Escape Goat
Member
WAR ON GUNS is the new narrative. Three guesses on the source.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
which is perfectly reasonable, if it is done in all states across the board. If it's only done in states that typically go one color or the other, it'd destroy fair elections for generations
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I jumped in on this because I thought that other guy was getting dogpiled unfairly, and now I am afraid it's going to happen to me.
- A change to NPV will mean that some low-poulation density states my lose up to 66% of their voting power.
- Those states tend to be Red, hence a loss in power for the GOP.
- We don't have a direct election of the POTUS now, so a change to the system that benefits one party will be a change in the balance of power.
Nowhere in any of my posts have I argued that this would be a good or bad thing to do, just that it would represent a change and will be met potically as such. FWIW, I would prefer it. But I'm not going to pretend that there aren't losers in the change.
Personally, I'm hoping the hijinks in Virginia backfire and an NPV (or that states coalition idea floated earlier) becomes a reality. Because I am as sick of people in Idaho having outsized influence as anybody.
EDIT: If it's not a shift in power, why would anyone care to make the change at all?
yes, it can't be done piecemeal, i thought i wrote out a longer explanation, but i guess i just hit post. I do think you'll either see serious public backlash or pressure on other states to do the same if a handful move this way
i know you are just arguing from the other standpoint, but they have disproportionate influence on a national election now, moreso then intended. Small groups of people have their voice heard in congress, adjusting the path to get them more voice in a national election (over an already disproportionate amount) is going backwards.
The Librarian
Banned
Because it's a more accurate and straight forward representation of the will of the people...?
So?
So?
This doesn't make any sense. This is a democracy. If one party gets more votes, they win. That's how it works. If the GOP needs to change to become viable, that's how it's supposed to work. Arguing that a NPV shift is bad because it benefits the Democrats misses the points entirely. If Democrats appeal to more people, then they should get elected! That's how it works. You're putting the horse before the carriage.
WAR ON GUNS is the new narrative. Three guesses on the source.
WAR ON DRUGS
WAR ON TERROR
WAR ON WOMEN
WAR ON MARRIAGE
WAR ON GUNS
WAR ON CHRISTIANS
I'm tired of all these wars.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Reid, you idiot. McConnell is gonna stab you in the back the first chance he gets.
Who gives a shit about the intent?
Are you an originalist?
And fuck, it's not like there was one intent there, the constitution is one giant compromise.
I'm tired of the war in Afghanistan.
Every side's the same. We both have wars. The difference is that Republicans have wars against scary brown people. Democrats have wars against you and your family.
The Librarian
Banned
Seriously. If it ain't working, it ain't working.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Tell that to Al Gore.
Also, did you read the part where I didn't say it was bad (or good)? Just that it was a material change?
Seriously, you can't argue this one from the point of view that "it doesn't matter" since it mathematically does matter. We have a system. It works one way, close to but not quite direct democracy. You are arguning for direct democracy. Cool! But don't act like it should be automatic just becuase we "live in a democracy."
Chich: I don't care much about original intent, but Empty Vessel made a comment about "how it was supposed to work" which I assume he conjured out of thin air.
You have to convince people that's the case, first. I think it's working as was intended, and that's staus quo unless you have a good argument otherwise and can convince enough people of it. And there will be people on the losing side of the power shift that will fight it, and this kind of change isn't exactly just a matter of passing some bill.
Ignatz, you have to ignore Dax. She's basically being as dense, partisan, and stubborn as any of the Republicans proposing the district switch. As soon as you realize that, it's better to not engage with her.
PS, on DailyKOS someone provided a link about how Georgia in the 1960s enacted a plan to do party primary results via county, thus ensuring rural interests swamped the growing urban presence in the state.
And as I've mentioned, the New Hampshire house has like 435 delegates or something.
Sometimes states DO DO things like that.
PS, on DailyKOS someone provided a link about how Georgia in the 1960s enacted a plan to do party primary results via county, thus ensuring rural interests swamped the growing urban presence in the state.
And as I've mentioned, the New Hampshire house has like 435 delegates or something.
Sometimes states DO DO things like that.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I'm not arguing the other side, even. I'm all for NPV. I'm just taking issue with people acting like it's self-evidently the right thing.
I'm pissed and upset about what's happening in VA, by the way, and pretty pissed about the gerrymandering. But I'm not looking at this from a party perspective or an idealist/idealogical one either, but a mechanical and realpolitik one.
While we're on the subject, I think you guys are getting too worked out over that shit (the crap the GOP is trying to pull in Virginia notwithstanding).
Elections are just a way to guarantee the consent of the governed, which is where the US government draw its legitimacy from (sorry, the answer is not Jesus, read the declaration of independence, it literally spells it out).
And as legitimacy goes, there really isn't that much of a difference between 50.01% and 49.99% of the vote, especially when you have so many disenfranchised people in this country.
p.s.
I do still think that it's important to avoid an electoral college and popular vote split, as it undermine the electorate trust in the democracy.
Elections are just a way to guarantee the consent of the governed, which is where the US government draw its legitimacy from (sorry, the answer is not Jesus, read the declaration of independence, it literally spells it out).
And as legitimacy goes, there really isn't that much of a difference between 50.01% and 49.99% of the vote, especially when you have so many disenfranchised people in this country.
p.s.
I do still think that it's important to avoid an electoral college and popular vote split, as it undermine the electorate trust in the democracy.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
That's really where my fire comes from. My reaction here is more knee-jerk about the way people are talking about the issue.
What we are really talking about is how to shift amounts of disenfranchised people-- which sucks that the two party system and the shrp divide in issues over the last 20 years have made that a losing game no matter what way you go.
The problem with what going on in Virginia is that it's a very obvious attempt to enable the GOP to win the white house even if they can't get the majority of the votes.
That's bad for democracy any way you cut it.
You think partisanship is bad now, can you imagine how this country will look if the GOP win the white house while getting 5mil less votes?
Always bet on the typo.
And I'm not sure I see the clever, dammit, my jokes are going over my head.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Absolutely. It would be a change, in the current political environment it would be viewed as a power-grab by Dems, and so it's not clear that it's really a viable move, regardless of its merits.
That's not really what that pages-long argument was about, though.
I'll admit I didn't read the whole thing.
My point is that it wouldn't just be viewed as a power grab, it would *be* a power grab (whether that's the intent or not). IMHO, you just don't fuck with the political machinery like that casually, even if the outcome is the long run is better.
Cosign. I enjoy Dax's post (here and on the new blog) regardless of this topic.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I agree, and I don't even think it's debatable. And it makes me vaguely ill.
And while I approach the idee of NPV very cautiously, I'd support the antics in VA being shut down no matter how it happens. Even if they are within the bounds on all technicalities, I hope something makes this stop cold lest other states try the same thing.
I'm pretty sympathetic to this position in general. It's not the end of the world, legitimacy-wise, if a recount reveals that actually the other guy should have just barely won.
But what Virginia's doing isn't a .02% difference in the vote. In House elections, Democrats got about 1% more of the vote than Republicans, but Republicans control the House by 7.5%. An 8.5% swing is a much bigger deal.
It's been noted that were these plans in place in all of the states where Republicans are talking about them, Romney would have won the election with about a 6% swing in the electoral vote relative to the popular vote. This is especially impressive because in general the electoral college is likely to be biased in favor of the PV winner, at least as long as most states haven't made a change like this.
The Librarian
Banned
What does Al Gore have to do with anything? In that instance, I was talking about how an NPV system rewards parties because they get more votes. I didn't read all the replies because they spanned pages and pages, but from what I got out of the argument was that Qazaq thinks that advocating for NPV is equivalent to cheering on the Republican redistricting efforts in VA because switching to NPV would benefit the Democrats. That equivalence misses the point entirely. I don't advocate – and I would like to think anyone who advocates the NPV is the same way – NPV because it would benefit the Democrats. I advocate it because it'd be more representative of the will of the people. No bullshit in-between. Arguing otherwise puts the horse before the carriage. If switching to an NPV model benefits the Democrats, then so what? If more people vote Democrat under the new system, they should win.
Tell that to Al Gore. I don't understand why we should tolerate what are essentially "failures" in our democracy. The electoral college system was designed during a time when the Founders feared that the people didn't know what was best for themselves. Illiteracy rates were comparatively high, and people didn't have as much access to information. Now we have access to all the information we want, and almost everyone can read. I don't think it's necessary to keep a system in place that's designed to protect us from ourselves.
I am? Did I advocate getting rid of representatives and the president at the federal level somewhere in my reply? Or am I misunderstanding you here?
Good point here. It's working as intended, but I don't think it's working well for a modern country. It depresses turnout and results in mistakes.
Shadow Hog
Member
And thus started the WAR ON WAR
Apparently, Obama gets an average of 10 different reliable threats against his life a day. The writer of the Panic 2012 book about election has some interesting anecdotes. After the first debate, tons of democrats and politicians siding with Obama freaked out and tried to get in on the debate team. Even motivational speaker Tony Robbins tried helping out.
WAR ON GUNS is the new narrative. Three guesses on the source.
That lady looks like a fucking Splicer model from Bioshock.
I think the main benefit of moving to a popular vote is that it remove its regional distortions swing states currently creates.
For example, I'm pretty damn certain that if Florida wasn't a swing state we would've removed the embargo on Cuba, which makes zero sense.
I think those who are worried about disfranchisement should really focus prisoner and felony disenfranchisement which are abortions of democracy.
I could have sworn I've seen some misleading debt video with Tony Robbins.. like GOP propaganda stuff
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Dax: Only meant direct democraacy wrt electing the POTUS.
And I think you are just misunderstanding me. I am talking about what is, not what idealistically ought to be. And I'm too cynical to think that too many people here (or anywhere) would argue for NPV on principle if the reality was that it would hurt their preferred party.
In any case, I think taking this as a moral high ground and ignoring the political benefits is a losing strategy. And I'm pretty sure the Electoral College was about preserving the power of small states and not just fearing the people's potential choices. Otherwise the states would have votes on straight population numbers. Whether you care about original intent or not, you are arguing for changing something and asking some people to give up political power. You bet your ass that *they* will argue intent, and that has weight whether it should or not.
And I think you are just misunderstanding me. I am talking about what is, not what idealistically ought to be. And I'm too cynical to think that too many people here (or anywhere) would argue for NPV on principle if the reality was that it would hurt their preferred party.
In any case, I think taking this as a moral high ground and ignoring the political benefits is a losing strategy. And I'm pretty sure the Electoral College was about preserving the power of small states and not just fearing the people's potential choices. Otherwise the states would have votes on straight population numbers. Whether you care about original intent or not, you are arguing for changing something and asking some people to give up political power. You bet your ass that *they* will argue intent, and that has weight whether it should or not.
empty vessel
Member
The bolded is my opinion. I agree that abolishing the electoral college in favor of a NPV is a change in the status quo. It's a change in the status quo towards greater democracy by abolishing a situation in which some people's votes are worth more than others', which is the direction the country has been trending ever since it was founded.
Well, yes of course it does, insofar as it was intended to distribute political power to states based very closely on the state's population vis-a-vis the rest of the nation, which it clearly does by pegging electoral votes most closely to House representation. Remember, though, at the time of the electoral college, there was no right for citizens to vote for president. In fact, there still isn't. A state today can bar its residents from voting for president altogether and utilize whatever means it desires for selecting its electors. This is the real reason to abolish the whole EC system. It was designed for a completely different era with completely different attitudes about democracy.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I can't argue your opinion, especially as I share it, and it's just opinion.
I find your whole second paragraph a leap in logic. Why would we assume that that EC differs at all from what was intended by the people who set it up? Again, not that it matters to me, but it will matter in any public debate about the merits of changing the system.
I find your whole second paragraph a leap in logic. Why would we assume that that EC differs at all from what was intended by the people who set it up? Again, not that it matters to me, but it will matter in any public debate about the merits of changing the system.
We don't need to assume too much, we have pretty good records of the constitutional convention of 1787.
By the way, the electoral college (as opposed to direct vote) was intended mostly to ensure salves disfranchisement.
So yeah.
The Librarian
Banned
That's still not direct democracy, though. The president is still acting as a representative. It's more direct than what we have now, sure, but it's not direct democracy.
And I don't see the this Democratic bias in the people who advocate the NPV system. Anytime it's been presented to me, it's not about how the ideology of the electorate would change or which party it benefits. It's just a better means to reflect the will of the people. It's like saying I want the filibuster gone because I only want my part to implement their agenda. Um, no. It's so the government can work better, and parties can carry more effectively carry out their campaign promises.
If the EC was only about preserving the power of small states, then the Constitution wouldn't give the power to have the electors cast their ballots however they wish. And I'm not even convinced switching to an NPV would mean less power for rural voters. Other advanced democracies don't seem to have problems balancing rural interests against urban. As it is now, anyway, rural voters' votes are worth more than urban people's.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Well, right. I was mostly referring to the balance of power among the states though. We know that the founders reached some compromises on matters that gave more power to smaller states, and that's still reflected in the EC (and makeup of Congress) today. Arguing to change that is arguing for fundemental change, even if it is more democratic.
The Librarian
Banned
Edit: Nevermind.
As far as I know that, compromise revolved mainly around the senate.
The electoral college was more a concern of the southern states and elitists fucks, who wanted to make sure they have an extra layer to isolate the head of state from the unwashed masses.
Of course, you'll need a constitutional amendment.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Poor choice of words then. Does it matter?
Where's the conservative advocate for NPV? I've only ever heard it from the liberal side of the aisle. And my whole life, I belive, there have been more registered Democrats then Republicans. Happy to be proven wrong on this, if you have it.
I never said it was just about preserving the power of the small states, but it's certainly a feature of the system we've implemented.
I do think it would mean less power for rural voters, but IMHO that's a good thing because I think they have too much power now. Agreed that they would do fine under NPV, but currently they are doing better than fine. Agricultural subsidies, social politics, disproportionate amounts of pork, generally they have outsized influence. They certainly would have less power under NPV.
I absolutely agree with your last sentence.
zero shift
Banned
Just to let you people know, I'm working on a MASSIVE entry for the blog. Its already 3 pages, while being single spaced, and I'm barely half done.
Probably. The Senate Majority Leader is not a despotic position. Rather, it is quite weak. If he did not procure more radical reform, it's likely that Democratic support was inadequate. The problem is not Reid's pusillanimity, but the loss in individual power is prohibitive. Given sufficient incentives, say the opportunity for unified government, genuine reform might pass. However, with House Republicans already occluding the Democratic agenda, they would gain little aside from an expedited appointee process. So why take the risk?
What about?
Speaking of the blog, my latest post is up. It's my complete thoughts on our discussion this morning about women in combat roles of the military. In general it's stuff that I stated here when we were discussing it (as I was kind of writing it at the time), though stated a bit better.
The Librarian
Banned
I kind of feel like we're not arguing anything anymore, and it's getting a bit frustrating. I've never seen a conservative advocate for NPV, but part of the ideology is to keep things the same. If NPV does advantage Democrats, then they have a reason to oppose it. If Democrats gain an advantage, that's the GOP's fault. They need to appeal to more people. That's how a democracy works.
But that doesn't address what I think you were trying argue, to help out Qazaq, and that is advocating for NPV is equivalent to cheering on VA Republicans' redistricting efforts. It's not.
And also having a wife shit out a generic Republican somehow.
He should be proud, it's a Top 10 all time gif easily.
He beat the over under.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I never meant to argue that, I didn't really see him say that. Just that NPV favors Dems and has that has to be considered in any real-world discussion on the matter.
I think the best way to state that is that in today's America, NPV is more favorable to Democrats than the current implementation of the electoral college.
I think everyone can agree with that.
But hey, we can go for another 5 pages of semantics discussion if you guys are into that.
It'd only favor them currently. The GOP would be forced to de-crazy and go after the urban centers instead of capturing more land than people by stirring up the rural voters but not really doing much for them. Republicans have won the popular vote before. It's not guaranteed Democrat Dynasty if we go to NPV.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
And that's the current system favors small states by design, and you'll have to convince enough people that ending that is a good idea.
empty vessel
Member
Why does it have to be considered in any real-world discussion on the matter? If you mean a discussion about the practical likelihood of happening, sure. If you mean a discussion about the substantive policy itself, then no. The party that benefits is totally irrelevant to a rationally held position about whether a person supports or opposes a NPV for president.
Also, I must disagree with everybody about NPV benefiting Democrats, because I don't see that at all. We already know that Democrats would win every election if everybody voted, but we're not talking about a law requiring people to vote. We're talking about the method by which a winner is selected from the votes cast. If anything, it's the reverse. In the last election, the popular vote was far closer than the electoral college result.
You are confusing design with political compromise. Also, I think you are confusing the Senate with the electoral college. The Senate was designed to protect the interests of small states; the electoral college has little to do with small versus big states.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Is the NPV actually better at this point? Obama won the popular vote by about ~3.9%, but the deciding state was Colorado which he won with 5.37%. In 2008, he won the popular vote by about 7.2%, but the deciding state was also Colorado which he won with around 9%. This seems, to me, to indicate that the current situation in the electoral college benefits the Democrats more so than switching to the popular vote.
- Status