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

[Nyvin]

Maine is very likely to pass it too,   or has it already?

Funny how you rarely heard Democrats whining about the electoral college before the 2016 election when they deluded themselves into believing in the "blue wall"

I predict this whole campaign will fall apart if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020

You can't be serious.  Before the 2016 election even happened, the NPVIC already had 165 electoral college votes backing it.   The Electoral College has been an issue at least since the 2000 election, if not before.

[Nyvin]

Election 2024: In his reelection bid, Bernie Sanders loses the national popular vote to Louie Gohmert, but edges him out in the electoral college loses 538-0 thanks to the NPVIC.

No question that I support abolishing the Electoral College, but don't you just know something like that would happen? I doubt there is any real way to enact "the Electoral College is abolished, but the first two times Democrats lose the popular vote but would have won the electoral vote, it's temporarily reinstated as retribution for 2000 and 2016."

Considering how rare it is for Republicans to win the popular vote anymore, I doubt this would be an issue.

[Nyvin]

Election 2024: In his reelection bid, Bernie Sanders loses the national popular vote to Louie Gohmert, but edges him out in the electoral college loses 538-0 thanks to the NPVIC.

No question that I support abolishing the Electoral College, but don't you just know something like that would happen? I doubt there is any real way to enact "the Electoral College is abolished, but the first two times Democrats lose the popular vote but would have won the electoral vote, it's temporarily reinstated as retribution for 2000 and 2016."

Considering how rare it is for Republicans to win the popular vote anymore, I doubt this would be an issue.

It’s important to remain consistent on the principle of abolishing the EC, to avoid giving its opponents ammunition that this is some kind of Democratic power grab.  As sh**tty as it would be for any Dem to lose the popular vote, win the EC, but thereby lose the election thanks to the NPVIC, that’s exactly how it was designed to work.  Whoever got more votes than the other candidate won the election.  That’s the whole point.

Absolutely.  That's exactly how it really should work.

[Nyvin]

Democrats continue to prove that they only support American institutions to enrich themselves and win elections.

Whatever happened to the moniker that "America was already great"?

What is unethical about giving the popular vote winner the office of President...like we do for literally every other election in the country?

[Nyvin]

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.

[Nyvin]

Sad, we should keep the Electoral College, to make sure that smaller states, have a say

How does Wyoming or Vermont have a say right now?

[Nyvin]

Election 2024: In his reelection bid, Bernie Sanders loses the national popular vote to Louie Gohmert, but edges him out in the electoral college loses 538-0 thanks to the NPVIC.

No question that I support abolishing the Electoral College, but don't you just know something like that would happen? I doubt there is any real way to enact "the Electoral College is abolished, but the first two times Democrats lose the popular vote but would have won the electoral vote, it's temporarily reinstated as retribution for 2000 and 2016."

Considering how rare it is for Republicans to win the popular vote anymore, I doubt this would be an issue.

And even in a fantastically unlikely scenario where this happened, if Gohmert got more votes, that means more people want him to be president, so he should be president.

100% agree, absolutely.   If a Republican wins more votes than the Democrat, they should indeed be President.   

[Nyvin]

When a Republican wins the popular vote and all of California's electoral votes goes to the Republican candidate, the Democrats will again realize their stupidity and lack of imagination, shamelessly change the law to fit their political purposes regardless of the Constitution.  Because they definitely don't believe in the Constitution.

If the Democrats lose the popular vote, they lose the popular vote.   It'd be the exact same when they lose a statewide Senate/Governor race,  only in this case it's a national race.   

[Nyvin]

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.

[Nyvin]

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.

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.  

[Nyvin]

Sad, we should keep the Electoral College, to make sure that smaller states, have a say

The states have a say. They have a say exactly equivalent to their population just like any other state. That is a fake argument.

In fact, it's not even a fake argument, it's a factually incorrect one. It's a little too another post, because only small states that have any say in an election are New Hampshire Nevada, and Iowa. Every other small state in the country votes there don't count.

Well if you say it’s a fake argument then I guess it must have no merit.  I suppose you also agree that the Senate should be commensurate with population size, because we should just surrender all branches of government to the majority.  No protection for the states with a minority of the population.  We can also dispense with the Supreme Court, because why should nine people decide the law.  It’s not like the Supreme Court protects the right of minorities.  Fake argument.  The UN?  Should be ruled by the governments of Brazil, Russia, China and India, because who better understands the needs of U.S. citizens than the dense populations in foreign countries.  Four countries determining the fate of every other nation, power vesting to the countries with populations that would rather have a natural feel instead of artificiality of condom. 

You’re argument about only a few small states having say in an election is illogical.  If Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada are the only states that have say in an election, why completely take the voice away from other small states that wish to preserve their governing authority through the electoral college.  Why take away their small amount of power? 

Why should state borders have any role in a national election?  Why are voters in Wyoming given this supposed “power” but not voters in Siskiyou CA?  Why not just treat them equally?

[Nyvin]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

They would say that doesn't make sense, but keeping it as a system for presidential elections makes perfect sense to them.

There is no debating with that crowd, no matter how much logic you use or how well thought out your arguments.

The reason is because they realize, deep down, that they cannot win elections based on the will of the people and the only way they can win elections is through technicality (the electoral college), voter fraud, or otherwise cheating.

Having a multitude of different election procedures for various offices throughout government is a pretty logical way to ensure certain groups of people do not gain absolute power over our system.  Both systems have their merits, but Democrats are blind to logic.  Honestly, if you can't see the logical arguments underpinning this American tradition, procedure and culture, then you probably shouldn't be considered competent to vote.  

It's extremely disingenuous to call this an "American tradition" or "based on the framers" when bound electors and winner take all were not how the electoral college was intended to function. Honestly if the only arguments you guys can come up with are "tradition" and "small states" neither one of which you bothered to research for accuracy you shouldn't be considered competent enough to vote.

It is actually very accurate and it wasn't my only argument.  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.  You really should learn some history before you open your mouth.  Just like a Democrat to act a fool.    

The electoral college was installed to protect slavery in the South,  since the northern states outnumbered them in sheer population.

[Nyvin]

If a Republican gets the popular vote it's not likely a Democrat will have likely secured enough votes to win the electoral college that would be rendered moot under the NPVIC.

Now if a Republican actually did win the popular vote and lose the electoral college under the current system you'd see several of these small states signing on to the NPVIC in the days following the election.

And you just proved why this idea is stupid.  It's all about "my side winning" and not anything else.

So you "authentically" see no benefit whatsoever by determining the Presidential election by popular vote?

Really,  you cannot grasp any potential positives from this system?   I don't see how that's possible even for the most ardent partisan hack.

[Nyvin]

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.

[Nyvin]

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. That and if the popular vote does go Trump or another R's way, the hypocrisy will be blatantly apparent.  Where was this anti-EC stuff during the Obama years? Right.

It's been explained that the EC is an archaic system designed hundreds of years ago that doesn't even function in the same manner that it did in 1792.

Your claim that there will by hypocrisy is ill-conceived too,  what are you basing this on? 

There was plenty of anti-EC stuff going around prior to the 2016 election, seeing as how the NPVIC was around (and passed multiple state legislatures) prior to that.

[Nyvin]

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.

[Nyvin]

There is still not substantive argument against going to the popular vote to elect a President in this thread.

[Nyvin]

It will happen eventually, trust that. Regardless, if Trump loses the popular vote AND the electoral vote under the current system I'm curious to see how Republicans will try and force him back into the White House against public will. With conservatives controlling the Supreme Court I fully expect Republicans to try and have them void the election result based on some obscure interpretation of the constitution. But I don't think even the conservatives on the court are that crazy.

My prediction: the GOP will try to dispute enough EVs to get the election thrown into the House, where they stand a decent chance to still control 26 states.

you say that as if the democrats didn't attempt to do the same thing with Ohio in 2004

If Kerry won Ohio he would've had 271 votes.  An election goes to the House when no candidate reaches 270.

[Nyvin]

What if Trump crossed 270 EV due to Nevada? Sisolak would be the Ralph Nader of 2020.

The NPVIC doesn't take effect until it reaches 270 electoral votes. Next time try to spend a few minutes reading about it before commenting. 

I don't waste time reading left social "justice" experiments.

Then why bother commenting to begin with?

[Nyvin]

I don't understand his argument. The 10 smallest states have received fewer visits in 2016 than Ohio and that two-thirds of visits in 2016 were done in the largest 20 states.
It just confuses me when people fall back on the argument that the smaller states are assisted by the EC, literally every piece of data from recent elections points to the opposite.

And what exactly would the NPV do to make the candidates visit the smaller states and not just the most populous ones?

And the argument about smaller states is because a voter in Wyoming has a more weighted EV vs a California EV.  But the argument for that is that's so those smaller populations have a chance in hell of electing a president they want, not so much just for visits by candidates.

So instead of those states, you'd have: CA, NY, IL, TX, FL, and maybe a few others like OH, PA, GA.  Don't see how that's fixing anything except if you live in those states and want to feel like your vote matters more than "flyover country".

No you wouldn't.   You'd have candidates going where there are large amounts of swing/persuadable voters.   Only now instead of going to a small handful of states they could potentially go anywhere.

[Nyvin]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

And as if deciding the election by popular vote is some crazy wild idea....really?

This thread is just blue avatars throwing all the right wing talking points at the wall and hoping one of them sticks.  So far all we have is a bunch of crap on the floor.

[Nyvin]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

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?

This is idiotic.   It would be going in the complete opposite direction of electing by popular vote and would be nightmarishly unfair.

[Nyvin]

Here's to show how out of touch the Electoral College is with modern day democracies across the world:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/22/among-democracies-u-s-stands-out-in-how-it-chooses-its-head-of-state/