• 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.

PolliGaf 2012 |OT5| Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets, Bad News and Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand not liking the idea, or thinking that such a large change to the system really ought to only occur with the consent of a supermajority, but I'm scratching my head at "unconstitutional". What's your thinking there?
I've gone in depth about this before, and I know there are some that disagree with me, but the crux of my position is that it would be an equal protection violation.

If you look at the structure of how the Compact works, once the tipping point is reached, the member states change how they allocate their EC votes. Instead of just counting their own votes, they also count all the non-member states' votes. The non-member states only count their votes once. This means that member states' voters' votes are counted X times (where X=# of member states) and non-member states' voters' votes are counted X+1 times. This is an equal protection violation should any voter in the member states challenge it.

Edit: I'd also note that 2000 doesn't necessarily show that the EC has failed. The problem is that if the campaign had taken place in the context of an NPV system, it would have developed differently. Candidates would apportion their time and money differently (and might even be different candidates with different positions), and turnout rates and even the percentage of voters identifying as D or R would change. You can't argue from EC-governed elections in which the EC winner wasn't the NPV winner that the result would have been different in an NPV-governed election. Arguments for one or the other have to instead make reference to some model of what the NPV-governed outcome would be, or else they have to focus on procedural issues rather than outcomes.
That's why I roll my eyes at those who claim the EC failed in 2000. It didn't "fail," it worked exactly as it was supposed to. What it did was "offend sensibilities," which is an entirely different statement.
 

Tim-E

Member
The issue with the electoral college is not so much what happened in 2000, those things almost never happen and honestly, considering the huge gap in turnout between swing and safe states, I wouldn't make too much out of it anyway.
The problem with the electoral college that it skew our policy toward a small number of states.

If Florida is not a swing state, we would've removed the silly and anachronistic trade embargo we have against Cuba.
If Iowa wasn't a swing state (or early in the primaries) we wouldn't have the biodiesel tax credit.

This is not a smart way to run a democracy.

Also, it makes people in safe states feel like their voice is not heard and their vote doesn't matter, which is never healthy.

This is a good argument against the EC, "Bush was as bad as Hitler!!!!" isn't.
 
I like obummer ironically. When the person saying it believes it, it sounds dumb as hell.

I have no problem with mittens, which i find playful like bams, dubya or bubba. I've probably said rmoney before but i generally don't use derisive nicknames
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
What the hell? The Chairman was (is, actually) in L.A. today! I thought he was in Colorado? Goddamn it! I didn't even have work today and I missed him! :(
 

Jarmel

Banned
5HMLz.gif

I'm dying here.
 

pigeon

Banned
Hopefully there will be some amendments that will allow NPV to be the definitive method. I'd also like to see campaign finance reform, Citizens Utd. overturned, and instant runoff voting instead of FPTP.

We may as well just have a constitutional convention after Mr. Obama's War.

Edit: I guess today they'd just call it Obamawar.
 
Obama awoke to the sounds of cheers. He had barely managed to steal two hours of sleep before hearing the roar of the crowd, thousands of young people cheering his name. He looked around his empty hotel room and sighed; it was moments like these where he wished he still smoked. During campaign season it was always hard for Obama to sleep, and when he did sleep his tortured dreams were dominated by the voices of rallies he had attended earlier. The noise stayed with him, even during his quietest moments.

Slowly, Obama arose from the bed and paced around his room. It was 4AM and Barack Obama was alone. He had campaigned earlier in the day with his wife, but she had flown back to Washington after the rally without saying goodbye; he had asked her to stay the night with him, but she had sarcastically noted that he was a big boy now and could sleep by himself. Her barb had hurt the president, but after 20 years of similar insults he was used to it.

Depressed, Obama slowly scrolled through his Blackberry looking for someone, anyone to talk to.

----

Hillary Clinton heard her husband's voice for the first time in weeks. As she casually flipped channels she came across Bill looking straight into her soul through the television - championing Barack Obama in a campaign ad. President Barack Obama. She had worked alongside him for four years now, yet the title still gave her a slight feeling of agitation. If all had gone as planned, she would be running for re-election right now as Senator Obama rallied young voters for her cause. The loss still stung after all these years, but especially on this sleepless night.

And yet she knew her irritation with her boss was masking her true feelings. Obama had proven her wrong over the last four years: he was strong where she predicted weakness, steady where she anticipated confusion. The job had aged the president and yet his youthful energy and intellect remained. He was still a young man, and even the most stressful moments had not robbed him of his youth.

Her young male aides often joked and laughed with her, but she could tell they thought of her as an old woman now. She tried imagining being with them but even the thought was disgusted her. Her endometriosis made sex painful, and the last thing she needed was a young stud rushing things. More importantly, young men often lacked the attributes she cherished: compassion, romantic, a calm spirit as comfortable alone with her by the fireplace as he would be in a crowd; the opposite of her impulsive, selfish husband. As she sat alone, conjuring the attributes of her perfect man, she realized she was describing someone she knew. She had known for years, yet her anger and jealousy had blocked the truth. Tears filled her eyes. The phone rang...

...and it was bad news for Obama.
 
Hopefully there will be some amendments that will allow NPV to be the definitive method.
That would be a great discussion to have. The Compact is just such a mess, it's not even a fun discussion.

I'd also like to see campaign finance reform, Citizens Utd. overturned, and instant runoff voting instead of FPTP.
No thank you. No thank you. Wouldn't make a difference except for confusing a bunch of blue hairs.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
With NPV, no state would be "locked up" for a particular candidate as who the state votes for overall is meaningless, the only important statistic is the numerical vote difference between the candidates and how they add up with the 49 remaining states to determine the total count.

But people show up in greater numbers for things other than the Presidential election.
 

Gotchaye

Member
I've gone in depth about this before, and I know there are some that disagree with me, but the crux of my position is that it would be an equal protection violation.

If you look at the structure of how the Compact works, once the tipping point is reached, the member states change how they allocate their EC votes. Instead of just counting their own votes, they also count all the non-member states' votes. The non-member states only count their votes once. This means that member states' voters' votes are counted X times (where X=# of member states) and non-member states' voters' votes are counted X+1 times. This is an equal protection violation should any voter in the member states challenge it.
I don't really follow. This depends on "number of times a vote is counted", for this fairly legalistic notion of "counted", being the sort of thing that equal protection applies to. What's the precedent for that? The closest I can think of is Bush v Gore, but the issue there was different methods of counting, and all the votes were within a state.

Surely it makes more sense to think of this as each state counting its votes in the manner prescribed by state law, and then compact states assign their electors on the basis of the counts from each state. The compact states aren't conducting an independent counting.

As a Californian, my vote is already worth about 1/4 of a Wyomingans, and that seems to be perfectly ok. How is this substantially different?
This was my first thought too, but I think Squirrel Killer's relying on this all being within a state. Bush v Gore set (very weak) precedent that a state has to treat all of its votes equally in determining electors, but I don't think it does what SK wants it to do because the problem was about an equal application of Florida law. If the law is that the electors go to the NPV winner, that can be equally applied quite easily, and states aren't in general required to treat residents and non-residents identically, and are likewise allowed to treat residents of one other state differently than the residents of another other state.
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
I would love Ohio to be called quickly due to early voting plus exit polls. I don't plan to go to sleep until they call the election, and I work the next day. Make it happen, Hussein!
 

786110

Member
Pharos Research Group: Obama Leads Nationally 50-47 http://freepdfhosting.com/a4680414a1.pdf

Analysis
Between October 19, 2012 and October 21, 2012, Pharos Research Group, an independent
polling and market research organization, based in San Diego, did a live call survey of 918 likely
voters for the November 6, 2012 US General Election.

Barack Obama maintains a slight but statistically relevant lead in the ballot test question. In this
week’s poll, Obama leads 49.67% to 47.39% over Republican nominee and former Mass.
Governor, Willard “Mitt” Romney. While this is within the 3.23% margin of error, it is the third
consecutive week he has led the poll.

Never heard of them, but you probably figured that part out
 

Griegite

still a junior
Sean Hannity is on FNN right now saying that all the swing state races are close with Romney leading in specifically in NH according to the Rasmussen polls of course. I'm watching it only because a family member is watching it. It hurts. I feel bad for the Democratic Strategist on the show compared to the other lady.
 

Tim-E

Member
How is that possible?

If there's an electoral tie, the house votes for the president and the senate votes for the vice president. If the house kept thei republican majority we would see a President Romney with the democratic senate electing Vice President Biden.
 

Chichikov

Member
If the house kept their republican majority we would see a President Romney with the democratic senate electing Vice President Biden.
It's not a simple vote, each state gets one vote, I didn't run the numbers to see who is going to be ahead in that case, but I would imagine the GOP as they control more of the smaller states.
 
As a Californian, my vote is already worth about 1/4 of a Wyomingans, and that seems to be perfectly ok. How is this substantially different?
That inequality has its roots in the Constitution, so by definition, it's Constitutional. It also has SCOTUS precedent supporting it. The inequality introduced by the Compact, in contrast, does not have those same roots.

I don't really follow. This depends on "number of times a vote is counted", for this fairly legalistic notion of "counted", being the sort of thing that equal protection applies to. What's the precedent for that? The closest I can think of is Bush v Gore, but the issue there was different methods of counting, and all the votes were within a state.

Surely it makes more sense to think of this as each state counting its votes in the manner prescribed by state law, and then compact states assign their electors on the basis of the counts from each state. The compact states aren't conducting an independent counting.
When I say "count," I'm not talking about the actual tallying of votes, but the weighing of them done by each state. Whereas the unequal weight the EC give the votes is Constitutional, my position is that the Compact will weigh member votes X times and non-member votes X+1 times in an unconstitutional manner. Yeah, it's legalistic, but then the court system that decides these things usually is.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I gotta admit; seeing a Romney/Biden administration be all over the place would be hilarious.

That would be amazingly funny, I can just see Biden using his senate vote on everything and just trying to toss Romney under the bus at every opportunity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom