Support NeoGAF

[Magni]

^ Really? Is that why the Democrats have won every single popular vote? Or why they had a higher EV margin than PV margin last November? Oh wait.

Now you are at least arguing something.

So your position is that rural voters should have systematic protections against getting outvoted by urban votes (please correct me if I'm wrong). This necessarily means that urban voters are under-represented. You haven't yet shown a reason why this should be the case.

Essentially, we're all arguing that a popular vote is ideal because it would be:
1 US citizen = 1 vote

You are arguing that:
1 Urban citizen = x votes
1 Rural citizen = 1.5x votes

Exactly. The Presidential elections are the only federal elections we have. (The House and Senate elections are district and state-wide, not federal).

States/Districts should have nothing to say in the matter, since the federal office of President transcends districts and states.

 

[jamesinclair]

Looks like someone is getting ready for a presidential run

The heart of the plan would hike the income tax from 5.25 percent to 6.25 percent while cutting the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 4.5 percent. It would also double the personal income tax exemption, eliminate 45 income tax deductions (for T passes, college scholarships, and dependents under 12, among other items) and tie the gas tax to inflation, ensuring gradual increases at the pump. Three corporate tax breaks would be eliminated. MBTA fares, Turnpike tolls, and Registry fees would also increase periodically.

The increases on candy, soda, and cigarettes were also in the proposal outlined last week but weren’t highlighted at the time by the administration.

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...-cigarettes/MMEHfcfZD9iOghMRIed61N/story.html

 

[Qazaq]

I'm saying that if the president is decided by a direct comparison of popular vote numbers than the rural interests have a voice directly proportional to their population. You're saying that they'd be under-represented, but I'm saying that in a direct vote, by definition, they are not under or over represented. They have a voice exactly proportional to their fraction of the country's population.

I'm done. I'm exhausted by this. If people want to think that everything should just be hunky dory and since this country is urban and becoming moreso then, well, the farmers should just go fuck themselves, then by all means. I don't care. I'm simply saying that allocating by a national popular vote is a move that Democrats know would favor them.

 

[tranciful]

*eyeroll* Neogaf's favorite rebuke. "Ignore the troll!"



Grrr. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT! I don't care about arguing that! I don't *CARE* whether one thinks the popular vote is ideal.

I care about making my goddamn original point: That changing the system to one that does the national popular vote is a move that systematically favors the Democrats.

You've argued the same point for several pages and haven't gotten anywhere and I'm bored of it.

 

[SuperBonk]

I care about making my goddamn original point: That changing the system to one that does the national popular vote is a move that systematically favors the Democrats.

I don't understand why you keep saying this. It's not true now and never has been. Obama had larger EV victories than PV victories. Many Republicans have crushed the PV throughout history.

 

[Magni]

I'm done. I'm exhausted by this. If people want to think that everything should just be hunky dory and since this country is urban and becoming moreso then, well, the farmers should just go fuck themselves, then by all means. I don't care. I'm simply saying that allocating by a national popular vote is a move that Democrats know would favor them.

Farmers who are afraid the presidential candidates will ignore them? They're already being ignored right now, unless they're farmers in Ohio or Florida.

Besides, you have the House and Senate to be represented, the Presidential Elections are the only elections where EVERYONE votes and therefore, everyone should be equally represented.

How would you like it if we had state electoral colleges to ensure that gubernatorial candidates not spend their time in NYC or LA/SF or Seattle?

.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm done. I'm exhausted by this. If people want to think that everything should just be hunky dory and since this country is urban and becoming moreso then, well, the farmers should just go fuck themselves, then by all means. I don't care. I'm simply saying that allocating by a national popular vote is a move that Democrats know would favor them.

On the very last page you said you weren't arguing for some votes counting more than others. But right here, in this post, you are saying that even though farmers are becoming outnumbered their voice should not shrink proportionally.

 

[cashman]

I care about making my goddamn original point: That changing the system to one that does the national popular vote is a move that systematically favors the Democrats.

That's not really the Deomocrat's problem. If the majority of Americans don't agree with your party's policies then they shouldn't be in office.

 

[Qazaq]

You've argued the same point for several pages and haven't gotten anywhere and I'm bored of it.

People keep using circular logic with it.

"The national popular vote represents more of the will of the people and since more of the will of the people favors the Democrats then so be it!"


Whereas the Republicans say:

"The districts represents more of the will of the differences of the kinds of people and since that favors the Republicans then so be it!"


We are outraged by the Republicans saying it because it obviously gives the GOP an advantage in the Presidential election compared to what we've been doing.

 

[The Technomancer]

People keep using circular logic with it.

"The national popular vote represents more of the will of the people and since more of the will of the people favors the Democrats then so be it!"


Whereas the Republicans say:

"The districts represents more of the will of the differences of the kinds of people and since that favors the Republicans then so be it!"

So make an argument for why the district method better represents the will of the people. Don't just throw the opinion out there and expect us to respect it because it exists. And every way you've tried to make an argument so far relies on saying that some votes should count more than others, despite the fact that you keep saying, after you make that argument, that that isn't really your argument

 

[Magni]

People keep using circular logic with it.

"The national popular vote represents more of the will of the people and since more of the will of the people favors the Democrats then so be it!"


Whereas the Republicans say:

"The districts represents more of the will of the differences of the kinds of people and since that favors the Republicans then so be it!"


We are outraged by the Republicans saying it because it obviously gives the GOP an advantage in the Presidential election compared to what we've been doing.

Why do the districts matter in the presidential election? We have the House for that. Nevermind that districts are horrible as is.

 

[Qazaq]

I don't understand why you keep saying this. It's not true now and never has been. Obama had larger EV victories than PV victories. Many Republicans have crushed the PV throughout history.

And were the Democrats hoping and praying for the NPV then?

Look, if people can honestly tell me they are in favor of changing the system in a way that gives the party they DON'T WANT in power more of a shot, then please let me know.

 

[Fenderputty]

*eyeroll* Neogaf's favorite rebuke. "Ignore the troll!"



Grrr. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT! I don't care about arguing that! I don't *CARE* whether one thinks the popular vote is ideal.

I care about making my goddamn original point: That changing the system to one that does the national popular vote is a move that systematically favors the Democrats.

There's nothing systematic about it.

 

[remist]

I care about making my goddamn original point: That changing the system to one that does the national popular vote is a move that systematically favors the Democrats.

Even if that point were true. Why should we care. It brings nothing to the discussion about whether the electoral college is flawed and could be replaced with a better system. Why must we narrow this argument to the interests of the two parties?

 

[Magni]

And were the Democrats hoping and praying for the NPV then?

Look, if people can honestly tell me they are in favor of changing the system in a way that gives the party they DON'T WANT in power more of a shot, then please let me know.

Wait, what? You still haven't replied to a single one of my points by the way.

 

[The Librarian]

Well in NY for example, the race was close until you counted NYC. The city alone made up just under half of Obama's votes in the state. Discount the city and its much closer (Obama won something like 80% of the vote in NYC). Considering this only a moderate Republican could win in NY as he'd need to eat into those city votes. Switching to a popular vote would probably force both parties left, or in the case of the GOP back to the center. Which frankly isn't a bad thing for them.

At this point, we're essentially getting into hypotheticals without any concrete data to back up either point. Under the new system states would essentially be meaningless, so it wouldn't really matter how close Obama or Romney were before NYC came in. Would it make a difference? Who knows. Raw numbers say you can't rely only on cities because they're not big enough, but on the other than how else are you going to campaign besides the cities? Candidates would probably use cities as a stopping point for campaigning the country as a whole, but to get that city's specific votes? I dunno.

Maybe something like the LBJ Special would come back.

You can't extrapolate existing voter demographics. I'm in Texas and the "my vote doesn't matter" thing is HUGE. Texas also has super low voter turnout and I'd bet money that there's a nation-wide correlation between voter turnout and how much of a swing state they're in.

I think you'd see states become more moderate under a popular vote system -- I think the current system promotes the extreme min/maxing you see in campaigns. It's easy for ny and Cali to stay blue when the presidential race ignores them, but look at local offices and you'll see more variety. Even here in Texas, we have some blue mayors.

I did some quick math, and you do appear to be right with that correlation. However, neither of us can say if the increased voting turnout would necessarily change the voting patters of American cities.

 

[dabig2]

People keep using circular logic with it.

"The national popular vote represents more of the will of the people and since more of the will of the people favors the Democrats then so be it!"


Whereas the Republicans say:

"The districts represents more of the will of the differences of the kinds of people and since that favors the Republicans then so be it!"


We are outraged by the Republicans saying it because it obviously gives the GOP an advantage in the Presidential election compared to what we've been doing.

Stop saying "we" when you present our "argument" because you still have no fucking idea. "We" are outraged by the Republicans stating their absurd shit because it obviously disenfranchises a very, large majority of American voters.

You can maybe argue that the national popular vote plan disenfranchises a very small minority of voters which, depending on the time period, may or may not be an advantage to the Democrats. Of course, this ignores the fact that the electoral college probably still disenfranchises more voters than a national popular vote ever theoretically could.

 

[pigeon]

Look, if people can honestly tell me they are in favor of changing the system in a way that gives the party they DON'T WANT in power more of a shot, then please let me know.

Do you have any actual evidence that the national popular vote favors Democrats? Because, as I've already noted twice, there doesn't seem to be any. 2000 is one data point -- not enough to base an argument on.

 

[Qazaq]

So make an argument for why the district method better represents the will of the people. Don't just throw the opinion out there and expect us to respect it because it exists. And every way you've tried to make an argument so far relies on saying that some votes should count more than others, despite the fact that you keep saying, after you make that argument, that that isn't really your argument

I did and I'm done arguing about it. That was the point of bringing up Maine and Nebraska. I don't see why you can't understand how many people in Maine and Nebraska feel that accounting for the regional differences within the state better represents the peoples' voices than the winner take all -- even if you may not personally agree with it.

*I* don't want my state doing that. But I can't act like me being able to potentially count my vote towards this central part of the state casting a presidential vote for X, and this central part of the state says something differently than the northern part of the state which votes for Y -- I can't act like that wouldn't be a valid way of having my voice heard.

 

[KingK]

*eyeroll* Neogaf's favorite rebuke. "Ignore the troll!"



Grrr. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT! I don't care about arguing that! I don't *CARE* whether one thinks the popular vote is ideal.

I care about making my goddamn original point: That changing the system to one that does the national popular vote is a move that systematically favors the Democrats.

I'm sorry, I understand you're getting piled on and it must be frustrating, but your original point is just incorrect. It doesn't systematically favor the Democrats right now any more that it would have systematically favored Republicans in 1984. A popular vote would favor Democrats right now because a majority of the country aligns with Democrats right now. In 1984 a popular vote would favor Republicans because in 1984 a majority of Americans aligned with Republicans. There's no systemic bias in a pure popular vote.

Not to mention, as others have mentioned, Obama's EV victory was bigger than his popular vote margin.

 

[The Technomancer]

I did and I'm done arguing about it. That was the point of bringing up Maine and Nebraska. I don't see why you can't understand how many people in Maine and Nebraska feel that accounting for the regional differences within the state better represents the peoples' voices than the winner take all -- even if you may not personally agree with it.

But I do agree with that! I agree with it so much that I want to take it further! Why stop at breaking winner take all up into districts? Why not break winner take all down to its smallest resolution, the level of the individual vote?

The reason why I am opposed to this specific instance of breaking it up is because the districts in question do not map accurately onto the lower resolution.

 

[Qazaq]

Do you have any actual evidence that the national popular vote favors Democrats? Because, as I've already noted twice, there doesn't seem to be any. 2000 is one data point -- not enough to base an argument on.

Hey, I'm TOTALLY happy to be proven wrong here.


But if I recall, 2000 was WHEN the NPV picked up major traction among significant portions of the left.


And we know that the greater the turnout, the better for Democrats usually. And I think that's great. I'm liberal. I want as many people voting as possible. I think it's excellent for democracy, and I think suppressing the vote is a shitty, shitty thing to do.

But I can acknowledge that, since it benefits the Democrats, altering the system would obviously systematically benefit the Democrats.

 

[Magni]

I did and I'm done arguing about it. That was the point of bringing up Maine and Nebraska. I don't see why you can't understand how many people in Maine and Nebraska feel that accounting for the regional differences within the state better represents the peoples' voices than the winner take all -- even if you may not personally agree with it.

*I* don't want my state doing that. But I can't act like me being able to potentially count my vote towards this central part of the state casting a presidential vote for X, and this central part of the state says something differently than the northern part of the state which votes for Y -- I can't act like that wouldn't be a valid way of having my voice heard.

Wouldn't they feel even more represented if their vote counted as much as everyone else's in the entire country? I'm sure the liberals in the conservative district and the conservatives in the liberal district feel represented right now.

 

[SuperBonk]

And were the Democrats hoping and praying for the NPV then?

Look, if people can honestly tell me they are in favor of changing the system in a way that gives the party they DON'T WANT in power more of a shot, then please let me know.

People are providing actual, logical arguments in favor of the popular vote. Accusing them of being disingenuous and just cheering for their favorite team is more than a bit presumptuous.

 

[Qazaq]

But I do agree with that! I agree with it so much that I want to take it further! Why stop at breaking winner take all up into districts? Why not break winner take all down to its smallest resolution, the level of the individual vote?

The reason why I am opposed to this specific instance of breaking it up is because the districts do not accurately represent the constituency of the state

*shrug* You could! Remember, we had Dax arguing basically the polar opposite.


And remember, New Hampshire essentially does this with their ridiculous 435 member or something House of Representatives.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Let me remind you:

You're trying to justify changing the current system.

[...]

But the national popular vote systematically favors the Democrats.

Whether the NPV systematically favours the Democrats (or whether Democrats only started supporting it because of 2000), however, is completely irrelevant to the arguments justifying it.

 

[Magni]

Hey, I'm TOTALLY happy to be proven wrong here.


But if I recall, 2000 was WHEN the NPV picked up major traction among significant portions of the left.


And we know that the greater the turnout, the better for Democrats usually. And I think that's great. I'm liberal. I want as many people voting as possible. I think it's excellent for democracy, and I think suppressing the vote is a shitty, shitty thing to do.

But I can acknowledge that, since it benefits the Democrats, altering the system would obviously systematically benefit the Democrats.

If you followed the 2012 elections at all, you should know that quite a lot of liberals were confident going into the election because of the electoral math. Obama needed to lose every single swing state basically to lose. It would have been much tougher without the EC. And yet I still want it gone. So yes, I'm in favor of changing the system for something that, as of the last election and not one that happened 12 years ago, favors the party I like least.

 

[Black Mamba]

People keep using circular logic with it.

"The national popular vote represents more of the will of the people and since more of the will of the people favors the Democrats then so be it!"


Whereas the Republicans say:

"The districts represents more of the will of the differences of the kinds of people and since that favors the Republicans then so be it!"


We are outraged by the Republicans saying it because it obviously gives the GOP an advantage in the Presidential election compared to what we've been doing.

This strawman has been pointed out numerous times and you've ignored it.

 

[Qazaq]

People are providing actual, logical arguments in favor of the popular vote. Accusing them of being disingenuous and just cheering for their favorite team is more than a bit presumptuous.

To this, this is I think what is most difficult about the polarity going on in this country.

To me, frankly, it seems utterly ridiculous that Republicans can sit there and call the attempt anything other than what it is -- a rigging.


But at the same time, you KNOW that in reality, it's a lot more grey than that to the actual people espouting this. Sure, they MAY be cold calculating super villains acting like a Buffy Monster of the Week, with an idea that just needs a stake through its heart.

But you know, to them, it's a lot more of a mix, with surely some sort of genuine principal there.

 

[Snake]

I care about making my goddamn original point: That changing the system to one that does the national popular vote is a move that systematically favors the Democrats.

And once again: the popular vote favors the Democrats currently. The electoral vote favors the Democrats even more currently. Changing the system, as you say in your post, is therefore a move that weakens the Democrats' prospects in a Presidential race, relatively. The fact that they would come out ahead regardless is irrelevant to your contention as quoted.

Your argument has merit if you're talking about the future, but it is still not a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans. A popular vote would more equally represent urban populations. This doesn't mean that Democrats are the sole beneficiaries. It means that Republicans would have to appeal more to urban voters. You're right that rural voters would have their influence wane a bit, and considering they hold a disproportionate influence in the House, Senate, and electoral college, I think this would be a justifiable change.

 

[pigeon]

Hey, I'm TOTALLY happy to be proven wrong here.

I don't really think that's how it works. You're the one offering the argument that Democrats support the NPV because it benefits them -- you must support that position with evidence. If you were around in PoliGAF last year, you would've seen over and over again that Obama had an enormous structural advantage in the electoral college! Switching to the NPV would erase that -- but I still think it's the right thing to do because I believe it's more democratic.

 

[Qazaq]

Whether the NPV systematically favours the Democrats (or whether Democrats only started supporting it because of 2000), however, is completely irrelevant to the arguments justifying it.

You can only ignore it if you're talking about it in a vacuum and debating it on the sheer merits and in the context of what we've been doing -- about what is "fair", what is "democratic".


When you have blue states forming a pact, no, you can't ignore it.

 

[Gotchaye]

But I can acknowledge that, since it benefits the Democrats, altering the system would obviously systematically benefit the Democrats.

Please - please! - define "systematically".

And as I said earlier, the reason you saw a huge increase in support for NPV after Gore lost is because that election exposed the flaws of the electoral college. There's no reason to fix the electoral college as long as it's giving results that match the results of an ideal system. As others keep pointing out to you, the Democrats actually do better in the EC, as currently set up, than in the popular vote. So at worst Democrats are advocating for a fairer system out of a mistaken belief that it benefits them.

Edit: Notwithstanding that I think that if you game it out, something like the NPV pact helps Democrats because of turnout issues. But that depends on other changes in policy that wouldn't be at all apparent from looking at past elections.

 

[SuperBonk]

To this, this is I think what is most difficult about the polarity going on in this country.

To me, frankly, it seems utterly ridiculous that Republicans can sit there and call the attempt anything other than what it is -- a rigging.


But at the same time, you KNOW that in reality, it's a lot more grey than that to the actual people espouting this. Sure, they MAY be cold calculating super villains acting like a Buffy Monster of the Week, with an idea that just needs a stake through its heart.

But you know, to them, it's a lot more of a mix, with surely some sort of genuine principal there.

I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any Republican (or anyone for that matter) try to justify gerrymandering. It seems like a "rigging" of the system that people have come to accept.

Edit: And just to be clear, your argument is not "Switching to a popular vote favors the Democrats (currently?)" but instead "People are only talking about switching to a popular vote because it favors the Democrats (currently?)" Is that correct?

 

[Magni]

You can only ignore it if you're talking about it in a vacuum and debating it on the sheer merits and in the context of what we've been doing -- about what is "fair", what is "democratic".


When you have blue states forming a pact, no, you can't ignore it.

If you followed the 2012 elections at all, you should know that quite a lot of liberals were confident going into the election because of the electoral math. Obama needed to lose every single swing state basically to lose. It would have been much tougher without the EC. And yet I still want it gone. So yes, I'm in favor of changing the system for something that, as of the last election and not one that happened 12 years ago, favors the party I like least.

I don't really think that's how it works. You're the one offering the argument that Democrats support the NPV because it benefits them -- you must support that position with evidence. If you were around in PoliGAF last year, you would've seen over and over again that Obama had an enormous structural advantage in the electoral college! Switching to the NPV would erase that -- but I still think it's the right thing to do because I believe it's more democratic.

And once again: the popular vote favors the Democrats currently. The electoral vote favors the Democrats even more currently. Changing the system, as you say in your post, is therefore a move that weakens the Democrats' prospects in a Presidential race, relatively. The fact that they would come out ahead regardless is irrelevant to your contention as quoted.

.

As of today, getting rid of the EC favors the Republicans, not the Democrats.

 

[remist]

To this, this is I think what is most difficult about the polarity going on in this country.

To me, frankly, it seems utterly ridiculous that Republicans can sit there and call the attempt anything other than what it is -- a rigging.


But at the same time, you KNOW that in reality, it's a lot more grey than that to the actual people espouting this. Sure, they MAY be cold calculating super villains acting like a Buffy Monster of the Week, with an idea that just needs a stake through its heart.

But you know, to them, it's a lot more of a mix, with surely some sort of genuine principal there.

So because they believe in their hearts that they are not doing anything wrong, any change to the electoral system has to be judged relative the benefit to one of the two parties and not on its merits?

 

[Qazaq]

I don't really think that's how it works. You're the one offering the argument that Democrats support the NPV because it benefits them -- you must support that position with evidence. If you were around in PoliGAF last year, you would've seen over and over again that Obama had an enormous structural advantage in the electoral college! Switching to the NPV would erase that -- but I still think it's the right thing to do because I believe it's more democratic.

Well, all we can look at is the circumstantial evidence supporting it.

1) Democrats have won the national popular vote in 4 out of the past 5 elections.

2) The country is becoming more and more urban. Obviously a NPV, eliminating the distinction between urban and rural, by default means the big population centers can just drown out the smaller ones.

3) The movement picked up -- considerable? all of? -- it's steam when Gore lost the presidency due to it.

4) We know that the more people vote, Democrats tend to do better. (NO, I'M NOT ARGUING THIS IS BAD, I'm just saying, we know that happens.)

5) That blue states are the main proprietors of this.


That's all we can look at. The circumstantial. We can't "guarantee" it benefits the Democrat any more than we can "guarantee" the Republican version favors them -- who knows what the results would be if Obama contested various rural areas? Obviously it would drag the Dems right, and the NPV drags the Republicans left.

You're right that rural voters would have their influence wane a bit, and considering they hold a disproportionate influence in the House, Senate, and electoral college, I think this would be a justifiable change.

And, hey, that's fine. You're welcome to think that. But whether or not it's a justifiable change is not really an argument I care to have. It's just too infinite.

 

[tranciful]

I did some quick math, and you do appear to be right with that correlation. However, neither of us can say if the increased voting turnout would necessarily change the voting patters of American cities.

Flipping cities might be rare, but I think it's a safe bet that cities would become more moderate in their voting patterns and I'd consider that a significant and good thing. I think NYC as an example would be worth a campaign stop for the GOP, at least early on after a switch like this, because there's probably a lot of people who either

-haven't been voting because they feel it wouldn't have mattered
-haven't heard a good argument from the right because the right ignores them

Add that to the "higher population density = more productive campaign stop" and I think you've got a realistic scenario.

Once things have settled and we've been through several campaigns with the popular vote system, the strategic campaign priorities will probably shift -- it's harder to predict that far out though.

 

[Qazaq]

I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any Republican (or anyone for that matter) try to justify gerrymandering. It seems like a "rigging" of the system that people have come to accept.

I think Colbert was absolutely right on the money when he said "Gerrymandering -- where voters don't get to pick their leaders, leaders get to pick their voters!"

Amazing distillation of it all down to that.

 

[Magni]

And, hey, that's fine. You're welcome to think that. But whether or not it's a justifiable change is not really an argument I care to have. It's just too infinite.

Then what do you care about?

 

[Gotchaye]

1) Democrats have won the national popular vote in 4 out of the past 5 elections.

Not speaking to the rest of it, but this is silly. Really silly. Yeah, Democrats have won the popular vote in 4 out of the past 5 elections, and one of those was very close. They also won the electoral college vote in 3 out of the past 5 elections, and came within a hair of winning it in a fourth. So why think that a popular vote systematically advantages Democrats?

 

[SuperBonk]

Then what do you care about?

I don't want to speak for him, but it seems like he doesn't want to talk about voting systems but rather the underlying motivations people have for arguing in favor of certain voting systems.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Then what do you care about?

Throwing "who does it benefit?!" into arguments that appear to have been strictly on the NPV's merits and "fairness" relative to the current system, apparently.

 

[Qazaq]

Then what do you care about?

At some point, fairly soon, I really am going to have to stop, because I don't think the mods are going to put up with me repeating myself any more than I already have.

I care about debating it in terms of what the VA Republicans' scheme to alter the way we elect a President. They're changing the system to make it more easy for Republicans to be elected, and I made the assertion that changing to a NPV makes it more easy for Democrats to be elected.


Two points I need to make though:

1) The Republicans ALREADY are basically fucked, know it, and need to moderate with the EC already in place. Saying "We should switch to NPV because it represents more people and if Republicans don't want to win over more people then oh well!" -- I mean, the Republicans already DO need to do this. That's the point of them trying this rigging shit.

2) Just because Obama had a greater advantage in the EC than the PV doesn't really mean anything, I think, in terms of this argument. States will fluctuate and go from blue to red to red to blue all through time. (Not every state goes from red to blue.) But going to a PV, where the only thing that matters is literally how many people vote, obviously is a bet that Democrats are willing to take. It DOES favor them, because greater turnout favors Democrats. Whether or not you think that's a good thing (obviously I want more people to vote), it *is* a change in the system that would benefit Democrats. Because it would be impervious to changes like the Midwest trending Red that might adversely affect the Dems.

 

[The Librarian]

Flipping cities might be rare, but I think it's a safe bet that cities would become more moderate in their voting patterns and I'd consider that a significant and good thing. I think NYC as an example would be worth a campaign stop for the GOP, at least early on after a switch like this, because there's probably a lot of people who either

-haven't been voting because they feel it wouldn't have mattered
-haven't heard a good argument from the right because the right ignores them

Add that to the "higher population density = more productive campaign stop" and I think you've got a realistic scenario.

Once things have settled and we've been through several campaigns with the popular vote system, the strategic campaign priorities will probably shift -- it's harder to predict that far out though.

What are you using to judge that NYC would become more moderate? How do we know that the increased voting patterns would not lead to more Democrats voting as opposed to more GOP? You're using a lot of "ifs" here.

 

[Qazaq]

I don't want to speak for him, but it seems like he doesn't want to talk about voting systems but rather the underlying motivations people have for arguing in favor of certain voting systems.

More or less, yes. Because that's all, I think, that you can talk about without going on for infinity.

We can argue about the merits of districts and democracy till we pass out. Contrary to what everyone is hurling at me, voting via a district in of itself (ignore the gerrymandering aspect of it for a moment) is not "unfair" or "undemocratic". Thus, the only point is discussing the inherent advantages switching to such a system does.

We all understand that it favors the Republicans, so we're outraged, no matter what genuine interests are reflected in it.

The NPV can have a ton of genuine interests that are reflected in it. But it does favor the Democrats.

I just find the act of arguing like it doesn't really disingenuous.

 

[Black Mamba]

At some point, fairly soon, I really am going to have to stop, because I don't think the mods are going to put up with me repeating myself any more than I already have.

I care about debating it in terms of what the VA Republicans' scheme to alter the way we elect a President. They're changing the system to make it more easy for Republicans to be elected, and I made the assertion that changing to a NPV makes it more easy for Democrats to be elected.


Two points I need to make though:

1) The Republicans ALREADY are basically fucked, know it, and need to moderate with the EC already in place. Saying "We should switch to NPV because it represents more people and if Republicans don't want to win over more people then oh well!" -- I mean, the Republicans already DO need to do this. That's the point of them trying this rigging shit.

2) Just because Obama had a greater advantage in the EC than the PV doesn't really mean anything, I think, in terms of this argument. States will fluctuate and go from blue to red to red to blue all through time. (Not every state goes from red to blue.) But going to a PV, where the only thing that matters is literally how many people vote, obviously is a bet that Democrats are willing to take. It DOES favor them, because greater turnout favors Democrats. Whether or not you think that's a good thing (obviously I want more people to vote), it *is* a change in the system that would benefit Democrats. Because it would be impervious to changes like the Midwest trending Red that might adversely affect the Dems.

It doesn't favor dems. It favors the median voter. The dems are currently closer to the median voter right now but that was not always the case and won't necessarily be in the future.

The median voter should determine outcomes, not rigged games.


Edit: and you ca fix concerns of turnout by allowing the ec still but proportional to each states votes.

 

[The Librarian]

At some point, fairly soon, I really am going to have to stop, because I don't think the mods are going to put up with me repeating myself any more than I already have.

I care about debating it in terms of what the VA Republicans' scheme to alter the way we elect a President. They're changing the system to make it more easy for Republicans to be elected, and I made the assertion that changing to a NPV makes it more easy for Democrats to be elected.

Why would NPV make it easier for Democrats to be elected?

 

[SuperBonk]

What are you using to judge that NYC would become more moderate? How do we know that the increased voting patterns would not lead to more Democrats voting as opposed to more GOP? You're using a lot of "ifs" here.

The way I look at it is that switching to a popular vote will not only change voting patterns but also the nature of campaigning. Cities would be by far the most efficient way to campaign, so both parties will adopt platforms that recruit city voters, with the differences being strictly regional. This of course would require a radical change in the Republican party so I'm not sure what would actually happen.

 

[Qazaq]

It doesn't favor dems. It favors the median voter. The dems are currently closer to the median voter right now but that was not always the case and won't necessarily be in the future.

But that's the point. I could point out a ton of fantasy scenarios about how the country becomes very sympathetic to farmers and suddenly rural voices are closer to the so called "median" voter. But what's the point when we know that the country is becoming more urban, thus more voters being brought up and living in heavily democratic strongholds, and thus that "kind of person" ultimately having more influence on the outcome?

And everyone goes "well, yeah, so? if that's the changing nature of this country than so be it?"

And I'm saying, that's ALREADY the changing nature of this country ANYWAY.

Why would NPV make it easier for Democrats to be elected?

Gee, because it's common sense and because it's been argued about for pages now?