So, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote - any chance to finally reform the electoral college?

[BlankSlate]

@octopus

Read some American history and try again. The states were sovereign and do in fact retain a great deal of sovereignty. Obviously they can’t secede and the federal government does have the army but you are sorely mistaken about the history of the formation of the United States.

Yeah, so they don’t have any sovereignty whatsoever. Perhaps you can take an online course in reading comprehension. I know how and why the Electoral College came into existence. I know we are stuck with it. It doesn’t change my opinion. So fucking what?

[octopus]

@BlankSlate

Yeah, so they don’t have any sovereignty whatsoever. Perhaps you can take an online course in reading comprehension. I know how and why the Electoral College came into existence. I know we are stuck with it. It doesn’t change my opinion. So fucking what?

You didn’t seem to know a few posts back. And you still don’t seem to get the idea of a “federation.” The US has states with sovereignty. If you think sovereignty means the freedom to act without ANY constraint than that’s your problem. Even the USA acts with constraints. One of them being state sovereignty. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=facpubs

Now limited is not equal to and is in fact greater than 0.

[octopus]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Let me add on to what RickJay said. As of 2015 estimates, Texas is second and Florida third ahead of New York. Illinois is fifth. But 6-10 are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan, all of which went for Trump. And the South is gaining population while New York and Illinois are barely budging. It’s counterfactual that the few strongly blue states “can decide damn near every election.” Math is math.

If you want a reason why eliminating the Electoral College and switching to popular vote will keep being dismissed, imagine what would be happening now if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.

I can’t foresee any likely pathway to this change. But direct voting in the age of the Internet has a power I’ve never seen before in my lifetime. I wouldn’t be surprised if this discussion kept appearing, but because of younger voters not because of political preferences.

And octopus. There is nothing in law, history, or fact that supports state sovereignty. It’s merely a comfortable myth for some people. States do have great leeway in their actions. But every single thing they do is subject to the federal constitution in the end. That end ends the discussion of their sovereignty. There are some good discussions of the subject here that can be searched for. I’d suggest reading them.

If states had 0 sovereignty explain how the states can call for a constitutional convention that could in essence completely neuter the federal government? Where does that power come from? The same power reserved to the states after the states ceded some power in the formation of the union. Furthermore, EVERY amendment is an exercise in state sovereignty. Every court case where a US state conflicts with the federal government is an exercise in state sovereignty. Again, absolute sovereignty isn’t the only state of sovereignty that can exist.

[adaher]

The states are actually sovereign and that’s not just 19th century thinking. The Supreme Court has always acknowledged state sovereignty.

[SlackerInc]

@tim314

Actually, doing away with the electoral college would give more say to those who are in the minority in every state. Republicans in California and New York would actually matter in the Presidential election, as would Democrats in Texas. And of course it means everyone’s vote would be worth the same, rather than disproportionately weighting them based on the size of the state.

It’s not sour grapes for those of us (like me) who have been against the electoral college for years.

I agree that it isn’t going to happen soon, but I do think this increases the likelihood that someday when the Democrats have more power they will eliminate the electoral college.

Completely agree.

Right now, Hillary has almost DOUBLE the votes in California that Trump does: 5.49 million to 2.97 million. She also won in NY by more than 1.5 million votes.

But Trump won the Electoral College by a 306-232 margin. “Not even close”, people are saying. But let’s say of those surplus four million Hillary votes in California and New York, just barely over 20% of them–830 million–were redistributed to states Trump won closely (i.e., these Clinton voters moved there a few months ago), as follows:

100K to AZ
130K to FL
250K to GA
20K to MI
200K to NC
100K to PA
30K to WI

Now all of a sudden it’s a blowout the other way, 349-189, and the map looks like this instead.

And that still leaves more than three million surplus votes in California and New York. So maybe she wins California by 23 points instead of 28, and New York by 16 points instead of 21. And the media talks about how she dominated Trump across the map, yadda yadda yadda. Why should the story be so different just because people–Americans, who are free to “move about the country”, after all–happen to like certain states so much that their votes become wasted?

As for this idea that without the Electoral College, candidates would just focus on major cities? They do that already, except it’s just major cities within swing states. Okay, they might do a few rallies in smaller cities, but I honestly think they would still do that if there were a nationwide popular vote. Why keep bludgeoning the same people in Philadelphia over and over and over if you can go to Nebraska and upstate New York and Boise at least once in the campaign, and maybe excite a few people who aren’t just getting sick of seeing you and your ads over and over for months?

And wouldn’t it be nice if campaigns didn’t have to do all this crazy math and prognostication to figure out where to visit and target resources? I mean, it would be a bummer for people who have made it their life’s work to be experts in that, but I think it would be good if a campaign could just say “let’s go somewhere we haven’t gone yet, get some people excited, and show our faces” and that would be guaranteed not to be some crucial error in strategy that would come back to haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Also, it doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to happen. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would accomplish the same thing. It’s already been passed in states representing 165 EVs; it goes into effect once the total is 270 or more. So let’s say after 2020 and reapportionment, Democrats take back some state houses. You could get within striking distance by adding Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. Now you’re 29 EVs away. For the final push over the line (and admittedly the toughest), you could either get Florida, or a combo of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Delaware (or you could substitute Maine for Delaware).

Not easy by any means, but a lot easier than amending the Constitution.

---

NB: As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I’m unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!

[adaher]

The Popular Vote Compact is fine, but they need to work out the contingencies:

1. What happens if the national vote is close? The compact can’t command a national recount. This isn’t really a problem, per se, because they could just fall back on the normal EC procedure in that eventuality.

2. Can the states really trust each other? If the shoe is on the other foot and a Republican wins the popular vote but is behind in the EC, is California going to do what they promised? I’m not sure the compact can be made legally binding. It’s not a treaty or anything. State legislatures can just change the law between the election and the EC meeting.

[Lord_Feldon]

@adaher

I’m not sure the compact can be made legally binding.

I think it could be if it’s done as an actual interstate compact, with the approval of Congress.

[adaher]

perhaps. I’m not against it or for it, I just don’t want to see another election go to SCOTUS because a contingency happens that they didn’t agree to, such as a need for a recount and then no one knows where these 270+ electoral votes are supposed to go. They have to agree at the very least that there are no recounts and the first count is binding, or that if the vote is within a certain % margin that they fall back on normal EC procedures.

[SlackerInc]

@adaher

perhaps. I’m not against it or for it, I just don’t want to see another election go to SCOTUS because a contingency happens that they didn’t agree to, such as a need for a recount and then no one knows where these 270+ electoral votes are supposed to go. They have to agree at the very least that there are no recounts and the first count is binding, or that if the vote is within a certain % margin that they fall back on normal EC procedures.

I think it’s simpler than you’re making it. Every state will have their Secretary of State report official vote tallies. Whether they do a recount to get there is each state’s business. When the official tallies are reported, you add them all up. And then whichever candidate is in the lead–even if it’s a tiny margin that can’t possibly be known as a certainty, even a single vote–you award all your EVs to that candidate.

Which technically leaves one extremely improbable possibility: that the popular vote is perfectly tied. Extremely improbable, but not technically impossible. So just in case, I suppose there should be a provision that in this case, the states in the compact would award the precise number of EVs to tie up the Electoral College as well, and hand it to the House. Or maybe they can just not award electors, and that would accomplish the same thing? (It’s so improbable it seems almost silly to plan for it, but there’s something about leaving a non-impossible mathematical scenario out there to blow everything up that bugs me.)

---

NB: As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I’m unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@octopus

The US has states with sovereignty. If you think sovereignty means the freedom to act without ANY constraint than that’s your problem. Even the USA acts with constraints. One of them being state sovereignty. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=facpubs

Now limited is not equal to and is in fact greater than 0.

That article states that “sovereignty” is a slippery concept, defined and applied differently by different people and institutions at different times. It finds that state sovereignty is more of a political concept than a judicial or legislative one.

As a political concept you may find it useful to further your political aims. If you want anyone else to acknowledge the concept you’re better off strictly defining what you mean by it. That way everybody gets to see how limited “limited” is.

[octopus]

@Exapno_Mapcase

That article states that “sovereignty” is a slippery concept, defined and applied differently by different people and institutions at different times. It finds that state sovereignty is more of a political concept than a judicial or legislative one.

As a political concept you may find it useful to further your political aims. If you want anyone else to acknowledge the concept you’re better off strictly defining what you mean by it. That way everybody gets to see how limited “limited” is.

The states have the de-facto power working together to change the Constitution by calling a new convention. Is that or is that not evidence of reserved sovereignty?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@octopus

The states have the de-facto power working together to change the Constitution by calling a new convention. Is that or is that not evidence of reserved sovereignty?

Not.

The federal constitution allows the states the powers. They do not have it on their own. Nor can they change the constitution in any way other than calling a convention because that is all the federal government permits.

The people in most states have means to alter their states’ constitutions. That does not make the individuals sovereign in any way. It’s not a useful definition of the word.

[CarnalK]

@Exapno_Mapcase

That does not make the individuals sovereign in any way. It’s not a useful definition of the word.

If you want octopus to acknowledge they don’t really have sovereignty you’re better off strictly defining what you mean by it. Just a thought that occurred to me.

[octopus]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Not.

The federal constitution allows the states the powers. They do not have it on their own. Nor can they change the constitution in any way other than calling a convention because that is all the federal government permits.

The people in most states have means to alter their states’ constitutions. That does not make the individuals sovereign in any way. It’s not a useful definition of the word.

No. Your understanding of where power is derived is backwards.

[Itself]

@DSYoungEsq

Besides, every person in Wyoming this election was voting on 0.0000122 of an electoral vote; in Texas it was 0.00000427 of an electoral vote. The difference is negligible. Or, as a famous trader in a future bar once said, “Twice nothing is still nothing.” :smack:

That’s like giving every person in Wyoming three votes instead of one, which most people would consider quite undemocratic. The average electoral votes per Texan is less than the difference, which you claim is negligible; why not just every voter in Texas no votes at all?

[Mr.Duality]

@RickJay

Well, I’d like a cite for this. I’m curious as how how the majority of a group can be below the average to any measurable extent, unless the distribution curve of intelligence is rather significantly different than any source I have ever seen on the subject.

The reference group is the entirety of humanity. The population of the US is a subset of that and could easily be below average, on the average.

[drewder]

I’d like to point out that Hillary only won the popular vote when we stopped counting. States don’t count absentee ballots unless they could impact the election, close enough margin for error. The people who vote absentee overwhelmingly vote republican.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@drewder

I’d like to point out that Hillary only won the popular vote when we stopped counting. States don’t count absentee ballots unless they could impact the election, close enough margin for error. The people who vote absentee overwhelmingly vote republican.

Do you have a cite for this? I can’t find one. Just the opposite.

Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 2, Summer 2006, pp. 224–234
DO ABSENTEE VOTERS DIFFER FROM POLLING PLACE VOTERS?
Matt A. Barreto et al.

Based on the analysis of this election, it is seems clear that absentee voters in the California recall did not have a significantly different political bent than Election Day voters, as many had suspected. Republicans were not more likely to vote absentee than Democrats, and absentee voters did not vote substantively different from Election Day voters. If anything, the evidence shown in table 2 suggests that many Californians (of all walks of life) vote absentee because it is simple, convenient, and easy to request and complete an absentee ballot. As both political parties continue to target absentee voters, we might expect absentee voters to resemble polling place voters. However, the data presented here are for one state and one high-salience election. Further research is necessary to examine the absentee voting phenomenon in lower-salience contests and in states with more stringent absentee voting requirements.

[Clothahump]

@Twoflower

As of this morning, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by about 175,000. Is there any hope that this will finally create some serious pressure to reform/do away with the electoral college?

Why would we want to do this? It is there by design. We do not live in a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.

[Tzigone]

Why would we want to do this?

Because right now it’s massively weighted in favor of smaller states (at least reapportionment should be considered - yes, a little boost to less populated states makes sense, but not one as big as is now since the cap on # of reps was put on). We do. Have for a long time. According to this, the majority of Americans have been in favor of a national popular vote for 70 years. We are, on the whole, not nearly as elitist as the founding fathers, and we, on the whole, are much more in favor of power being the hands of the people rather than the states. Unfortunately, I agree with all those who say it’s probably not going to happen any time soon. Especially since it can’t help but be rather partisan issue right now. According to this even the majority of Republicans were in favor of nation popular vote in 2011. But I bet those number have changed again now, with even more democrats in favor, and more republicans against.