National Popular Vote -- Predictions


Guest Mores
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mores said:

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.

Again, since preferential voting tends to favor centrist/moderate candidates, I don't really care if it swings in favor of moderate Republicans. The point is that the gravitates toward more discussion and compromise than our current system, which has become riddled with obstructionists attempting to hold the entire election system hostage to the primaries of two parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
On 6/10/2019 at 6:50 AM, Mores said:

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.

This is a valid point.    It's almost pointless to vote for a democratic president if you live in Utah or a republican president if you live in New York.

While the point is valid, the proposed solution is terrrible and will backfire.

A better solution would be for states to divi out the electoral votes based on votes.  If all states participated, the electoral college would still work.  

For example, Colorado (where I live) is very much a purple state.  It has nine electoral votes.

1,338,870 people voted for Hillary and 1,202,484

voted for Trump.

Five electoral votes could go to Hillary and four could go to Trump.   This seems idea to me. 

Right now it's only the swimg states deciding the election.  

As far as Oregon's solution goes, this would not work out well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

A better solution would be for states to divi out the electoral votes based on votes.  If all states participated, the electoral college would still work.  

Although this is a valid system of election, it doesn't make sense in the concept of States Rights.

So, first off - it is not the people that elect the Federal Government.  It is the State Government.  The people elect the House of Representatives.  The State Governments elect the Senate and the President and Vice President.  So, basically, the State Governments doesn't have to hold any vote to determine who they're going to choose as President.  But, as it currently stands, 48 States decided to give the decision over to the people on who the State will elect for President.  So, a State uses the popular vote to determine who the State chooses to Preside over the Federal Government.  Therefore, even as it makes procedural sense to divvy up the slate of electors according to the popular vote, it doesn't make logical sense because in that case, the State did not submit A CHOICE for President.  Rather, it submitted 5/9 of one person and 4/9 of another person for President.  But then, I never did really think people who voluntarily reside in Maine made much sense. :D

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2019 at 1:36 PM, Mores said:

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.

10, 906 House members might be a bit unwieldy. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
7 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

10, 906 House members might be a bit unwieldy. lol

I should hope so.  Congress might just be unwieldy enough that they won't be spending time arguing about stuff that people will never agree on and only pass legislation that makes sense.

I'm reminded of Thomas Jefferson refusing to take his post as Pres of the Senate (on a regular basis) because he realized that no one could control that group.

Edited by Mores
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