Counting the MSA is a bit of a cheat. 3 of the 10 counties went to Trump. The urban core, in Denver County, went 75-18 for Clinton. Go to neighboring Adams County and the results are already down to 49-42 Clinton. Head to Douglas and it’s 55-37 Trump. Elbert–small but part of the Denver MSA–went 73-19 Trump.
So you don’t even have to leave the MSA before it starts looking more like Kansas. It’s really just the core that looks like a stereotypical coastal city.
No–but if, due to an accident of history, the core of Kansas City was actually in Kansas, it would have been a much closer race. Probably not enough for a Hillary win
by itself, but close enough that it would be a swing state. The increased attention would make it even more “swingy”.
My point is just the EC doesn’t weight votes based on some notion of people in swing states being right in the center of the political spectrum or any similar notions. Instead it weights votes based on random and minor differences in urban/rural populations, and accidents of history such as which side of a border a particular city happened to fall on.
The residents of Coolidge, KS have a lot more in common with those of Holly, CO (just a few miles apart, across the state border) than they do with Kansas City, KS in the east. And that’s evident based on their voting record. If Kansas City just happened to have a larger population, it wouldn’t affect their situation at all beyond making their vote more relevant.
First of all, MSAs give us an apples-to-apples comparison. MSAs are drawn by the Federal government (OMB, IIRC) rather than by localities.
Second, because of that, yes, the size of the MSA does make a difference. A big city is going to have an ‘urban core’ as you say, and rings of inner/older and newer/outer suburbs before you get outside the built-up area altogether. The outermost rings tilt Republican, but as you go in, the more they’re Dem. In a smaller city, you don’t really have much inner/outer suburb distinction, so you have to get all the way to that ‘urban core’ before you start getting Dem majorities; the suburbs are all red. But in a bigger urban area, there are lots of blue suburbs inside the outer ring of red exurbs.
Sure, if you moved the core of KC to Kansas, you’d move a heavily Dem area from MO to KS and it would make KS less red.
And as the saying goes, if my aunt had testicles, she’d be my uncle.
I’m not sure what relevance that has. It’s a boundary drawn for statistical purposes. It doesn’t tell you anything about the “feel” of an area with regards to its politics. Some MSAs cover multiple states, making them (in general) not that useful for talking about EC politics.
Let me try again since I guess my point wasn’t clear.
Imagine you had two hypothetical neighboring states, both virtually identical. They each have a dense blue city near the common border and outlying rural red areas. They are both well balanced between the two, and so are both swing states–candidates show up and pay attention to their local issues because those electoral votes are in play.
Compare against the same two states, except that the boundary is a little different and both big cities ended up in one state. Now, neither is a swing state. The one with two big cities is heavily blue-biased, and the other red-biased. Candidates don’t show up because they have no hope of swinging it that far. They don’t pay attention to any local issues for the same reason.
As far as the people are concerned, there’s no difference between these two situations. They live in the same place, they have the same concerns, the same neighbors, the same jobs. But a meaningless line on a map changed their vote from counting to being irrelevant.
In what universe does this state of affairs remotely makes sense? This was a hypothetical, but the same kinds of factors (and many more) play out when we look at the spectrum of states and what makes them swing vs. not. They’re all meaningless.
I’ve been talking about “weighting”, but really that’s a euphemism to maintain some neutrality. What we’re really talking about is throwing away the vote for most of the country… for reasons. Already, I think this is immoral. But if we’re going to do it, we should at least have good reasons. septimus is wrong that there is something special about 50/50 regions, because the people that live there are the same as elsewhere, just in slightly different proportions. This shouldn’t be the basis for throwing away a vote.
In the U.S.A. we already elect Councilmen, Mayors, Supervisors, State Legislators, Judges, Governors, other state Officials, Representatives and U.S. Senators.
The idea that Kansans have to hear, in Kansas, a Presidential candidate weigh in on issues specific to Kansas is insulting to the voters of Kansas, most of whom already have access to TVs and Internet.
A major complaint about campaigns is that candidates tailor their spiel separately for each of seven swing states. Would having fifty versions of the spiel be an improvement? Is this really the key missing ingredient that has eroded our national politics??
This entire thread is a waste of time. 17 small states that don’t want to give up electoral power is an obstacle you’ll never get across. End of story.
And for Firefly, the original saying is “Balls, said the Queen. If I had 'em, I’d be King.”
Isn’t that why the internet was invented? Anything can, and will be, discussed. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could be described as a large number of lawsuits just waiting to happen. Everyone was sooooo happy with the judicial rulings which decided several of the last few Presidential elections that they’re now willing to turn over yet another Presidential election’s outcome to the rulings of as many as 5o state courts, plus the Supremes.
The Supremes will be asked to decide, among other thing, if Article I Section 10 applies to this particular issue.
State courts will be asked to decide if the NPVIC is legal/constitutional according to their state law, and constitution.
State courts may even be asked to decide why a state election official refuses to abide by the NPVIC.
You’re almost there. Now ask why it’s been so hard to restore trade relations to Cuba. It’s so obviously in the interests of almost everyone that it should have happened a long time ago.
Why this hasn’t happened is obvious. Florida is the swingiest of swing states, and contains angry Cuban expats. They get bought off by maintaining cold relations. Why should their bitterness get expanded to national policy that’s a net loss to basically everyone else? And to go back to your original point, isn’t it insulting to Floridians (and everyone) that Presidential candidates have to take a position contrary to the national interest just to win a few thousand votes?
Sure, why not? If presidents are making promises to individual states, then they should at least spread them out proportionally.
More importantly, though, it gets harder to maintain the spiel when pitted against the entire rest of the country. You can’t promise everything to everyone; well, you can try, but eventually budgets or other constraints force your hand.
Earlier I made a comparison to gerrymandering, but I just realized it’s actually almost exactly the same thing. Instead of moving physical boundaries around into convoluted shapes, though, it’s the political landscape that’s distorted. Why can Republicans subsidize Iowa corn farmers via ethanol? Doesn’t that piss off California farmers, since they aren’t getting that Federal gravy? Of course it does–but they can afford to lose those votes. They’ve gerrymandered things just as effectively as by physically moving the border.
Some in the thread are arguing in favor of popular election of President. I am NOT opposed to that (although I don’t think it’s as important an improvement as some do). Put a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot and I’ll vote ‘Aye’ — though, as others point out, it won’t pass.
What I do oppose, is the NPVIC. In any given election, with the NPVIC we’ll either see the same result (possibly with the assistance of defecting electors) as we’d have without NPVIC or some sort of litigation disaster. **The NPVIC does NOT turn the election over to the “people.” It turns it over to the lawyers.
**
I am shocked that so many legislators and intelligent Dopers support this abomination. Are legislators in the pocket of Big Litig? But why don’t Dopers see the light?
doorhinge and I agree on something? :eek: That’s a first! Maybe we’re on to something.
Had this Compact been in effect in 2000, the election would most certainly have still been decided by the SCOTUS. And then we’d be back to the same system we have in 2004 with Bush as president.
I’m pretty wary of doing this as separate state laws. Whether it turns into a major court battle or not, the laws will still be at risk of being repealed by any future legislature.
My understanding is that actual compacts, approved by Congress, are both supreme federal laws and binding contracts, neither of which can be overturned unilaterally by a state legislature (unless the compact says so). They are, in some ways, almost like opt-in constitutional amendments, because unlike pretty much any other law, they’re binding against future legislatures.
I’d assume that either Bush, or more likely, a Bush elector-delegate in, say, Florida (because for the compact to have passed and be relevant, it would need to include states Nush had won) would sue, on the grounds that the National Vote Compact is unconstitutional, and that the state requiring electors to vote for Gore is undemocratic and goes against the will of the people of Florida, who voted for Bush.
This was all covered on page one of this thread. I was, in fact, the one who asked the question about standing (post #5). Would you like us to repeat it for you?
But why don’t Dopers see the light?