**2012 Election Day thread**

[Reddy]

And I vehemently disagree with that point. Small states vs large states should be irrelevant in this case, first of all. Second, the voters in North Dakota or other small states will matter MORE, not less, with a popular vote, for the reasons I have laid out.

 

you're just wrong man.

[iamshack]

And I vehemently disagree with that point. Small states vs large states should be irrelevant in this case, first of all. Second, the voters in North Dakota or other small states will matter MORE, not less, with a popular vote, for the reasons I have laid out.

 

 

 

lol wut?

 

This is fundamental stuff. You win by getting your base out, and by winning swing voters. The only reason some people feel the latter is a falacy is because they conflate independents with moderates. They are not nearly the same thing.

I think the point BMags brought up earlier is significant...all those republicans in major metro areas would have a voice in a popular vote, whereas now, they are drowned out by the democratic majority now. I am not sure how the numbers line up, but the 65-35% democratic margins that result in what, a good 150-200 electoral votes to zero would now be more like 6.5 to 3.5 (out of every 10) in those areas...that would produce some interesting effects on campaigning in my opinion.

 

I'm really not sure what the strategy would be...your point about swing votes coming at a premium is not lost, but entering in millions of republican votes into the equation in the metro areas that are not counted for anything in the electoral system would change the equation significantly in my mind.

[RockRaines]

you're just wrong man.

How so? If the popular vote is the determining factor how can one person's vote mean more than another?

[RockRaines]

I think the point BMags brought up earlier is significant...all those republicans in major metro areas would have a voice in a popular vote, whereas now, they are drowned out by the democratic majority now. I am not sure how the numbers line up, but the 65-35% democratic margins that result in what, a good 150-200 electoral votes to zero would now be more like 6.5 to 3.5 (out of every 10) in those areas...that would produce some interesting effects on campaigning in my opinion.

 

I'm really not sure what the strategy would be...your point about swing votes coming at a premium is not lost, but entering in millions of republican votes into the equation in the metro areas that are not counted for anything in the electoral system would change the equation significantly in my mind.

GOP's in urban areas and Dem's in rural areas would have a bigger voice thats for sure, not to mention votes in traditionally that color state. Us here in Illinois would actually have a vote that matters nationally, right now we simply dont.

[iamshack]

you're just wrong man.

C'mon....this is something where reasonable minds can absolutely disagree...I don't think any of us can anticipate the outcome with any level of absolute certainty here.

 

As Y2H alluded to earlier, you are a likable guy Reddy, but sometimes you have a tendency to assume a bit more expertise on a topic than I think is appropriate.

[RockRaines]

BTW, there was a guy roaming around my parents neighborhood with a petition to nullify one of the elections, they didnt see which one. LOL

[Reddy]

http://www.redstate.com/morton_c_blackwell...rt-most-states/

 

Please look at this. Under a NPV plan, check out the states that would lose power, vs. the states that would GAIN power. What's a common factor? Most of the "gainers" are blue states and most of the losers? Red.

 

PS this comes from a GOP publication that is anti NPV for these very reasons

[Soxbadger]

you're just wrong man.

 

With that type of sound logic I think NSS just needs to say uncle.

 

I think the point BMags brought up earlier is significant...all those republicans in major metro areas would have a voice in a popular vote, whereas now, they are drowned out by the democratic majority now. I am not sure how the numbers line up, but the 65-35% democratic margins that result in what, a good 150-200 electoral votes to zero would now be more like 6.5 to 3.5 (out of every 10) in those areas...that would produce some interesting effects on campaigning in my opinion.

 

I'm really not sure what the strategy would be...your point about swing votes coming at a premium is not lost, but entering in millions of republican votes into the equation in the metro areas that are not counted for anything in the electoral system would change the equation significantly in my mind.

 

Well some people dont want to admit that there is actually a very large Republican presence in metro areas. They would rather believe that Democrats will always rule in the metro areas because, I dont know, I guess because they only have looked at elections since Clinton, and dont really have a firm grasp on the fact that US parties shift ideologically and that 20 years from now Republicans could be the dominant metro party.

[Reddy]

C'mon....this is something where reasonable minds can absolutely disagree...I don't think any of us can anticipate the outcome with any level of absolute certainty here.

 

As Y2H alluded to earlier, you are a likable guy Reddy, but sometimes you have a tendency to assume a bit more expertise on a topic than I think is appropriate.

i DO do that. lol

[RockRaines]

Please look at this. Under a NPV plan, check out the states that would lose power, vs. the states that would GAIN power. What's a common factor? Most of the "gainers" are blue states and most of the losers? Red.

 

PS this comes from a GOP publication that is anti NPV for these very reasons

But under a popular vote model states no longer have any power, the people do. SO who cares what states do, its all about counting everyone's vote and determining a winner based on that count.

[Reddy]

But under a popular vote model states no longer have any power, the people do. SO who cares what states do, its all about counting everyone's vote and determining a winner based on that count.

ok... but the states with increased influence because of high populations means that that's where the candidates will spend more time, correct?

[RockRaines]

ok... but the states with increased influence because of high populations means that that's where the candidates will spend more time, correct?

Well, I think a basic premise is that candidates will spend the most time in front of the most people they can get together in one area, yes. Since every vote counts as 1 the more people you convince to vote for you the liklier you will win. Pretty basic premise there. If they can get a million people on a webcast they will do that too.

 

I;m not sure why you keep focusing on the state thing. 1 vote is 1 vote. They would need to touch as many people as they can if they want to be successful because a vote in North Dakota is exactly the same value as a vote in NYC.

Edited November 7, 2012 by RockRaines

[iamshack]

Please look at this. Under a NPV plan, check out the states that would lose power, vs. the states that would GAIN power. What's a common factor? Most of the "gainers" are blue states and most of the losers? Red.

 

PS this comes from a GOP publication that is anti NPV for these very reasons

This assumes that voting habits would stay the same, and I am not sure that I can buy that. I think voting habits would change under a popular vote, as many results in the electoral system are basically a foregone conclusion. Maybe we would see larger turnouts by the current losing parties in these areas? Maybe we would see larger turnouts overall? I honestly have no idea.

[Reddy]

Well, I think a basic premise is that candidates will spend the most time in front of the most people they can get together in one area, yes. Since every vote counts as 1 the more people you convince to vote for you the liklier you will win. Pretty basic premise there. If they can get a million people on a webcast they will do that too.

EXACTLY - and if they can get MORE people together in NYC than they can in Wyoming, they'll pander their positions to fit the needs of that larger group!

 

what's hard to grasp about this?

[Soxbadger]

Please look at this. Under a NPV plan, check out the states that would lose power, vs. the states that would GAIN power. What's a common factor? Most of the "gainers" are blue states and most of the losers? Red.

 

PS this comes from a GOP publication that is anti NPV for these very reasons

 

The problem is that you are starting with a premise that I do not find necessary. I dont care about states losing or gaining power, states are just imaginary boundaries that were drawn up X amount of years ago. What matters to me is the people in the state. And thus the people in NY who are Republican should have a say just as much as the people who are Republican in Ohio. And the Democrats in ND should have a say, just like the Democrats in Florida. The vote of the minority in the state should not be meaningless, they should have some impact, they should be able to choose.

 

The entire idea of the electoral college is antiquated and unacceptable. If the electoral college was smart, then why do we not have counties elect Governors, or alderman select mayors? Why do we directly elect the Senate now (used to be by the state)?

 

Because there is no reason to put up an invisible barrier between the people and their choice. If you want to argue for the electoral college, be my guest, argue that the regular population is not smart enough to make the choice and therefore we need a group of elites to make sure that the "right" person is picked.

 

Because as I am sure you are aware, the electorate doesnt have to do what you voted. I am sure you would be 100% in support of the EC if it turned out the NY Dem reps actually vote for Romney and he won the election, even though the voters of NY said otherwise.

 

If you like that system, be my guest. But this isnt about protecting small states or big states, its about preventing direct election and keeping a check on people in case they do something that the powers that be disagree with.

 

I find that unacceptable.

[Reddy]

This assumes that voting habits would stay the same, and I am not sure that I can buy that. I think voting habits would change under a popular vote, as many results in the electoral system are basically a foregone conclusion. Maybe we would see larger turnouts by the current losing parties in these areas? Maybe we would see larger turnouts overall? I honestly have no idea.

i think turnout may go up in the first year of a popular vote, but then people will realize that if they live in a small state, the issues that matter specifically to them will stop getting addressed and they'll become apathetic. that's my belief, however, as you pointed out... i'm not technically an expert... just my dad. who i've known and spoken with in detail for the last 26 years of my life. Ok maybe not those first few years.

[Reddy]

The problem is that you are starting with a premise that I do not find necessary. I dont care about states losing or gaining power, states are just imaginary boundaries that were drawn up X amount of years ago. What matters to me is the people in the state. And thus the people in NY who are Republican should have a say just as much as the people who are Republican in Ohio. And the Democrats in ND should have a say, just like the Democrats in Florida. The vote of the minority in the state should not be meaningless, they should have some impact, they should be able to choose.

 

The entire idea of the electoral college is antiquated and unacceptable. If the electoral college was smart, then why do we not have counties elect Governors, or alderman select mayors? Why do we directly elect the Senate now (used to be by the state)?

 

Because there is no reason to put up an invisible barrier between the people and their choice. If you want to argue for the electoral college, be my guest, argue that the regular population is not smart enough to make the choice and therefore we need a group of elites to make sure that the "right" person is picked.

 

Because as I am sure you are aware, the electorate doesnt have to do what you voted. I am sure you would be 100% in support of the EC if it turned out the NY Dem reps actually vote for Romney and he won the election, even though the voters of NY said otherwise.

 

If you like that system, be my guest. But this isnt about protecting small states or big states, its about preventing direct election and keeping a check on people in case they do something that the powers that be disagree with.

 

I find that unacceptable.

 

It ain't perfect, but as i said to Rock, forget i used the words "state" and "power":

 

ok... but the states with increased influence because of high populations means that that's where the candidates will spend more time, correct?

 

[Quin]

If you skipped the last 10 pages, you missed some of the best discussion I've seen in a long time in here.

 

And what's with #4? New flag?

 

I read the 10 before it...seemed like it was on repeat. I'll go back later and read it.

 

New flag was a Puerto Rico joke.

[RockRaines]

EXACTLY - and if they can get MORE people together in NYC than they can in Wyoming, they'll pander their positions to fit the needs of that larger group!

 

what's hard to grasp about this?

Nothing is hard to grasp about that, of course it would make sense to spend more time in front of more people, whats the problem with that? They still cannot ignore large portions of the country since everyone's vote counts the same instead of taking down a state you've never visited because its a traditional red or blue state. Romney spent how much time in Chicago? Traditional "red" or "blue" areas would actually get attention from both candidates which would be very positive.

[southsider2k5]

The problem is that you are starting with a premise that I do not find necessary. I dont care about states losing or gaining power, states are just imaginary boundaries that were drawn up X amount of years ago. What matters to me is the people in the state. And thus the people in NY who are Republican should have a say just as much as the people who are Republican in Ohio. And the Democrats in ND should have a say, just like the Democrats in Florida. The vote of the minority in the state should not be meaningless, they should have some impact, they should be able to choose.

 

The entire idea of the electoral college is antiquated and unacceptable. If the electoral college was smart, then why do we not have counties elect Governors, or alderman select mayors? Why do we directly elect the Senate now (used to be by the state)?

 

Because there is no reason to put up an invisible barrier between the people and their choice. If you want to argue for the electoral college, be my guest, argue that the regular population is not smart enough to make the choice and therefore we need a group of elites to make sure that the "right" person is picked.

 

Because as I am sure you are aware, the electorate doesnt have to do what you voted. I am sure you would be 100% in support of the EC if it turned out the NY Dem reps actually vote for Romney and he won the election, even though the voters of NY said otherwise.

 

If you like that system, be my guest. But this isnt about protecting small states or big states, its about preventing direct election and keeping a check on people in case they do something that the powers that be disagree with.

 

I find that unacceptable.

 

If states really don't matter, let's get rid of the state level governance, as it is a waste of money then. Get rid of all of the boundaries, rules, etc. Either you have to honor that states are there, or don't. You can't rely on states for somethings, and then ignore them for others.

 

[RockRaines]

i think turnout may go up in the first year of a popular vote, but then people will realize that if they live in a small state, the issues that matter specifically to them will stop getting addressed and they'll become apathetic. that's my belief, however, as you pointed out... i'm not technically an expert... just my dad. who i've known and spoken with in detail for the last 26 years of my life. Ok maybe not those first few years.

Thats a pretty big reach considering you are assuming EVERY single person in those "small states" cares about exactly the same thing and that those particular things would be ignored for some reason because nobody else in the country cares about them.

 

Also local government would still be in effect for areas that have really specific issues as part of our checks and balances. I just dont see a scenario where a larger population of people's votes will actually count and somehow they become disillusioned because they dont get much attention from candidates. Yesterday only a subset of 5 states mattered, there is a TON of room to improve upon that.

Edited November 7, 2012 by RockRaines

[iamshack]

Well, I think a basic premise is that candidates will spend the most time in front of the most people they can get together in one area, yes. Since every vote counts as 1 the more people you convince to vote for you the liklier you will win. Pretty basic premise there. If they can get a million people on a webcast they will do that too.

The point NSS is making is that this simply may not be true.

 

Put it into another perspective...say I am picking an NFL confidence pool with no point spreads. There are a number of games that are pretty clear decisions, which I make quickly and assign a large number of points to. However, ultimately, the pool will most likely be decided by a smaller number of games which are a toss up. The more of those games that I can pick correctly, the better my chances of winning the pool. Correct choices in those games come at a premium over the easy games of which the outcomes are much more certain and almost all participants will have similar choices for.

 

So while I may assign 14 points this week to San Francisco vs. St Louis, 13 points to New England vs. Buffalo, 12 to Pittsburgh vs. KC, and 11 to Baltimore vs. Oakland, I will probably spend a lot less time analyzing those games than I will analyzing Detroit vs. Minnesota and Dallas vs. Philly and Chicago vs. Houston, because those are the games that will come at a premium when compared against the rest of the field.

 

[Soxbadger]

i think turnout may go up in the first year of a popular vote, but then people will realize that if they live in a small state, the issues that matter specifically to them will stop getting addressed and they'll become apathetic. that's my belief, however, as you pointed out... i'm not technically an expert... just my dad. who i've known and spoken with in detail for the last 26 years of my life. Ok maybe not those first few years.

 

Im not sure what your dad would say, but I think if he started arguing Electoral College was for states rights, hed be arguing against history.

 

Perhaps check out Federalist 68:

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

 

The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

 

Youll notice Hamilton was the one for electoral college, he was anti-small state. The electoral college small state myth is a good one, it really is impressive how long people have bought it.

[SOXOBAMA]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump

Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.

 

[Soxbadger]

If states really don't matter, let's get rid of the state level governance, as it is a waste of money then. Get rid of all of the boundaries, rules, etc. Either you have to honor that states are there, or don't. You can't rely on states for somethings, and then ignore them for others.

 

Disagree completely.

 

The US is to large to govern well with 1 body, thus you need smaller entities to govern smaller sections of land.

 

That being said, the President is a position that governs all people, and thus a state line should make no difference on his selection. If I live in Southern IL across from Missouri, should my vote really be that different? Just because there is an imaginary line on the Mississippi?