Nevada set to join NPVIC (UPDATE: vetoed by idiot governor)

[emailking]

Amazing how Hillary's defeat made the far left go absolutely insane.

The NPVIC had 165 electoral votes before the 2016 election....saying once again.   This started way before the 2016 election.   I don't see how this isn't clear.

Because it's all incredibly bad faith?

It's only bad faith if they're not willing to accept a Republican winning the popular vote while losing the electoral vote (traditionally determined). Remains to be seen, but while they would be upset and probably moan about it, I think Democrats would accept it.

[emailking]

reminder that John Kerry was very close to winning the EV while being blown out in the PV

Uhh..no?

Kerry won 46.65% of electoral votes (251/538) and won 48.3% of the popular vote.   The popular vote was to the left of the electoral college.

I believe what he means is that Kerry only needed like 100K votes in Ohio to flip in order to win the E.C., while having a marginal change on the P.V. vote difference. Close wins are unlikely in the electoral college because the increments come in chunks.

[emailking]

Your first statement contradicts what you say later.   100K votes decided the election in 2004,  while the popular vote was decided by over 3 million.  Bush's national margin was 2.4% while in Ohio it was 2.11%.   

The electoral college has a much, much higher probability to produce a razor thin result in one state that determines the entire election than the popular vote will.  

I don't see a contradiction in what I said. Flipping 100K votes in Ohio is presumably easier as a targeted operation than flipping 3 million votes nationally.

[emailking]

The electoral college was meant to prevent a direct popular vote.  Framers were worried that sparsely populated states would be ruled by heavily populated states like Massachussetts and New York.  

Yes, but what he said was also correct. The electoral college was not intended to function the way it does now, with pledged/bound electors and a winner take all format. It's allowed under the rules, but it has morphed into something that is vastly different from what the framers wanted. It was supposed to be a deliberative body.

[emailking]

So far the only argument against NPVIC on this thread is "Democrats just want to win election more/easier".    Which is extremely weak.   It doesn't address the actual issues behind the EC/popular vote whatsoever.

My argument is actually that is all secretly Democrats want, because they either don't understand what the EC is for or don't understand what a republic is.

They know what a republic is. They want the country to be more democratic and less of a republic.

[emailking]

So far the only argument against NPVIC on this thread is "Democrats just want to win election more/easier".    Which is extremely weak.   It doesn't address the actual issues behind the EC/popular vote whatsoever.

My argument is actually that is all secretly Democrats want, because they either don't understand what the EC is for or don't understand what a republic is.

They know what a republic is. They want the country to be more democratic and less of a republic.

The Electoral College has no relation to being a Republic.   If it did then I believe the United States is one of the extreme few "Republics" on Earth.

I (and I believe he) mean republic in this sense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States

The electoral college is a step away from pure democracy to indirect control.

[emailking]

We can agree to disagree on whether it's characteristic of a republic or not. It seems to me to apply. I do think the EC should be abolished.

[emailking]

Also, I would have a lot more respect if the blue avvies in this thread just went full McConnell and said "This system benefits our party, this is why we don't want it abolished."  Because it really just looks like a bunch of retards trying to navigate a corn maze. Pretty embarrassing!

The thing is, so far as we know, it has benefitted them by pure chance and rather unlikely chances at that. The 538 model has always shown a bias to the Democrats in the EC.

[emailking]

It was a protest against irregularities in how the election was conducted in Ohio (extremely long lines in Democratic areas, provisional ballots not counted, etc.). If it had theoretically succeeded, the electoral slate would have been thrown out and Bush and Cheney would have still won in the House & Senate. Everyone knew that, and it had no chance of succeeding anyway. It was just a protest.

[emailking]

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

I have a hard time believing that's a serious proposal.

The electoral college is an irrational anachronism.

The NPVIC is not the way to fix it. If we ever had an election where it would reverse the outcome in favor of the Democrat, whichever state in the compact voted Republican would drop the whole thing so fast it would make your head spin.

I don't think it would make my head spin. But in any case, the change would have to take place after the election in question (for which they are locked in), and they would need Republican control in both houses and control of the governorship.

[emailking]

Another way I think that argument fails is that retailers with a national presence usually have stores in most if not all of the states. If they could make more money by instead focusing on California, New York, and Texas, ignoring Wyoming, Montana, Vermont, Alaska, etc. they would do that.