority" doesn't always actually mean "majority", is all I'm saying. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

14 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

No matter what system we use, both candidates will still mostly ignore states that are solid blue or solid red -- except during the Primaries.  Why bother campaigning in a state that you already are mostly assured of winning or losing?  

It is the purple states that matter to the candidates and they will always be the ones to get the majority of the campaigning.

90% of the TV ad budget for this election was spent in six states: Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Arizona. Those states accounted for only 22% of the nation's voters.

The all-or-nothing EC system makes it pointless to campaign in states you can't win. For Republicans, that takes California's 16 million voters (10% of the nation's total) off the table, as they favored Biden nearly 2:1 over Trump. There's not enough money to convince or buy your way to victory there. Democrats don't bother either, they've got a lock on victory.

In a straight up national vote, California becomes attractive again. It's got 10% of the voters and you could imagine each party spending 10% of their ad budgets there. That might not quite be the case, as advertising/campaign efficiencies will factor into the calculus.

 

Edited November 7, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters

[Mollymews]

5 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

This is why I like how Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors.

yes agree

the state-winner-take-all electors method is unfair.  Proportional shares is more representative and makes every voter in every state a matter of interest to the candidates

and it aligns more closely to the overall national vote than does winner-take-all

with a proportional share then it makes 3rd parties more viable. Like if there say was a 5% minimum of the state-wide vote to gain at least 1 elector then is quite possible for a 3rd party to compete and gain some electors. And those electors could hold the balance in deciding who the next President would be.  A balance that can be traded to advance policy of interest to the 3rd party(s)

[Ceka Cianci]

Lets just settle things in a much simpler way..

Something like this, but with party vs party rather than men vs women..hehehe

 

[Gage Wirefly]

National popular vote sounds good, but in reality you would have the 4 or 5 most populous states deciding every election with no voice given to less populous states, which is hardly fair. The framers of the EC knew what they were doing. It's not perfect but it mostly works.