If California had been razor close, Trump would have won the popular vote and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Hillary’s popular vote advantage in California consumes the margin of victory by Trump in every state except 4. She won by a fuckload in California.
Without her margin in California, she didn’t win the popular vote at all. Its an attempt to show how meaningless the popular vote is when its more than accounted for by a lead in the safest blue state in the 48 contiguous.
I guess we just have to disagree. I think that spending a lot of time in California is a bad idea especially when you have a 2::1 money advantage.
My point has nothing to do with the mistakes of Hillary. Yes, any effort in California was a mistake. It doesn’t mean California votes don’t count, or aren’t relevant, and all your argument does is denigrate the state and its voters. In terms of popular vote, they matter as much as any state.
And as a Texan, this just breaks my heart. My fellow Americans, I am so sorry. I tried. We got closer in Texas than we have in a loooooong time, but still have a ways to go.
If the debate about transgender rights is ONLY about transgender rights, then you might have a point. The trans population is very small compared to other minority groups. However, I think that the debate can be framed in such a way that it includes everyone. Bigotry is never acceptable and bigotry under color of law is even less acceptable. Enlarge the discussion – if they’ll legislate trans people out of the public sphere, then who else will get the ax? The trans population is so small that it isn’t worth Republicans making so much hay about them. It’s not about trans people. It’s about playing up hate for someone – anyone. Once you’ve got the hate going, fill in any ol’ group.
Even if Democrats hold enough power in 2020 that we can gerrymander, we shouldn’t. Gerrymandering, or any other attempt at manipulating the democracy away from the will of the people, is wrong in itself. And even if you’re too cynical to accept that, we won’t always hold that power, and eventually someone else we don’t like will be gerrymandering. Instead, we should be rebuilding how we redistrict so that gerrymandering, on either side, is impossible. In most states, this could be done via popular initiative, and thus bypassing the elected officials who got in through gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering, aside from giving one party too much power, also encourages the most extremist politicians in both parties. That isn’t good for anyone, a house made up of nothing but progressives and tea party activists isn’t going to get anything done. So districts should be drawn up by non-partisan groups.
As for making voting easier, it really does benefit the democrats. Groups that lean democratic are less likely to have a voter ID, and many democrats are only marginally attached to the system (the disabled, the poor, college students) and the slightest roadblock will make them stay home instead of vote.
Sending everyone a ballot by mail seems to be effective at increasing turnout.
I thought gerrymandering would actually increase the number of moderates in Congress. Because if the GOP gerrymanders, for instance, then the strategy is that there will be a large number of districts that are only light red; say, a suburbanite Missouri district that is 54% Republican and 46% non-Republican. With those demographics, you can’t afford to run a hardline Republican; you have to go moderate in that district.
This is going to largely hinge on your definition of “significant amounts”, but I’m curious if you could help me see if we can discern a real-world effect. For example, which state(s) have passed the strictest voter ID laws in the country (that were still in effect for subsequent elections), and when? Could we compare the vote % or #'s before the law went into effect and after and see a significant difference? Or is the effect swamped by the normal “noise” and variability of voting %?
AFAIK, Voter ID laws are still kicking ass in public opinion polls, but I welcome evidence to the contrary.
All the recent research shows that “education” does very little to affect people’s political beliefs. If anything, it is more likely to re-enforces their pre-existing beliefs. #sad
I don’t think you can necessarily make that claim. Speaking as a Yellow Dog Democrat from the state in question, even I am upset with the district borders of Maryland.
Increased participation is a good thing. A system so loose that we go back to the bad old days of a person voting and then getting back in line, not so much.
Most importantly for the Republicans, this kind of thinking is why it’s important to be a cooperative opposition rather than an obstructive opposition. Do Republicans even realize what ACA could look like if there had been Republican buy-in? We could have had looser requirements for coverage, more direct funding(such as payroll taxes), deeper Medicare cuts, tort reform, and allowing insurance to be sold nationwide. I bet we could have gotten Baucus to give us all of that for a few GOP votes. Likewise, if Democrats did take up voting reform, it would be nice to get something out of it. If Democrats were focused like a laser beam on just making voting easier and nothing else, then by all means, oppose and let them have it on the airwaves. One of the positive aspects of GOP dirty tactics is that Democrats genuinely fear it and will give up a lot in exchange for us holding our fire. That power should be used intelligently.
Autmoatic registration should come with automatic purging as well as the price of our support. Plus sharing of federal databases with all states who enact automatic registration.
If your point is that the popular vote margin doesn’t matter, than fine… but that California is involved doesn’t strengthen (or have anything to do with) this point. If she had won California by a single vote, but still had the same popular vote margin (by doing better in other states), her margin wouldn’t tell us any more or less about how the election went.
To me, the California example is accentuates how meaningless the popular vote count is. It is an example of why the popular vote count is meaningless. She won with a smaller popular vote margin that Obama but had a 50% higher poplar vote margin in California. What, if anything, does that tell you?
California is maaaybe 50% larger than Texas. The margin in Texas was under 1 million. The margin in California was 4.5 million. That’s over a million more than the next highest showing of any other Presidential candidate ever (3.25 million by Obama in 2008).
I lived in California for about a decade, northern and southern. I love California. Its got surfing on one side of the state and skiing on the other. The weather in SoCal is always sunny, the weather in the bay area is always temperate. But it is a deep blue state and their voters don’t really count in presidential elections because no one really competes for their votes, only their money.
None of this does anything to indicate that Hillary’s popular margin is any more or less significant than it would be if it came from different combinations in different states. It’s irrelevant to discussions about the popular vote. A 3 million vote popular vote margin is either important or it’s not, but it doesn’t change if it’s due to every state having a slight margin for one candidate, or all the states being close and balancing out and California being lopsided. Any individual state’s results are irrelevant when discussing the national popular vote.
