NorthSideSox72 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:47 PM) a lot of valid points, but i'm curious about what i mentioned before. If only the urban centers matter, won't 1) the rural areas and small states become disenfranchised and 2) won't democrats always win? 1. no, in fact most will have more say. As it is now, 40+ states are irrelevant each cycle anyway because of the electoral college. You give the power back to 80% of the voters, in all states, by switching to a popular vote. The farmer in North Dakota (whose vote wouldn't have mattered much in this election), and the urbanite in Chicago (same), would now have both their votes matter the same as everyone else's. 2. Of course not. Look at the US Senate. That is a MUCH more state-based system than the electoral college, and they held that nicely anyway, despite being up against that 2-per-state thing. And on the opposite end, the US House stayed Red, and it is much closer to a population-based model, which would theoretically be biased towards larger states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) 1. no, in fact most will have more say. As it is now, 40+ states are irrelevant each cycle anyway because of the electoral college. You give the power back to 80% of the voters, in all states, by switching to a popular vote. The farmer in North Dakota (whose vote wouldn't have mattered much in this election), and the urbanite in Chicago (same), would now have both their votes matter the same as everyone else's. will it though? yes in theory they'll bear the same weight, but in a national popular votes the candidates will be in: NYC, LA, Chicago, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Columbus, Cleveland, St. Louis, DC, etc etc etc - they won't give a crap about North Dakota, and thus, I don't see it as being all that different in terms of everyone's vote "mattering". The candidates will just assume ND goes Red just as they do now. 2. Of course not. Look at the US Senate. That is a MUCH more state-based system than the electoral college, and they held that nicely anyway, despite being up against that 2-per-state thing. And on the opposite end, the US House stayed Red, and it is much closer to a population-based model, which would theoretically be biased towards larger states. Senate and Presidential voting are two very different things. And the highest percentage of minorities exist in urban areas, thus the GOP candidates will have a MUCH harder time overcoming that obstacle. It's not a balanced playing field for both parties as it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:59 PM) will it though? yes in theory they'll bear the same weight, but in a national popular votes the candidates will be in: NYC, LA, Chicago, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Columbus, Cleveland, St. Louis, DC, etc etc etc - they won't give a crap about North Dakota, and thus, I don't see it as being all that different in terms of everyone's vote "mattering". The candidates will just assume ND goes Red just as they do now. Senate and Presidential voting are two very different things. And the highest percentage of minorities exist in urban areas, thus the GOP candidates will have a MUCH harder time overcoming that obstacle. It's not a balanced playing field for both parties as it is now. As opposed to now, where candidates are in North Dakota non stop for their 1 electoral vote for a heavily red state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) As opposed to now, where candidates are in North Dakota non stop for their 1 electoral vote for a heavily red state. that... was... my point. how does a national popular vote FIX that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) will it though? yes in theory they'll bear the same weight, but in a national popular votes the candidates will be in: NYC, LA, Chicago, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Columbus, Cleveland, St. Louis, DC, etc etc etc - they won't give a crap about North Dakota, and thus, I don't see it as being all that different in terms of everyone's vote "mattering". The candidates will just assume ND goes Red just as they do now. There cannot be an assumption that any state goes red or blue, if each vote counts the same, so I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. It is quite the opposite - they won't be spending weeks of time in Iowa and none in Nebraska, since they have a similar number of voters - they would spend similar amounts of time there, all else equal. QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) Senate and Presidential voting are two very different things. And the highest percentage of minorities exist in urban areas, thus the GOP candidates will have a MUCH harder time overcoming that obstacle. It's not a balanced playing field for both parties as it is now. Yes of course they are different things, that was my point. A popular vote is the far end of the continuum towards popular-based structure. The US Senate is the other extreme, purely state-based or geography-based, whereas the House is closer to population based. And yet, the model you claim would favor Dems is currently red, and the model you claim would favor GOP is currently blue. The popular vote model is, in my view, the ONLY balanced model for electing a single national office. As to your actual post here, I fail to see what point you are even trying to make. GOP candidates already have a hard time with urban populations - that won't change either way. Same with Dems in rural areas. So what has changed in that regard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) They really aren't. Baseball advanced statistics really aren't of a predictive nature. They are of a resulting nature. They are as a result of actions that have already happen. Election prediction is WAY different. They really aren't related. One of the main points of statistics is to use past performance to predict future performance (i.e. rid variables of dependencies, which will then give you predictive results). Advanced statistics/projections in elections and baseball use this. xFIP or even plain old FIP are often used as predictors, even though they are completely based off of a pitcher's performance in the current or previous years. It's a fundamental aspect of statistics. Sure, you can argue the two things aren't even close to the same thing in actuality (of course not). But in the most fundamental aspect, there are numerous similarities. Edited November 7, 2012 by chw42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) that... was... my point. how does a national popular vote FIX that? By making North Dakota irrelevant, just as New York will be irrelevant. Or looking at it another way, if you really want to collate by state... it makes North Dakota the same as New Hampshire. Small vote totals, all of which matter the same. Whereas now, NH gets a ton of attention, and ND gets none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:05 PM) that... was... my point. how does a national popular vote FIX that? Why is it important that we fix that? Why should a tiny population of North Dakotans be really important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:07 PM) One of the main points of statistics is to use past performance to predict future performance (i.e. rid variables of dependencies, which will then give you predictive results). Advanced statistics/projections in elections and baseball use this. It's a fundamental aspect of statistics. Sure, you can argue the two things aren't even close to the same thing in actuality (of course not). But in the most fundamental aspect, there are numerous similarities. If you take away all of the way that baseball statistics don't really work to predict the future, they are exactly like predicting election results... makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) Why is it important that we fix that? Why should a tiny population of North Dakotans be really important? A North Dakotan should count the same as A New Yorker, when it comes to an all-for-one election. I don't care which state any given voter is from, and neither should the election for President. The Legislature is the REPRESENTATIVE body, and takes care of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 North Dakota matters the exact amount its supposed to matter, not very much. I believe if you compare population to electoral votes small states are over-represented. States are just mythical lines on the ground. If it was to move to a popular vote, most of the campaigning would be done in major urban areas, because its just more bang for your buck. I personally think any system where a vote in 1 state is less important than a vote in another state is silly (and that is not based on battle ground, that is based on electoral/population). So im in favor of popular vote election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Given that there's been only a handful of times that a president has won the electoral college but not the general, and usually it's not even close, I don't think this is some massive problem that needs to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:19 PM) Given that there's been only a handful of times that a president has won the electoral college but not the general, and usually it's not even close, I don't think this is some massive problem that needs to be changed. 4 times out of 57 is a failure rate of 7%. That's awfully bad for the single most important election the country has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I wonder what kind of change in results one would see due to current or past non-voters getting out to vote since they feel like their vote would actually count for something in a popular election. I don't know what is stronger, the desire to not vote because your candidate cannot win or the desire to not vote because it is a certainty your candidate will win (the electoral votes of your state). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:10 PM) A North Dakotan should count the same as A New Yorker, when it comes to an all-for-one election. I don't care which state any given voter is from, and neither should the election for President. The Legislature is the REPRESENTATIVE body, and takes care of that. But when theres 1 North Dakotan for every 700 New Yorkers, his vote counts even less than if the electoral college, from HIS/HER state, represented them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) But when theres 1 North Dakotan for every 700 New Yorkers, his vote counts even less than if the electoral college, from HIS/HER state, represented them. Why arent they just Americans? 1 Americans vote located in North Dakota equals 1 Americans vote in NY. North Dakota is already over represented in legislature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) that... was... my point. how does a national popular vote FIX that? It doesn't. Their voices are still drowned out, possibly even easier, when speaking of popular vote. It's my my opinion, but moving to a popular vote assures the Democratic party they never lose a presidential election again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:42 PM) It doesn't. Their voices are still drowned out, possibly even easier, when speaking of popular vote. It's my my opinion, but moving to a popular vote assures the Democratic party they never lose a presidential election again. I would, disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) Why arent they just Americans? 1 Americans vote located in North Dakota equals 1 Americans vote in NY. North Dakota is already over represented in legislature. Because it's the United STATES of America. Individual states have individual laws/rules/taxes, etc...all which affect them differently, and that has to be assessed. States elect presidents, not people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) But when theres 1 North Dakotan for every 700 New Yorkers, his vote counts even less than if the electoral college, from HIS/HER state, represented them. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) It's my my opinion, but moving to a popular vote assures the Democratic party they never lose a presidential election again. Nah the Republican party will just be forced to become more moderate. At one point in history someone said "The Republican party will never lose the state of Illinois." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) It doesn't. Their voices are still drowned out, possibly even easier, when speaking of popular vote. It's my my opinion, but moving to a popular vote assures the Democratic party they never lose a presidential election again. s***. Something else we agree on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) It doesn't. Their voices are still drowned out, possibly even easier, when speaking of popular vote. It's my my opinion, but moving to a popular vote assures the Democratic party they never lose a presidential election again. Based on what? We're 8 years removed from a Republican winning with a ~3 million vote margin. Edited November 7, 2012 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:43 PM) Exactly. Sorry, richest and most important area of the country, we have to dilute your vote by 700% so the 400 people in north dakota can get a bunch of federal money to build their expensive road to serve 14 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Because it's the United STATES of America. Individual states have individual laws/rules/taxes, etc...all which affect them differently, and that has to be assessed. States elect presidents, not people. And I find that unnecessary. /shrugs This isnt 1770 and Im trying to convince Maryland to join the cause against the British, and they are fearful that Virginia will monopolize the US, so I have to completely kowtow to the small states. Time to take it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts