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

[DrScholl]

Let's get this out the way first. If Romney or Trump had won the popular vote, but Obama and Clinton won the electoral college the NPVIC would have been enacted because Republicans control enough state legislatures to make it happen.

There really is no logical reason why states should have presidential votes weighted. A legislature is intended to give regions, states, provinces, etc. individual representation. Not every state needs an equal chance of electing a President of their choice and that's not even possible to achieve under the electoral college.

[Cashew]

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.

That's because the argument is not meant to make sense, it's just an excuse to avoid admitting that they don't want to give up something that benefit's them. I mean this is all they could come up with:

1: Claim that it benefits small states, when it actually does the opposite.
2: Say that it benefits rural voters as if that settles it, but they can never explain why rural voters deserve more influence.
3: Appeal to motive fallacy, "if the situation were reversed", "power grab", without actually addressing the idea of a popular vote on it's merits.
4: Appeal to tradition, as if "the founder wanted it this way so shut up" is valid argument.
4.5: Lying about tradition, winner take all and bound electors are a perversion of what the founders intended.
5. Concern troll about how electors would be voting against the candidate their state voter for, as if the NPVIC wouldn't make the electoral college ceremonial.

[RI]

Here's the overlooked argument: there does not exist one national presidential election run by the federal government every fourth November. There exist fifty-one presidential elections run by the states and DC independently, each with their own laws concerning voting rights and ballot access. The slate of candidates is not uniform across states, nor is franchise uniformly distributed. There have been elections where not all of the major party candidates are allowed on the ballot in each state (e.g. Alabama 1964). If states can remove major candidates, they can, if large enough, single-handledly decide the popular vote by themselves. We would need an amendment federalizing the administration of presidential elections in order to ensure the national popular vote is anything but an easily-rigged farce.

[7,052,770]

Here's the overlooked argument: there does not exist one national presidential election run by the federal government every fourth November. There exist fifty-one presidential elections run by the states and DC independently, each with their own laws concerning voting rights and ballot access. The slate of candidates is not uniform across states, nor is franchise uniformly distributed. There have been elections where not all of the major party candidates are allowed on the ballot in each state (e.g. Alabama 1964). If states can remove major candidates, they can, if large enough, single-handledly decide the popular vote by themselves. We would need an amendment federalizing the administration of presidential elections in order to ensure the national popular vote is anything but an easily-rigged farce.

I don't think that's really "overlooked." Definitely true, I just think we're all aware. Gotta have the same ballot for all 50 states.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That quote right there nails the argument for the current EC: State's voters vs national voters.

IT'S AN ELECTION FOR A NATIONAL OFFICE

[Cashew]

Here's the overlooked argument: there does not exist one national presidential election run by the federal government every fourth November. There exist fifty-one presidential elections run by the states and DC independently, each with their own laws concerning voting rights and ballot access. The slate of candidates is not uniform across states, nor is franchise uniformly distributed. There have been elections where not all of the major party candidates are allowed on the ballot in each state (e.g. Alabama 1964). If states can remove major candidates, they can, if large enough, single-handledly decide the popular vote by themselves. We would need an amendment federalizing the administration of presidential elections in order to ensure the national popular vote is anything but an easily-rigged farce.

Well in that case, would you support an amendment to federalize presidential elections? Hypothetically of course, assuming that we actually need an amendment to federalize elections instead of just legislation which I don't buy. Just like under the popular vote, swing states under our current system can remove major presidential candidates as you have proven with your example of Alabama in 1964. As a matter of fact Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio could all take the Democratic candidate off the ballot in 2020 turning the election into an "easily-rigged farce" with nothing to stop them. Surely we need an amendment to avert this future catastrophe! So far the only thing holding states back from doing this is popular opinion, so if anything the higher stakes of a popular vote would make these kind of shenanigans less likely.

This argument doesn't actually address the merits of a popular vote itself, so I have to ask you what's the real reason you oppose a popular vote? I find to very hard to believe that there exists many people who would support a popular vote on principle but don't want it implemented because of some prerequisite, (constitutional in your case) that they don't actually want passed.

[Badger]

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.

Corrected..

Also, f!#k you Sisolak.

[Badger]

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.

Reading about what legislation actually does is wasting time, but making a fool of yourself on Atlas is not?

If Mitt Romney and Donald Trump had won the popular vote, but Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the electoral vote, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Sure we would. You all would be hot to trot to repeal it if it looked like history would repeat, and many liberals woulx agree because its the right thing to do.

[Bojack Horseman]

What are the odds of an override?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ouch. Vermont, RI, California, and Hawaii had vetoes, but they were from Republican governors. Hawaii overrode the veto, while the other 3 passed it later under Democratic/Chafee governors.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That quote right there nails the argument for the current EC: State's voters vs national voters.

IT'S AN ELECTION FOR A NATIONAL OFFICE

Elector is no more of a national office than Senator or Representative. The President doesn't get elected until December.

[Joe Republic]

That quote right there nails the argument for the current EC: State's voters vs national voters.

IT'S AN ELECTION FOR A NATIONAL OFFICE

Elector is no more of a national office than Senator or Representative. The President doesn't get elected until December.

Ah yes, how could I have forgotten that on November 8th 2016, I proudly cast my presidential ballot for Dayananda Prabhu Rachakonda, Larry Jackson, Joetta Brown, Paul James Catha II, Greg Gardella and Teresa Benitez-Thompson.


  Just because your point is technically correct doesn't make it useful or relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Joe Republic]

What are the odds of an override?

0

Ouch. Vermont, RI, California, and Hawaii had vetoes, but they were from Republican governors. Hawaii overrode the veto, while the other 3 passed it later under Democratic/Chafee governors.

It's a setback, for sure, and as it's unlikely he'll be successfully primaried in 2022 (unless he really forks everything up and gets himself Gibbons'd), then the earliest we'll see another attempt at this is in 2027.

Oh well... patience is a virtue, right? 

[SteveRogers]

Here's the overlooked argument: there does not exist one national presidential election run by the federal government every fourth November. There exist fifty-one presidential elections run by the states and DC independently, each with their own laws concerning voting rights and ballot access. The slate of candidates is not uniform across states, nor is franchise uniformly distributed. There have been elections where not all of the major party candidates are allowed on the ballot in each state (e.g. Alabama 1964). If states can remove major candidates, they can, if large enough, single-handledly decide the popular vote by themselves. We would need an amendment federalizing the administration of presidential elections in order to ensure the national popular vote is anything but an easily-rigged farce.

We are aware. Any change to a national popular vote should be accompanied by uniform federal regulations governing said presidential election. (I actually do think this is a major shortcoming of the NPVIC. My hope would be that if the NPVIC movement picks up steam, it will lead to momentum for a proper constitutional amendment).

[cvparty]

that title is so salty

[cvparty]

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.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

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".

[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.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

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.

And that would be the current "swing states".  Think they are going to go to Alaska to get some voters or Wyoming? No, they'll want a big visible rally in Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago, or NYC.

Trump went to most states even ones that were solidly R: Alabama, Mississippi, the Carolinas, etc.

I still don't see how they change except going to the major cities more now.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

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....

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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".

This is flawed logic.

Having a national popular vote means that states as groups of voters no longer make sense. A vote in Los Angeles literally has the same weight as a vote in Omaha. Any campaigner who campaigned exclusively in urban centers in CA, NY and IL would obviously miss out on huge bases of voters in plenty of other states, e.g., in Metro Oklahoma City, Spokane, or Knoxville.

From a logistical standpoint, you are always going to have candidates preferring to do campaigning in vote-dense urban areas. That is a cost efficiency that no sensible electoral system will fix. But, these areas where it's logistically efficient to campaign are scattered throughout the country and represent a diversity of interests.

Trump went to most states even ones that were solidly R: Alabama, Mississippi, the Carolinas, etc.

Yes, he went to the major metro areas of those states, lol.

[DK_Mo82]

I understand both sides on this story. Yes popular vote would help Democrats. But that would be at expense of states like Nevada.which gets attention for its just six electoral votes. I understand the governor's choice but at the same time understand why Democrats shouldn't be happy with it.

[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.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

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?

[cvparty]

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".

do u not understand this graph it’s called a rate
so no, the amount of campaigning one does in a certain state would correlate with the population. yes people would campaign in california at least 3x more than in pennsylvania because 40m people live there compared to 12m—every state on the graph would be visible and rather close in size, meaning everyone’s vote would be regarded very similarly if not identically in value. in fact, you’d probably see candidates making trips to nebraska, oklahoma, and kentucky and all over the country when no one has ever paid attention to those states before bc now people’s votes there would finally have true value. as opposed to right now where literally 39 states are not visible on that cartogram