New Mexico aboard the National Popular Vote train

[ludin]

In a 51% to 49% race in NM, why should the EC throw half the state's votes in the trash?

the state could assign electors based on % of win with the winner getting +1.
so in this case the winner get 50% +1 electoral.

easy simple.

 

[ludin]

Thats exactly what happens in virtually every state currently. Its almost nothing more than a symbolic vote for dem voters in deep red states and vice a versa for the Republican voters in deep blue states.

Perhaps if states abandoned the winner take all method the election results would be closer aligned to the national popular vote.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

actually voters in the state could mount a challenge that the state does not have the right to secede their voting rights to other states.

 

[Idiometer]

Until democrats lose that way and then they will hitch how that system isn't fair.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

The only two times that the EC has gone against the popular vote, it favored Republicans. I don't think the Democrats have anything to worry about, since that have more voters than the GOP.

 

[distraff]

You can believe in Santa Claus or whatever you like. I believe God's Word.

Well I believe in Santa. There is a lot of evidence he is real. I'm not so sure about the bible though. I don't recall the bible mentioning the democrats anywhere.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Again, this is fallacious thinking (and historically inaccurate). Why would there need to be a national recount? You assume scenarios that have, historically never happened. Recounts rarely change elections. The closest election in U.S history was 1960. But Kennedy won both the popular (by 100,000 votes) and electoral college vote. Nixon didn't contest it.

It is not fallacious thinking considering all the unusual things that have happened in US Electoral history. All those things that have happened have followed the Constitution and the Electoral College to produce the orderly transition of Presidents. Something your method does not guarantee. It is irrelevant whether recounts change election results, recounts do happen at state and local elections when the results are withing a state determined percentage. Folks here want to do away with that orderly process and make everyone recount.

Bringing up Kennedy/Nixon as defense of National Voting is absurd. Nixon for some inexplicable reason chose not to contest Illinois and Texas, but better to have 2 states recounting rather than all 50. The popular vote in 1960 was within a .17% margin. Mandatory ranges I've seen is typically between .5% and 1% before a recount is required. Why are you so eager to encourage the possibility of everyone participating in a Florida-2000 like recount?

 

[Perotista]

It doesn't go into effect in any state until 51% of the EC voting states are on board

I think the compact is constitutional. If that is what those state legislatures want to do, that is fine with me. But what do you really have, the very solid Democratic Northeast with the exception of the swing state of NH. Maine also very Democratic hasn't joined yet. You have the very solid Democratic West Coast states with the exception of Oregon which is going to go to the Democrat anyway. The only three states in-between the solid Democratic Northeast and the solid Democratic west coast are Illinois, New Mexico and Colorado. Illinois and New Mexico are also very solid Democratic with Colorado viewed as a swing state. But is at least light blue in reality.

Everyone of the states so far in the compact are guaranteed to go Democratic in 2020. From my perspective, until I see a valid swing state like Ohio or Florida and or a red state join the compact, it almost looks like a political power grab. At least at this point.

If one wants to do away with the electoral college, the only constitutional way is via an amendment to the Constitution. Also being over looked is if the Republicans were to take over the Colorado state legislature, they could withdraw from the compact.

 

[Ikari]

This is actually a fallacy. With the EC, candidates focus their attention on 10-12 swing States. With the popular vote model, candidates will want to go to more States, even though those States may be reliably lost or won in the EC world. A 40% margin of victory win in West Virginia is worth a 2 1/2% win in California. Again, if one does the math rather than relying on tropes, this becomes clear. Im afraid you're being sold a bill of goods.

A 40% margin of victory? Like one candidate wins 70% of the vote, the other wins 30%? When in the hell has that happened? Not in recent times. It's all close to 50/50 spilts with some noise. So some impossible margin of victory in WV is worth some marginal upswing from CA.

My point exactly. One could reach more people more easily in California and only needs 2% to equal some neigh 40% from WV where they're never going to win by 40%. So flub WV, and go CA. A candidate can make much larger gains by pandering to the desires of larger cities than it can by rural countries.

So instead, we have the EC. Winning small states can overcome big states so that the largest of states, the most populated of cities do not determine the outcome of federal elections. It's the Republic that matters, as the last election showed. CA shouldn't be allowed to dominate merely because it has more folk, there are 49 other States.

 

[NWRatCon]

no it doesn't it negate the votes in states a ton of states that are not massive urban centers.

the people in Montana vote for the person A but CA, NY vote for person B the people in Montana just got their vote negated.
no their votes still don't count in fact they count even less.

In a national popular vote the votes of Montana count exactly the same as the votes in New York or California. Even if you consider votes "negated" that isn't any different than they are now. Indeed, under the winner-take-all EC process we have now, ALL of the votes of minority voters are "negated" without even considering the votes in New York or California. How does THAT seem fair, reasonable or rational?

 

[NWRatCon]

A 40% margin of victory? Like one candidate wins 70% of the vote, the other wins 30%? When in the hell has that happened? Not in recent times. It's all close to 50/50 spilts with some noise. So some impossible margin of victory in WV is worth some marginal upswing from CA.

Respectfully, how about you do a little research before posting? I wasn't pulling those figures out of thin air. Trump's margin of victory in West Virginia, was in fact 42%. In Wyoming it was 46%. Presidential Election Results. Between them they negated 3% of California's vote.

It helps to know the facts before posting.

 

[marke]

Alinsky, Marxist, Hitler...? Crap your pants a little harder there sport.

:lamo

Don't know anything about Alinsky? You will likely crap your own pants if Alynskyites ever succeed in what they seek to do to America.

 

[ludin]

In a national popular vote the votes of Montana count exactly the same as the votes in New York or California. Even if you consider votes "negated" that isn't any different than they are now. Indeed, under the winner-take-all EC process we have now, ALL of the votes of minority voters are "negated" without even considering the votes in New York or California. How does THAT seem fair, reasonable or rational?

No they dont'.

I am the state of montana. The people of my state vote and expect that their electorates will go to the person they vote for not someone else.
No they are not negated.

Their votes count in their state which is the way that it was designed.
what is happening here is that states are turning their peoples votes over to other states
to dictate how their vote goes.

that is what is unreaonable and not rational.
why would you turn your vote over to the idiots in NY or CA?

 

[Bassman]

It is what Colorado did. If the bill gets the requisite number of states willing to join, then Colorado's EC goes to the popular vote winner. If CO voted for someone other than the popular vote winner, then our ECs are hijacked and given away to a candidate we did not vote for. Colorado's EC votes should be for Colorado voters, not LA, not New York, not Chicago.

The EC is there, in part, to ensure that a President is beholden to the many states, not just the major cities.

EXACTLY!!!! Why should urban ****holes like NY, LA, et al. get to dictate the national agenda, let alone be the sole arbiters of deciding the POTUS?

 

[Bassman]

And I say this again. Had the Wicked Witch of Little Rock been foisted upon us, we would NOT be hearing about this crap at all.

 

[Tigerace117]

EXACTLY!!!! Why should urban ****holes like NY, LA, et al. get to dictate the national agenda, let alone be the sole arbiters of deciding the POTUS?

I know right? We have to consider what the backwards ****holes full of inbred whiskey tango losers think!

:roll:

 

[NWRatCon]

It is not fallacious thinking considering all the unusual things that have happened in US Electoral history. All those things that have happened have followed the Constitution and the Electoral College to produce the orderly transition of Presidents. Something your method does not guarantee. It is irrelevant whether recounts change election results, recounts do happen at state and local elections when the results are withing a state determined percentage. Folks here want to do away with that orderly process and make everyone recount.

Was fallacious too strong a word?

First, there is absolutely no reason why "this method" does not guarantee the same result that the Electoral College does. IT USES THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. The same electoral college that has been used in every other elections. In the same way that States can apportion their votes any way that State law allows, the NPV is simply a creature of State law, and follows the Constitutional mandate.

Second, you make an assumptions about recounts that don't bear scrutiny. First, why would every State need to recount? Only those States in which it was in the margin of error would require a recount, and that, itself is unlikely (see the previous post on Margin of Error). Second, so what? You act as if a recount would be some terrible, and burdensome thing. Every State has a system of recounting, and most are quite efficient. As you noted, "recounts do happen at state and local elections", some States can get recounts done on election night.

Finally, you continue, as my mom would say, "borrow trouble" to maintain a system that is already broken. Change is good, when it is done for a good reason. Methinks there is an ulterior motive to your objections? Just a thought.

 

[Bassman]

I know right? We have to consider what the backwards ****holes full of inbred whiskey tango losers think!

:roll:

the only losers are the ones who think living in congested sewers where Democrat corruption is a way of life.

 

[Tigerace117]

the only losers are the ones who think living in congested sewers where Democrat corruption is a way of life.

Oh, and Republican corruption is so much better, right? Living in one of those imaginary states like Wyoming or Montana where the population is three dudes and a goat is not a sign of virtue.

 

[Lakryte]

Yes, but there are actually 50 States in the the Republic, and the President is beholden to the Republic on whole, and thus the EC is there in part to ensure that the President appeals to the many states not just the major cities.

Except with the electoral college the president doesn't have to appeal to more states. The President only needs to appeal to the tiny fraction of the country living in swing states.

 

[Lakryte]

EXACTLY!!!! Why should urban ****holes like NY, LA, et al. get to dictate the national agenda, let alone be the sole arbiters of deciding the POTUS?

80% of Americans live in urban areas. Why should the 20% of Americans who don't get to dictate the national agenda?

 

[Lakryte]

No they dont'.

I am the state of montana. The people of my state vote and expect that their electorates will go to the person they vote for not someone else.
No they are not negated.

Their votes count in their state which is the way that it was designed.
what is happening here is that states are turning their peoples votes over to other states
to dictate how their vote goes.

that is what is unreaonable and not rational.
why would you turn your vote over to the idiots in NY or CA?

If you are a Montanta voter, and you voted for someone who did not win the popular vote in Montana, under the electoral college your vote is thrown out and does not count. Under a national popular vote, every Montana voters vote will count towards the candidate they voted for.

 

[Lakryte]

A 40% margin of victory? Like one candidate wins 70% of the vote, the other wins 30%? When in the hell has that happened? Not in recent times. It's all close to 50/50 spilts with some noise. So some impossible margin of victory in WV is worth some marginal upswing from CA.

My point exactly. One could reach more people more easily in California and only needs 2% to equal some neigh 40% from WV where they're never going to win by 40%. So flub WV, and go CA. A candidate can make much larger gains by pandering to the desires of larger cities than it can by rural countries.

So instead, we have the EC. Winning small states can overcome big states so that the largest of states, the most populated of cities do not determine the outcome of federal elections. It's the Republic that matters, as the last election showed. CA shouldn't be allowed to dominate merely because it has more folk, there are 49 other States.

Candidates already largely ignore small states that aren't swing states under the electoral college. Why should one person's vote weigh more than another? We are all Americans, we should have have the same vote.

 

[Greenbeard]

I have a feeling that this will immediately die the minute a republican wins the popular vote

That only happens once every couple decades.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Was fallacious too strong a word?

First, there is absolutely no reason why "this method" does not guarantee the same result that the Electoral College does. IT USES THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. The same electoral college that has been used in every other elections. In the same way that States can apportion their votes any way that State law allows, the NPV is simply a creature of State law, and follows the Constitutional mandate.

Second, you make an assumptions about recounts that don't bear scrutiny. First, why would every State need to recount? Only those States in which it was in the margin of error would require a recount, and that, itself is unlikely (see the previous post on Margin of Error). Second, so what? You act as if a recount would be some terrible, and burdensome thing. Every State has a system of recounting, and most are quite efficient. As you noted, "recounts do happen at state and local elections", some States can get recounts done on election night.

Finally, you continue, as my mom would say, "borrow trouble" to maintain a system that is already broken. Change is good, when it is done for a good reason. Methinks there is an ulterior motive to your objections? Just a thought.

You keep jumping in discussion NPV when I'm countering direct nationwide popular vote. I don't challenge the Constitutionality of the NPV initiative, I just earlier pointed out that Congress could challenge the Electoral Votes of any state that allocated their Electoral Votes to a candidate other than the one that garnered the most votes. That's Constitutional too.

The system isn't broken, you just don't like the results. The Electoral College has worked to produce a smooth transition of Presidents every single time.

 

[Lakryte]

You keep jumping in discussion NPV when I'm countering direct nationwide popular vote. I don't challenge the Constitutionality of the NPV initiative, I just earlier pointed out that Congress could challenge the Electoral Votes of any state that allocated their Electoral Votes to a candidate other than the one that garnered the most votes. That's Constitutional too.

The system isn't broken, you just don't like the results. The Electoral College has worked to produce a smooth transition of Presidents every single time.

Article II of the Constitution states:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."

The federal Congress cannot interfere with how states decide to appoint electors. It is explicitly left to the legislatures of the states.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Article II of the Constitution states:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."

The federal Congress cannot interfere with how states decide to appoint electors. It is explicitly left to the legislatures of the states.

3 U.S.C section 15 addresses the possibility (not likelihood) that such electoral votes could be contested:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#15