Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 05-30-2019, 12:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I don't think there's a whole lot of people who identify first with their state, and second as being an American. And to the extent they are, there's probably an awful lot of overlap with sovereign citizens and neo-confederates.
You're probably wrong. Plenty of people think of themselves as Buckeyes or Hoosiers without being into fringe politics.
  #352  
Old 05-30-2019, 01:16 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
The Constitution, you know, pretty much everything in Article II as originally written that talks about, you know, electing the President of the nation.

Which, by the way, is just as "democratic" as the suggestion you are making. Unless, of course, you wish to argue for true democracy, and are happy to let the consolidated vote of the nation control such things as environmental laws...
An absurd pair of logical fallacies here.

1. The Constitution is not infallible and a healthy democracy debates systemic change.

2. An appeal for popular election of the presidency, the one truly national office we have, is not a suggestion that all matters of governance be decided by a popular vote.

Btw, to whomever this applies -- a popular vote does not equal a "popularity contest."
  #353  
Old 05-30-2019, 02:08 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) has vetoed the bill, openly stating he joins the GOP in putting state before country. Five Thirty Eight notes that momentum is building anyway.
  #354  
Old 05-30-2019, 02:34 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,302
I identify as being an Ohioan, sure (and as a Cuyahogan and as a Clevelander and as a West-Sider and a bunch of other things). But I don't identify as being an Ohioan before being an American.
  #355  
Old 05-30-2019, 02:41 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You're probably wrong. Plenty of people think of themselves as Buckeyes or Hoosiers without being into fringe politics.
That isn't the issue. I think of myself as a 49ers fan, but not a 49ers fan first and an American second. I don't think many people think of themselves as a Hoosier first and an American second.
  #356  
Old 05-30-2019, 02:46 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And we all know what "states' rights" has been a euphemism for, over the last two and a half centuries ...

But, for some reason, that doesn't irritate me as much as the posts in EC threads patiently telling us how the EC works, or the flippant statement "This is a republic, not a democracy!" Yeah, guys, we're discussing what should be and how to get there, not what is, 'kay? If you want to denigrate democracy, as is required to support retaining the EC, please do so directly and openly.
Plus, the same folks who buy into that dogma don't seem to realize that we have already changed the methods of presidential succession, elections for the Senate, and several other things from the original intent of the Constitution without having the nation fall apart. And yet, they trot out the neologism that we can't change the vote for President because we're a republic, and we can't stand for not being a republic, so we can't change the vote for President, etc. as though it means something.
  #357  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:37 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Plus, the same folks who buy into that dogma don't seem to realize that we have already changed the methods of presidential succession, elections for the Senate, and several other things from the original intent of the Constitution without having the nation fall apart. And yet, they trot out the neologism that we can't change the vote for President because we're a republic, and we can't stand for not being a republic, so we can't change the vote for President, etc. as though it means something.
Next thing you tell me, a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive!
  #358  
Old 05-30-2019, 04:05 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I identify as being an Ohioan, sure (and as a Cuyahogan and as a Clevelander and as a West-Sider and a bunch of other things). But I don't identify as being an Ohioan before being an American.
When we hosted a (wonderful) Colombian kid a few years ago he once asked us why the term "American" is used (in this country) for citizens of only the United States. I've wondered that, myself, and the only answer I've ever come up with is that the term "United States" doesn't lend itself well to an adjectival form (although it works fine for Spanish speakers. I believe the term that they use for citizens of the United States is estadounidense)
  #359  
Old 05-30-2019, 06:09 PM
KMS94 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Maine
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
When we hosted a (wonderful) Colombian kid a few years ago he once asked us why the term "American" is used (in this country) for citizens of only the United States. I've wondered that, myself, and the only answer I've ever come up with is that the term "United States" doesn't lend itself well to an adjectival form (although it works fine for Spanish speakers. I believe the term that they use for citizens of the United States is estadounidense)
United States of America = American
  #360  
Old 05-30-2019, 06:35 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMS94 View Post
United States of America = American
Okay. But hopefully you can understand the kid's question as someone who comes from South America.
  #361  
Old 05-30-2019, 09:36 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
An absurd pair of logical fallacies here.

1. The Constitution is not infallible and a healthy democracy debates systemic change.
Where did I say anything of the sort? Please note the specific exchange of comments that you're weighing in on. A citation was made to "We the People" as being somehow dispositive of the issue of what should be done wrt the Electoral College and the NPVIC. My point is simply that "We the People" being the body from which the Constitution is derived doesn't answer that, because those self-same People promptly devolved the power to select the President to the states in that Constitution. So while there might be good arguments for the NPVIC, simply saying that "We the People" who are mentioned in the Preamble are somehow empowered by it isn't enough.

Quote:
2. An appeal for popular election of the presidency, the one truly national office we have, is not a suggestion that all matters of governance be decided by a popular vote.

Btw, to whomever this applies -- a popular vote does not equal a "popularity contest."
No, but an appeal that we should implement the NPVIC simply because it is somehow more "democratic" implies that "democratic" processes in and of themselves are somehow inherently superior to non-"democratic" processes. And I was simply pointing out that, if we define a process as being more "democratic" simply because it involves totting up the total number of votes for each side of a specific contest and letting the majority/plurality decide the result, then shouldn't we be trying to accomplish that in all aspects of our governmental systems?

There are plenty of perfectly valid arguments in favor of changing the system of selecting Presidents to something more in line with the NPVIC. They just are more complex than, "it's more democratic and empowers "We the People!"
  #362  
Old 05-30-2019, 10:46 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I don't think there's a whole lot of people who identify first with their state, and second as being an American. ...
Lots of Texans seem to (although I can't find a poll for a statistical value of "lots" at the moment - on my phone)

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-30-2019 at 10:46 PM.
  #363  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:17 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
No, but an appeal that we should implement the NPVIC simply because it is somehow more "democratic" implies that "democratic" processes in and of themselves are somehow inherently superior to non-"democratic" processes.
As already stated, if you wish to denigrate democracy, please do so directly and openly.

Quote:
There are plenty of perfectly valid arguments in favor of changing the system of selecting Presidents to something more in line with the NPVIC. They just are more complex than, "it's more democratic and empowers "We the People!"
But that is the heart of it, the idea that the people should control the government. Perhaps you simply disagree, for reasons the rest of us are left to infer in the absence of an actual explanation. As an addendum, if you want to poke fun at the Constitution too, you certainly may, but that doesn't really help you.

Oh well, as Lincoln said, "Government of the dirt, by the dirt, and for the dirt". Guess we're stuck with it forever, huh?
  #364  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:35 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
As already stated, if you wish to denigrate democracy, please do so directly and openly.

But that is the heart of it, the idea that the people should control the government. Perhaps you simply disagree, for reasons the rest of us are left to infer in the absence of an actual explanation. As an addendum, if you want to poke fun at the Constitution too, you certainly may, but that doesn't really help you.

Oh well, as Lincoln said, "Government of the dirt, by the dirt, and for the dirt". Guess we're stuck with it forever, huh?
People do control the government. Until the people disagree with judicial fiat. Anyways, we have an amendment process so I’m not sure what the complaint is.
  #365  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:49 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMS94 View Post
United States of America = American
Yes; note that America is a subset of North America. (And I recall two instances where 'North America' was used in conversation with me to convey a grandiosity greater than a simple 'U.S.A.' or 'America.')

Last edited by septimus; 05-31-2019 at 11:50 AM.
  #366  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:21 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Oregon adds its 7 EV's. That's 196 now, with 270 needed. Gov. Kate Brown said, correctly, "I think it will encourage candidates to spend more time in states like ours, candidates who are running for president speaking directly to our voters," she added. "I think it will help encourage them to talk about issues that. ...Orgeonians care more about. And I think it's really important for Oregon to be part of the national conversation regarding the presidential election".

Maine may be next despite a promised veto.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 06-13-2019 at 12:21 PM.
  #367  
Old 06-16-2019, 04:10 PM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Oregon adds its 7 EV's. That's 196 now, with 270 needed. Gov. Kate Brown said, correctly, "I think it will encourage candidates to spend more time in states like ours, candidates who are running for president speaking directly to our voters," she added. "I think it will help encourage them to talk about issues that. ...Orgeonians care more about. And I think it's really important for Oregon to be part of the national conversation regarding the presidential election".

Maine may be next despite a promised veto.
Governor Brown is wrong. Oregon will be ignored even more than it currently is.
  #368  
Old 06-16-2019, 04:26 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,302
Why would it be ignored? The people there would be just as worth talking to as the people anywhere else. Anywhere a politician can fill a stadium, they'll have reason to go.
  #369  
Old 06-16-2019, 06:51 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Just looking at the graphic in the the 538 article that was posted up-thread, all states that support this compact are either reliably democratic, or usually lean that way. That would explain why it's not likely to become a thing anytime soon: it would need the support of swing states. I think it would be easier just to try to win those states, which leads to this question: if Democrats can flip states, would they need this legislation?

I'm as lefty as they come these days, but I think the Democrats who come up with this interstate popular vote shit just don't get it. Democrats need to stop concentrating in cities and start going out into the lion's den of Trump country and explain why they should siphon off some GOP support. If Democrats can win the governor's mansion in Kansas, then all is not lost. Enough of the Fox network boycott crap, too, while we're at it. I understand you're pissed at Sean Hannity, but who gives a crap about him: turn some of his viewers into voters.
  #370  
Old 06-16-2019, 08:06 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,302
You're making the same mistake that Republicans do, assuming that Democrats just support this because it would be mechanically advantageous to Democrats. People actually support it because it supports democracy and fairness.
  #371  
Old 06-16-2019, 08:31 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You're making the same mistake that Republicans do, assuming that Democrats just support this because it would be mechanically advantageous to Democrats. People actually support it because it supports democracy and fairness.
Bullshit.

If it was something about "democracy and fairness", you'd get support for it from both sides of the aisle, and you'd have gotten people pumping strong for it before the 2000 election. Not shockingly, the idea was formulated in 2001, after the Bush win, and pushed strongly starting in 2006, after Bush had won again.
  #372  
Old 06-16-2019, 09:00 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Bullshit.

If it was something about "democracy and fairness", you'd get support for it from both sides of the aisle.
That's a laugh. When was the last time Republicans were for democracy and fairness?
  #373  
Old 06-16-2019, 09:03 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You're making the same mistake that Republicans do, assuming that Democrats just support this because it would be mechanically advantageous to Democrats. People actually support it because it supports democracy and fairness.
Not really. I'm pointing out that Democrats, who are a demographically diverse coalition living in more heavily populated areas, view American democracy as one person, one vote, whereas people in less populated areas who tend to be more inclined to vote Republican have a different view. They like having representation skewed in their favor and don't really see the need to give it up. So what are you gonna do? Campaign harder to make them give up that representation...or maybe try to find ways to sell the party better?

What I'm talking about here addresses a lot of the other threads/issues that are active right now, including impeachment. Democrats are beyond pissed right now at Trump's America that they're allowing him to get away with high crimes and misdemeanors. They'd be less inclined to be so forgiving, and Republicans in the Senate would be less inclined to protect Trump, if only Democrats could figure out a way to make their message resonate with the rest of the country, instead of their base. Republicans control American politics because they view politics as war, and they are conquering not only the minds of individual voters, but they're conquering territory, politically speaking. Democrats are delusional, and doubling down on power they don't have. Seems pretty fucking stupid to me.

Last edited by asahi; 06-16-2019 at 09:06 PM.
  #374  
Old 06-16-2019, 09:17 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Bullshit.

If it was something about "democracy and fairness", you'd get support for it from both sides of the aisle, and you'd have gotten people pumping strong for it before the 2000 election. Not shockingly, the idea was formulated in 2001, after the Bush win, and pushed strongly starting in 2006, after Bush had won again.
But just because something has been adopted by partisans doesn’t make it suspect. For example, Dems have pushed climate change as an issue for years; and it IS an issue.

The interest in the popular vote of course would become more real because in 2000, the last winner of the White House but loser of the popular vote was more than a century in the past. It was often viewed as something so silly that it just would never happen — like evangelicals lining up to elect a guy who everyone knows cheats on his wife with porn stars.
  #375  
Old 06-17-2019, 05:30 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,359
In a close nation-wide election there's roughly a 1% chance that the popular vote margin will be less than 10,000. 2% for less than 20,000. (If the election is NOT close it probably won't matter much whether you have NPVIC or not.)

A swing of 20,000 votes or so can be achieved by tomfoolery (e.g. rigged voting machines or biased handling of mail-in votes) in just one state. Remember: Elections are not federally regulated. Imagine the 2000 Florida fiasco and multiply by fifty for the fifty states.

If NPVIC is passed, Presidential elections will no longer be decided by electors. They'll be decided by lawyers.
__________________
Some or all of the above statements may be intended as sarcastic.
.
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.

Last edited by septimus; 06-17-2019 at 05:31 AM. Reason: Forgot to add .sig
  #376  
Old 06-17-2019, 05:40 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
In a close nation-wide election there's roughly a 1% chance that the popular vote margin will be less than 10,000. 2% for less than 20,000. (If the election is NOT close it probably won't matter much whether you have NPVIC or not.)

A swing of 20,000 votes or so can be achieved by tomfoolery (e.g. rigged voting machines or biased handling of mail-in votes) in just one state. Remember: Elections are not federally regulated. Imagine the 2000 Florida fiasco and multiply by fifty for the fifty states.

If NPVIC is passed, Presidential elections will no longer be decided by electors. They'll be decided by lawyers.
Or the House of Representatives. Good post, btw.

In any case, it's foolish for us to believe that conservative-leaning states are going to go along with interstate popular vote pacts when that would likely reduce their state voting power. Worse, if you think efforts to suppress voting and expel immigrants are bad now, just wait until something like this starts becoming a thing. It's a waste of time; just start visiting Wisconsin and Michigan once in a while.
  #377  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:02 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Bullshit.

If it was something about "democracy and fairness", you'd get support for it from both sides of the aisle
In 2016, there was a concerted Russian attempt to influence our democracy, including (among other things) attempted intrusion to voter databases in 39 states. If attempts to stop this were about "democracy and fairness" (which, let's be clear, they absolutely are), you'd get support for it from both sides of the aisle, right?

Ha ha, as if. Not only did McConnell make it clear that he'd treat any attempt to bring up Russia's interference as partisan, he then blamed Obama for not speaking out about it. "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining" is one thing; this is McConnell pissing on my leg, then saying, "Should we let someone who wets their pants run the country?"

I have to wonder - did you think this through? Like, at all? If one party consistently benefits from attacks on our democracy, why the fuck would you expect bipartisan support for a spirited defense for our democracy? The republican party isn't against this because it's "not about democracy and fairness"; they're against it because they directly benefit from the attacks on our democracy, and are the direct source of many of them.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-17-2019 at 06:02 AM.
  #378  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:30 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Bullshit.

If it was something about "democracy and fairness", you'd get support for it from both sides of the aisle, and you'd have gotten people pumping strong for it before the 2000 election. Not shockingly, the idea was formulated in 2001, after the Bush win, and pushed strongly starting in 2006, after Bush had won again.
This is an astonishing assertion in the face of GOP legislators doing everything in their power to suppress minority votes across the country (North Carolina, come on down! Georgia, here's looking at you, kid!). When Republicans start to even be willing to discuss Rep. Don Beyer's Fair Representation Act, then you might find a tinge of agreement from me but for right now their stated policy (Hi there, Mitch McConnell) is that more democracy is bad for them.

Last edited by Red Wiggler; 06-17-2019 at 07:32 AM.
  #379  
Old 06-17-2019, 08:39 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Bullshit.

If it was something about "democracy and fairness", you'd get support for it from both sides of the aisle
Upon what evidence do you base your belief that the Republicans have any interest in that instead of their own partisan advantage?
  #380  
Old 06-17-2019, 08:40 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Governor Brown is wrong. Oregon will be ignored even more than it currently is.
It couldn't be taken for granted any more than it already is. But their votes would suddenly become worth courting.
  #381  
Old 06-17-2019, 08:58 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,787
I think it possible that turnout would increase by some significant amount in the event of the dissolution of the EC (or tipping point for the NPVIC). Democrats in really red states would be more motivated to vote as would Republicans in very blue states. Despite a few somewhat appealing arguments for the opposite, I generally think greater participation is better for the country.
  #382  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:05 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,302
Quote:
Quoth septimus:

In a close nation-wide election there's roughly a 1% chance that the popular vote margin will be less than 10,000. 2% for less than 20,000. (If the election is NOT close it probably won't matter much whether you have NPVIC or not.)

A swing of 20,000 votes or so can be achieved by tomfoolery (e.g. rigged voting machines or biased handling of mail-in votes) in just one state. Remember: Elections are not federally regulated. Imagine the 2000 Florida fiasco and multiply by fifty for the fifty states.
We don't need to speculate about what a nationwide Florida fiasco would look like. We already saw it, in 2000. The Electoral College made the fiasco nationwide. It's a proven mathematical fact that the EC, or a structure like it, makes such fiascos significantly more likely. In fact, that proven mathematical fact is (somehow) often cited by supporters of the EC, as an argument in its favor.
  #383  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:16 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
We don't need to speculate about what a nationwide Florida fiasco would look like. We already saw it, in 2000. The Electoral College made the fiasco nationwide. It's a proven mathematical fact that the EC, or a structure like it, makes such fiascos significantly more likely. In fact, that proven mathematical fact is (somehow) often cited by supporters of the EC, as an argument in its favor.
No kidding. His objections must be some attempted Karl Rove-like mind trick, where the prime inherent weakness of the electoral vote system are portrayed as the prime weakness of the system that literally is the antidote to the problem.

Like, "Do you have any idea what's in chemotherapy medicine? That stuff will kill cells in your body, man! Just stay away from it!"
  #384  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:17 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
That's a laugh. When was the last time Republicans were for democracy and fairness?
A statement like this has no place in rational debate. I know plenty of Republicans who are for democracy and fairness. I know plenty of Republican politicians who are for democracy and fairness. Their definition of exactly what that entails might not jibe with yours, but that doesn't make it any less true.
  #385  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:19 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
But just because something has been adopted by partisans doesn’t make it suspect. For example, Dems have pushed climate change as an issue for years; and it IS an issue.
Poor choice. There are Republicans who accept that anthropogenic climate change is real, and who are offering solutions for it. They might not be the solutions that many Democrats are offering, but it doesn't mean that it's a one-sided issue.
  #386  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:23 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Poor choice. There are Republicans who accept that anthropogenic climate change is real, and who are offering solutions for it. They might not be the solutions that many Democrats are offering, but it doesn't mean that it's a one-sided issue.
So what? Republicans have criticized the electoral college, too.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/...ationwide-vote
  #387  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:24 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Upon what evidence do you base your belief that the Republicans have any interest in that instead of their own partisan advantage?
Upon what evidence to you base your belief that the Democrats have any interest in anything OTHER than their own partisan advantage? Remember: in each of the four occurrences since the Civil War of someone winning the White House with fewer votes than the loser, it was a Democrat who lost. So the NPVIC can easily be seen as nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to gain a partisan advantage.

Which, not shockingly, can be seen from the fact that each and every one of the states to have joined is a generally Democratic bastion (Colorado is as close to being a toss up as it gets). For many people, myself included, all the NPVIC is is an attempt by Democrats to gain for themselves what they cannot manage to gain via the accepted, Constitutional process. You know, partisan gain.
  #388  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:34 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Upon what evidence to you base your belief that the Democrats have any interest in anything OTHER than their own partisan advantage?
So the fuck what?

Are you saying that there is literally no other argument for electing presidents by popular vote? You know, if I give you a list of 10 reasons why we should eat Chinese for dinner tonight, and you say that one of the reasons is self-serving, that doesn't negate the other reasons.

ETA: let me say I agree with you that this interstate compact gimmick is NOT the right way to change the law, and I think the courts will strike it down. But this obsession you have with someone pushing policies that are good for their interests is really tiresome.

Last edited by Ravenman; 06-17-2019 at 09:36 AM.
  #389  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:38 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Bullshit.

If it was something about "democracy and fairness", you'd get support for it from both sides of the aisle, and you'd have gotten people pumping strong for it before the 2000 election. Not shockingly, the idea was formulated in 2001, after the Bush win, and pushed strongly starting in 2006, after Bush had won again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
A statement like this has no place in rational debate.


I do believe this line of conversation has quite thoroughly run its course, let's talk about something else, preferably something that bears some resemblance to a reasonable position to hold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Septimus
In a close nation-wide election there's roughly a 1% chance that the popular vote margin will be less than 10,000. 2% for less than 20,000. (If the election is NOT close it probably won't matter much whether you have NPVIC or not.)

A swing of 20,000 votes or so can be achieved by tomfoolery (e.g. rigged voting machines or biased handling of mail-in votes) in just one state. Remember: Elections are not federally regulated. Imagine the 2000 Florida fiasco and multiply by fifty for the fifty states.

If NPVIC is passed, Presidential elections will no longer be decided by electors. They'll be decided by lawyers.
Uh... What?

First of all, a swing of 20,000 votes or so in one state is a national catastrophe. In Florida we were quibbling over a few hundred votes, where there was reason to be concerned about whether the rules were being followed or not. 20,000? That's... a lot. If a party can realistically swing 20,000 votes with, as you put it, "tomfoolery" in one state, then that's a really fucking big problem, with or without the NPVIC.

Looking over this list, the number of modern elections with a 20,000-vote margin is zero. The number of modern elections with a 100,000-vote margin is, again, zero. The closest we get is 125k in 1960 - in the 2000 election, Bush lost the popular vote by 500,000. Again, if you can change or invalidate hundreds of thousands of votes, we have considerably larger problems.

But as Chronos points out, with the NPVIC, you'd need that kind of swing. Without it, to cause a national fiasco, you need a few hundred votes in one swing state.

Could you outline the specific hypothetical case where you think the current system makes more sense than the NPVIC, and maybe contrast it with the actual case of Florida in 2000 (or Ohio in 2004, which was won by a smaller margin than the popular vote margin in any election since the 1800s and won Bush the 2004 election, or Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, where the combined margin was, again, smaller than the popular vote margin in any election since the 1800s)? Because I'm not seeing it.
  #390  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:48 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Poor choice. There are Republicans who accept that anthropogenic climate change is real, and who are offering solutions for it. They might not be the solutions that many Democrats are offering, but it doesn't mean that it's a one-sided issue.
Okay, this one puzzles me.

Who are these mythical non-denialist republicans? What solutions have they suggested? Have these solutions been taken up by their party in any meaningful way? Or are we saying "republicans accept climate change" in the same way we're saying "republicans want Trump to be impeached"; i.e. there's one guy and his views are absolutely the opposite of where the party stands as a whole?

(This is a rhetorical question, please feel free to not bother answering. I don't know which representative you mean and quite frankly I don't give a shit, given that the people whose opinions actually carry weight within the party have either been silent or active denialists. Pretending that the opinions of, just to pull a name out of a hat, John Huntsman matter in the grand scheme of things is borderline insulting.)

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-17-2019 at 09:50 AM.
  #391  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:10 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Upon what evidence to you base your belief that the Democrats have any interest in anything OTHER than their own partisan advantage?
"No u" is not a respectable answer on this board. But it does answer the question, doesn't it?

Quote:
each and every one of the states to have joined is a generally Democratic bastion
Yes, the Democrats generally support expanding and strengthening democracy. Now, how about the facts that make you believe the Republicans do so equally?

Quote:
the accepted, Constitutional process.
The fact that there is a serious discussion about it should tell you that "accepted" is not quite an accurate term.
  #392  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:32 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,302
Quote:
Quoth DSYoungEsq:

Remember: in each of the four occurrences since the Civil War of someone winning the White House with fewer votes than the loser, it was a Democrat who lost.
It would be more accurate to say that in all four of those cases, the loser belonged to a party named "Democratic". Civil War-era Democrats were not the same party as modern Democrats.
  #393  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:32 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Governor Brown is wrong. Oregon will be ignored even more than it currently is.
Just to follow up: States of any size that are currently non-competitive and taken for granted by either party will suddenly become attractive. Alabama Republicans will come to have a real voice in choosing the President, just like California Democrats.
  #394  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:34 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
It would be more accurate to say that in all four of those cases, the loser belonged to a party named "Democratic". Civil War-era Democrats were not the same party as modern Democrats.
By now we should be so used to hearing Republicans soberly claim to be "the party of Lincoln", or that more of them voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that it doesn't even register anymore.
  #395  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:46 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,359
The responses to my post were confused, to put it mildly. Let's start here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
...
Looking over this list, the number of modern elections with a 20,000-vote margin is zero.
I wrote that there is roughly a 2% chance that a close election would be 20,000 votes or less. "2%" means "happens about 1 time in fifty." How many close elections were there? Multiply by 0.02 and what do you get? It's quite expected the number of modern elections with that margin was zero.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
First of all, a swing of 20,000 votes or so in one state is a national catastrophe. In Florida we were quibbling over a few hundred votes, where there was reason to be concerned about whether the rules were being followed or not.
Illicit swings can take various forms.

In Florida 2000 there were over 2400 late absentee ballots that were (improperly?) counted. These swung the election to Bush. But they weren't part of the final "quibble." The number of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio who were effectively disenfranchised by GOP chicanery is far more than 20,000 IIRC and, in the case of Pennsylvania, far more than the margin of victory.

GOP states like Tennessee, South Carolina, etc. don't bother to cheat — they don't need to. When the national popular vote matters they will have an incentive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
We don't need to speculate about what a nationwide Florida fiasco would look like. We already saw it, in 2000. The Electoral College made the fiasco nationwide. It's a proven mathematical fact that the EC, or a structure like it, makes such fiascos significantly more likely. In fact, that proven mathematical fact is (somehow) often cited by supporters of the EC, as an argument in its favor.
We've been through this before. Let me try One.More.Time.

First, note that Florida 2000 was NOT a national disaster. A national disaster would involve recounts or litigation over the slightest controversies in ALL FIFTY STATES, as might result when ALL FIFTY STATES influence the result. A national disaster would be much bigger than a single state "disaster."

The 1960 election was very close (~100,000 votes) but no recounts were pursued, mainly because TWO states would need to be swung to change the Electoral College. Similarly, recounts or litigations were not pursued in 2016: a single state would be insufficient.

For the Florida 2000 election crisis to occur it was NOT sufficient that Florida's vote be close. It was also necessary the Florida's EVs would SWING the election.

The tiny vote difference in largish Florida DID happen. Play around with your simple statistics to confirm that a small vote difference nation-wide is not out of the question. (My "2%of close elections" depends on the definition of "close election." But again, not-close elections hardly matter.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
No kidding. ... Like, "Do you have any idea what's in chemotherapy medicine? That stuff will kill cells in your body, man! Just stay away from it!"
Popular vote has some problems I could live with. A Compact based on the popular vote might be fine if we were sure there would be no legal issues.

The combination is a recipe for disaster.


Note that if I'm a partisan big-wig in a NPVIC state who wants to litigate or cheat, it is NOT necessary that the popular vote winner actually be controversial. It's enough that I file lawsuits claiming that recounts are necessary, and that the EVs of our state should follow the state results unless/until those phony controversies ae resolved.
  #396  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:02 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
First, note that Florida 2000 was NOT a national disaster. A national disaster would involve recounts or litigation over the slightest controversies in ALL FIFTY STATES, as might result when ALL FIFTY STATES influence the result. A national disaster would be much bigger than a single state "disaster."
You've lost me. Let's say, for argument's sake, that there is a close election and that some deal like this compact was in force and made legal somehow. Yeah, just bear with me.

I still don't see how anyone could force a recount in all fifty states without respect to the tallies in each one of those states under this particular system, as the states would still have their laws intact on when a recount can be conducted.

So if Florida went to Candidate A by a margin of 50.1% to 49.9%, absolutely, there would be a recount there. But if California went to Candidate B by a margin of 65% to 35%, by what means do you think that Candidate A could force California to recount the votes under the applicable state laws?

Even though California's individual votes would count toward the overall popular vote winner, state laws don't provide for recounts when the outcome in that state is clear, no matter how much a candidate threatens to hold his breath.

If anything, I think there's a plausible case that this system would reduce the number of recounts, because picking up a couple thousand votes in a close election in State #1 probably doesn't matter a whole lot when we are talking about candidates likely needing tens to hundreds of thousands of votes nationally to close a gap.

Of course, there are surely unintended consequences of this system -- after all, making recounts HARDER to impact the first count isn't exactly a sign of a robust democracy -- but I think your criticism is 180 degrees off the mark.
  #397  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:19 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
First, note that Florida 2000 was NOT a national disaster.
The results were.

Quote:
The 1960 election was very close (~100,000 votes) but no recounts were pursued
You're mistaken on that. Wiki:
Quote:
A sample of how close the election was can be seen in California, Nixon's home state. Kennedy seemed to have carried the state by 37,000 votes when all of the voting precincts reported, but when the absentee ballots were counted a week later, Nixon came from behind to win the state by 36,000 votes.[62] Similarly, in Hawaii, it appeared as though Nixon had won there (it was actually called for him early Wednesday morning), but in a recount, Kennedy was able to come from behind and win the state by an extremely narrow margin of 115 votes.
  #398  
Old 06-17-2019, 01:13 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... But if California went to Candidate B by a margin of 65% to 35%, by what means do you think that Candidate A could force California to recount the votes under the applicable state laws?...
...
If anything, I think there's a plausible case that this system would reduce the number of recounts, because picking up a couple thousand votes in a close election in State #1 probably doesn't matter a whole lot when we are talking about candidates likely needing tens to hundreds of thousands of votes nationally to close a gap.
Candidate A need not file suit in California. He pursues Florida, alleging that the national popular vote is incorrect and unless/until it is fixed the people of Florida are being misserved; that Florida must cast its votes according to the will of Florida since California has not delivered accurate totals. If the state government of Florida goes along with this argument, so much for the NPVIC.

Assuming Florida is 1/16 of the country, then a national recount should find, on average, 4 times as big a change as a Florida recount (4 = sqrt(16)). IF problems/recounts are uncorrelated -- if correlated the ratio is more than four.

ETA: Thanks, Elvis. The whopping 70,000 vote change caused by a recount helps demonstrate my point.

Last edited by septimus; 06-17-2019 at 01:16 PM.
  #399  
Old 06-17-2019, 01:18 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Bullshit.

If it was something about "democracy and fairness", you'd get support for it from both sides of the aisle, and you'd have gotten people pumping strong for it before the 2000 election. Not shockingly, the idea was formulated in 2001, after the Bush win, and pushed strongly starting in 2006, after Bush had won again.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...n-not-anymore/
  #400  
Old 06-17-2019, 01:59 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,787
If the results were reversed, would we see positions in here flip? If a Republican can win the majority of the votes nationwide, then congrats to our new President, I say.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017