Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[The Black Sword]

IIRC there are a few states that have signed a charter to change it. They represent something like 180 EVs and if enough states sign it (states that make up for 270EVs) the states that signed the charters pledged to send electors for the candidate who won the popular vote. That means that if enough states sign it by 2020 the electoral college system will be effectively gone.

Does the charter just mandate electors to follow the vote in their area, or does it aim to get rid of the electoral college altogether and elect the president via popular vote?

[Dreylin]

IIRC there are a few states that have signed a charter to change it. They represent something like 180 EVs and if enough states sign it (states that make up for 270EVs) the states that signed the charters pledged to send electors for the candidate who won the popular vote. That means that if enough states sign it by 2020 the electoral college system will be effectively gone.

Does the charter just mandate electors to follow the vote in their area, or does it aim to get rid of the electoral college altogether and elect the president via popular vote?

As I read it, it would mandate they follow the country-wide popular vote, rather than just their State's popular vote. It didn't dispose of the EC though.

[AdrienIer]

IIRC there are a few states that have signed a charter to change it. They represent something like 180 EVs and if enough states sign it (states that make up for 270EVs) the states that signed the charters pledged to send electors for the candidate who won the popular vote. That means that if enough states sign it by 2020 the electoral college system will be effectively gone.

Does the charter just mandate electors to follow the vote in their area, or does it aim to get rid of the electoral college altogether and elect the president via popular vote?

Because changing the constitution isn't going to happen you can't get rid of the electoral college. What they would do is, instead of sending (n) electors of the affiliation of whoever won in the state they'd send (n) electors of the affiliation of whoever won the popular vote in the whole country. If states making up more than 270 EVs do that then no more discrepency between being elected and getting the most votes. I think NY just signed it, bringing its signators closer to 270 EVs.

Democrats having lost twice to the electoral college system these past 16 years will probably make it a priority

I mean, it would be a good strategy. That makes large city populations much more valuable, since you're able to reach more people easier, and large cities pretty much always lean more democrat, at least compared to rural areas. 

Also it means all campaigning would switch from our current swing states to just the biggest states. 50 state union, but the most populous 9 states hold over half of the citizens. Basically if you aren't in a top 15 state you won't really matter anymore.

Currently though that holds true for whoever isn't in one of the top 15 swingiest states anyway.  

About the cities getting all the attention, frankly I disagree. In France our candidates spend an aweful lot of their time in low density regions because rural voters are unpredictable. Doing a speech in Paris isn't going to be as efficient as it looks because most people in Paris have strong opinions on politics and have a good idea on who they're going to vote. So while candidates do some speech in big cities they go to a lot of medium cities as well, where the swing voters are.

Also, with how the media works, where you give your message is far less important. Farmers in Kentucky can hear your promises even if you made them in Idaho. And because there are a lot of people who live outside the cities in the US talking to the rural population will still be important.

[Commodore]

I've seen the petition to allocate electors by congressional district like Maine currently does. That makes a lot of sense to me.

[BRickAstley]

I've seen the petition to allocate electors by congressional district like Maine currently does. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Just looked this up, some more context:

The state has four total votes. Two go to the statewide winner, and one each goes to the winners in the two congressional districts.

And Nebraska is the same:

Nebraska has five electoral votes, as it has three Congressional districts and two Senators. Two of these electoral votes automatically go to the winner of the popular vote. The other three go to the winner of the popular vote within each district.

First thoughts, this seems to be better than either current winner take all, or making everything just go to popular vote. I wonder if you applied this model to all states and retroactively applied it to this and past elections what changes would happen, if it seems to be a 'better' system.

[Dp101]

Really, the election process needs 3 reforms, which are mostly based off Australia's system. Firstly, preferential voting so that running third party doesn't sabotage everyone with a similar position. Secondly, assign electoral college votes according to the % of voters in a state that went either way, instead of winner takes all, so everyone's vote matters, not only those in close states. Lastly, make voting compulsory, so even if people are apathetic their voice will still be heard.

[Dreylin]

Except that the Republicans are experts at Gerrymandering the Congressional Districts ... which is why they are never favourites to lose the House.

[Jowy]

[Gustaran]

I've seen the petition to allocate electors by congressional district like Maine currently does. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Maybe I am missing something, but if you decide to have people vote for president in a direct election, why not just forget about states, districts, etc. and count the total popular vote?


On a somewhat unrelated note, I'm a big fan of CPG Grey's youtube videos about different voting systems - quite entertaining and illuminating:
https://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey/search?query=vote


As you can see, other countries seem to have issues with the election system as well: 

[ReallyEvilMuffin]

IIRC there are a few states that have signed a charter to change it. They represent something like 180 EVs and if enough states sign it (states that make up for 270EVs) the states that signed the charters pledged to send electors for the candidate who won the popular vote. That means that if enough states sign it by 2020 the electoral college system will be effectively gone.

Does the charter just mandate electors to follow the vote in their area, or does it aim to get rid of the electoral college altogether and elect the president via popular vote?

Because changing the constitution isn't going to happen you can't get rid of the electoral college. What they would do is, instead of sending (n) electors of the affiliation of whoever won in the state they'd send (n) electors of the affiliation of whoever won the popular vote in the whole country. If states making up more than 270 EVs do that then no more discrepency between being elected and getting the most votes. I think NY just signed it, bringing its signators closer to 270 EVs.

Democrats having lost twice to the electoral college system these past 16 years will probably make it a priority

I mean, it would be a good strategy. That makes large city populations much more valuable, since you're able to reach more people easier, and large cities pretty much always lean more democrat, at least compared to rural areas. 

Also it means all campaigning would switch from our current swing states to just the biggest states. 50 state union, but the most populous 9 states hold over half of the citizens. Basically if you aren't in a top 15 state you won't really matter anymore.

Currently though that holds true for whoever isn't in one of the top 15 swingiest states anyway.  

About the cities getting all the attention, frankly I disagree. In France our candidates spend an aweful lot of their time in low density regions because rural voters are unpredictable. Doing a speech in Paris isn't going to be as efficient as it looks because most people in Paris have strong opinions on politics and have a good idea on who they're going to vote. So while candidates do some speech in big cities they go to a lot of medium cities as well, where the swing voters are.

Also, with how the media works, where you give your message is far less important. Farmers in Kentucky can hear your promises even if you made them in Idaho. And because there are a lot of people who live outside the cities in the US talking to the rural population will still be important.

Because a use of the ECV system is enshrined in the constitution, it needs 2/3rds support of both houses, and 2/3rds support of states to change as it is a constitutional change. Not 1/2 of the ECV.

Also Adrien I think you are perhaps not really appreciating the VASTNESS of the US, and how different states often dislike each other. I've always been told to view each state as a country bound by the federal system. There are no national newspapers for example. There are probably a lot of Midwest voters that got peeved that got peeved Hilary didn't bother going there whilst Trump was campaigning hard.


The way people talk about swing states always puzzles me though - I mean it isn't that long ago that Bush Senior 1988 won 40 states, and before him Regan in 1984 carried 49 states! It is only since Bill that the polarisation of politics happened. The same thing happened in the UK around the same time. Thatcher carried large swathes of Scotland in 1987 and all sorts of seats, and Blair did the reverse in 1997. It is only since then that things do not seem to have changed. Can't explain why that is, people seem to have become more entrenched in their views in both countries though.