National Popular Vote -- Predictions


Guest Mores
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mores

So Oregon now passed their "national popular vote" bill.  Apparently there are something like 13 or 14 other states (and D.C.) who are in some sort of compact.

The JUSTIFICATION behind it was that in some states the population is so one sided that it serves no purpose for the minority party to even get people out to vote.  So, this is one way to encourage those individuals to come out and vote.

The REASONING behind it was that they want to get rid of the electoral college and just have the popular vote determine who the president is.

I'm going to make some predictions here.

  • Oregon will actually succeed in getting their conservative voters out in force.  And there will be a terrible upset in Oregon.  OR
  • Oregon will still vote for the Democrat.  But the national popular vote will go to the Republican (Trump).  There will be OUTRAGE IN OREGON!!!  Knowing liberal politicians as I do, the person in charge of validating the election (usually the state's Secretary of State) will find some sort of loophole or justification to nullify the bill, and still send votes to the Democrat.

Unrelated, I think I'll make another prediction for the future.

  • IF it turns out that the popular vote thing goes as planned, then Oregon (and other states) will pass a bill stating that all representatives will be voted on by the entire state population.  That goes against the methodology stated in the Constitution.  But that never stopped people before.
Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barring some change in the way we vote (which now has me worried, thanks to Mores' post):

- Slo Joe vs. Orange man = Orange man wins.
- 90 yr old communist vs. Orange man = Orange man wins.
- Fauxcahontas vs. Orange man = Orange man wins.
- Buttigieg vs. Orange man = This could go either way, as people will feel uncomfortable with dude's last name, and for some inexplicable reason people won't want to be labeled as a bigot by voting against him.  Plus, he appears to be the closest thing to a principled arguer, and that'll grab some traditional right voters who are desperate for anything other than a soap opera.

I don't know enough about the rest to have an opinion.  Except Hickenlooper.  Dude is just starting his climb, this run is just about name recognition.  He passed the Bilderberg exam, so we'll see what the Global Nefarious Shadow People and Reptilian Shapeshifting Illuminati have planned for him.  Whatever the next two decades bring for Hickenlooper, you can be assured of one thing - he is someone else's tool, nothing more.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mores said:
  • IF it turns out that the popular vote thing goes as planned, then Oregon (and other states) will pass a bill stating that all representatives will be voted on by the entire state population.  That goes against the methodology stated in the Constitution.  But that never stopped people before.

And then, Oregon will conclude that there's no need to have voting any longer since Democrats always win, so they'll just appoint a single Democrat to represent the entire state without actually having any voting. They'll come up with a fancy new name for this position. Maybe... king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I'm not sure that people understand how vital the electoral college is. If we abolished the electoral college, than only Texas, Florida, California and New York would pick the presidents. Incredibly disturbing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mores said:

So Oregon now passed their "national popular vote" bill.  Apparently there are something like 13 or 14 other states (and D.C.) who are in some sort of compact.

The JUSTIFICATION behind it was that in some states the population is so one sided that it serves no purpose for the minority party to even get people out to vote.  So, this is one way to encourage those individuals to come out and vote.

The REASONING behind it was that they want to get rid of the electoral college and just have the popular vote determine who the president is.

I'm going to make some predictions here.

  • Oregon will actually succeed in getting their conservative voters out in force.  And there will be a terrible upset in Oregon.  OR
  • Oregon will still vote for the Democrat.  But the national popular vote will go to the Republican (Trump).  There will be OUTRAGE IN OREGON!!!  Knowing liberal politicians as I do, the person in charge of validating the election (usually the state's Secretary of State) will find some sort of loophole or justification to nullify the bill, and still send votes to the Democrat.

Unrelated, I think I'll make another prediction for the future.

  • IF it turns out that the popular vote thing goes as planned, then Oregon (and other states) will pass a bill stating that all representatives will be voted on by the entire state population.  That goes against the methodology stated in the Constitution.  But that never stopped people before.

It's concerning, but at least for the moment it's not quite at the level of acceptance needed. First they need to get a minimum of 270 electoral votes worth of states to sign on before it takes effect. While they are currently at 189 I think it's going to be difficult for them to get enough states to sign on to actually get the compact to take effect.

Second I feel like this is the kind of law that won't survive a constitutional challenge. They are trying to get around having to actually go through the process of getting an amendment ratified, and I just don't think the Supreme Court, even some of the liberal justices, would stand for that. I suppose we will see how it plays out, but I'm not panicking just yet. We should keep an eye on their progress though.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fauxcahontas

LOL

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Buttigieg vs. Orange man = This could go either way, as people will feel uncomfortable with dude's last name, and for some inexplicable reason people won't want to be labeled as a bigot by voting against him.

No video cameras in the voting booths, last I checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Barring some change in the way we vote (which now has me worried, thanks to Mores' post):

- Slo Joe vs. Orange man = Orange man wins.
- 90 yr old communist vs. Orange man = Orange man wins.
- Fauxcahontas vs. Orange man = Orange man wins.
- Buttigieg vs. Orange man = This could go either way, as people will feel uncomfortable with dude's last name, and for some inexplicable reason people won't want to be labeled as a bigot by voting against him.  Plus, he appears to be the closest thing to a principled arguer, and that'll grab some traditional right voters who are desperate for anything other than a soap opera.

I don't know enough about the rest to have an opinion.  Except Hickenlooper.  Dude is just starting his climb, this run is just about name recognition.  He passed the Bilderberg exam, so we'll see what the Global Nefarious Shadow People and Reptilian Shapeshifting Illuminati have planned for him.  Whatever the next two decades bring for Hickenlooper, you can be assured of one thing - he is someone else's tool, nothing more.

You forgot:

- Blue man vs. Orange man = Blue man plays at Orange man's inauguration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
Just now, Vort said:

LOL

No video cameras in the voting booths, last I checked.

Still, some people said after Obama left office that they had voted for Obama because they felt guilted into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

One of the few effective bits of slactivism - making sure you post stuff like  this on your facebook feed once every year or so, and twice in election years:

ElectoralCollege.thumb.jpg.39562da1771bfa2624719c86b91610b4.jpg

NOTE: that exaggerates the size discrepancy.  IT actually shows Wyoming as bigger than Arizona, for instance.  600,000 is a far cry from 7 million.  And it shows Hawaii as smaller than Alaska???

------------------------------------------------------------

Here's an interesting twist for conservatives.  If we actually abided by the Constitution and had representatives based on every 30,000 people, the map would not look much different.

Example: Wyoming would have 19 representatives.  California would have 1333 representatives.  So, the two senators in each state allowing for some weight favoring the smaller states would be drowned out.

But at the same time, the House of Representatives would be much more diverse.  I don't think we'd have a two party system anymore.  And they would act as a check on Presidential power as well as the Senate.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
34 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

One of the few effective bits of slactivism - making sure you post stuff like  this on your facebook feed once every year or so, and twice in election years

All true, but remember that no one outside those who already agree with you cares about what you (generic, they don't care what MG posts either) post on Facebook. I have yet to meet anyone who says "Well, I was a right wing republican but after my liberal friend posted 45 memes, I've seen the error of my ways and now hate Trump." In fairness, the same goes for religion. Have you met anyone who left the LDS church and became Pentecostal (pulling religions out of the sky here) strictly over social media? 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

All true, but remember that no one outside those who already agree with you cares about what you (generic, they don't care what MG posts either) post on Facebook. 

Depends on how much of a bubble you live in, in social media circles.  I put forth effort to foster online friendships and find common ground with folks from opposite sides of many fences. 

My anarchist buddy and I measure the value of our facebookery with each other, in terms of how many of the other camp we reach with our posts to each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Depends on how much of a bubble you live in, in social media circles.  I put forth effort to foster online friendships and find common ground with folks from opposite sides of many fences. 

My anarchist buddy and I measure the value of our facebookery with each other, in terms of how many of the other camp we reach with our posts to each other. 

Oh I agree. It certainly does depend on relationships, how well you communicate, everything. Even then, it's very hard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several states are attempting to bypass the Constitution by voting in this popular vote pact. However, I believe all the states doing so are already heavily blue. So, unless they can reach 270 electoral votes, or they can draw in some red and "purple" states, this movement will probably fade after a couple more election cycles.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever played with the idea of switching the voting style completely?

Currently its voting via representatives and the majority wins.

How would you react fine one of the the follow changes were made:

1) Switch to a tournament style voting system where we would vote for or everyone running, the top 10 move on to the next round of voting. From there the top 5, then top 3, then we vote for the top 2.

2) switch to a ranking type system. We all rank our top four picks and depending on where our pick Sit in the ranking, they get different amount of votes. Ie. Someone ranked his votes  1) Trump 2) Cruze 3) Sander 4) Hillary

Trump gets 4 of my votes

Cruze gets 3

Sanders gets 2

Hilary gets 1

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Fether said:

Has anyone ever played with the idea of switching the voting style completely?

Currently its voting via representatives and the majority wins.

How would you react fine one of the the follow changes were made:

1) Switch to a tournament style voting system where we would vote for or everyone running, the top 10 move on to the next round of voting. From there the top 5, then top 3, then we vote for the top 2.

2) switch to a ranking type system. We all rank our top four picks and depending on where our pick Sit in the ranking, they get different amount of votes. Ie. Someone ranked his votes  1) Trump 2) Cruze 3) Sander 4) Hillary

Trump gets 4 of my votes

Cruze gets 3

Sanders gets 2

Hilary gets 1

Variation on 1: Previous presidents sit on a panel giving feedback on "presidentiality" of contestants candidates. Every week 1 of them gets eliminated based on votes.

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

How can the DNC be serious about bypassing the Electoral College when they still have Super Delegates to determine their candidate?

That's how the Proletariat worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Fether said:

2) switch to a ranking type system. We all rank our top four picks and depending on where our pick Sit in the ranking, they get different amount of votes. Ie. Someone ranked his votes  1) Trump 2) Cruze 3) Sander 4) Hillary

Maine has this kind of a system. It was approved in the 2016 election and implemented in 2018.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/ranked-choice-voting-maine/557669/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrat-prevails-in-maine-congressional-race-that-used-ranked-choice-voting-system/2018/11/15/e8d81cae-e8ff-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dde449986a96

I'm a big fan of this type of voting.  If the U.S. used preferential voting(or ranked choice voting), it's very likely that President Trump would not have won the Republican Primary in 2016.  I suspect the Republican who did win it would be president today under preferential voting, and would have won after reallocating smaller party candidate votes.

The biggest feature of preferential voting, in my opinion, is that it naturally moves toward centrist opponents with broader appeal, while the current system benefits extremist candidates in the primaries, leaving us stuck with fringe candidates in the general election. The next big advantage is preferential voting would put a sizable nail in the coffin of two-party governance.  Over time, you'd see a broader range of political parties, and by casting a high preferential vote for whatever party most closely satisfies your views, you can send a message about what your values are without the same risk of ceding the election to your least preferred candidate*.  This would give candidates much better information about what platforms really motivate voters.

 

* The most recent talking point along these lines being that those who were bitter that Senator Sanders lost the Democratic Primary and so voted for Jill Stein in protest may have contributed to President Trump's election--an outcome far less desirable to them than Secretary Clinton. (I'm not sure there were quite enough of these votes to make that big of a difference, but that's one theory)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

Since the popular vote was so close (about 5%) do they really want to encourage conservatives in their states to vote more? 

Given:

  • More people live in deep blue states than deep red states.
  • Many people won't go out and vote because they don't believe it matters in such a biased state.

Wouldn't that mean that the popular vote would swing towards the republican candidate?

13 states now totalling 179 electoral votes now up for grabs when they were considered safe for Democrats.  Not a good plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2019 at 2:43 PM, Midwest LDS said:

It's concerning, but at least for the moment it's not quite at the level of acceptance needed. First they need to get a minimum of 270 electoral votes worth of states to sign on before it takes effect. While they are currently at 189 I think it's going to be difficult for them to get enough states to sign on to actually get the compact to take effect.

Hmmm... would that be a bellwether for the electoral vote winner for the 2020 election?

 

On 6/10/2019 at 2:43 PM, Midwest LDS said:

Second I feel like this is the kind of law that won't survive a constitutional challenge. They are trying to get around having to actually go through the process of getting an amendment ratified, and I just don't think the Supreme Court, even some of the liberal justices, would stand for that. I suppose we will see how it plays out, but I'm not panicking just yet. We should keep an eye on their progress though.

I'm fairly certain a constitutional challenge won't survive it.  Bush v Gore has set the SCOTUS ruling on this - neither the Feds nor other States can tell any State how to cast their electoral vote for President.  A State can decide to let the groundhog choose the President and no other State nor the Feds can say anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share