2016 Election Thread

[Brock Beauchamp]

Make the electoral college representative. If a rural state goes 80% red, then they get 80% red votes in the EC.

 

It makes no sense for votes not to count in the 21st century.

 

Especially because it means states like Florida or Ohio decide damned near every election. Candidates spend a disproportionate amount of time catering to those voters while ignoring the rest of us.

 

And it would make states like CA much more of a battleground. Candidates would fight for every point they get from CA voters, not ignore the state entirely because it's guaranteed to go to the Democratic candidate.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Make the electoral college representative. If a rural state goes 80% red, then they get 80% red votes in the EC.

 

It makes no sense for votes not to count in the 21st century.

 

Especially because it means states like Florida or Ohio decide damned near every election. Candidates spend a disproportionate amount of time catering to those voters while ignoring the rest of us.

 

And it would make states like CA much more of a battleground. Candidates would fight for every point they get from CA voters, not ignore the state entirely because it's guaranteed to go to the Democratic candidate.

 

It's apparently OK to ignore CA and NY though.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's apparently OK to ignore CA and NY though.

Yep. Making the EC representative would force candidates to push to the middle.

 

Go too far right, lose valuable points from NY and CA. Go too far left, lose valuable points from Texas and middle America.

 

Instead of just ignoring states you can't win, you'll scratch for a point here and a point there in states previously considered unwinnable.

 

And instead of spending *all* their time in Florida and/or Ohio, those states would diminish in importance because they can't make up their ****ing minds. A state split down the middle shouldn't decide our President, especially when it happens by a few thousand votes. That's madness.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Make the electoral college representative. If a rural state goes 80% red, then they get 80% red votes in the EC.

 

It makes no sense for votes not to count in the 21st century.

 

Especially because it means states like Florida or Ohio decide damned near every election. Candidates spend a disproportionate amount of time catering to those voters while ignoring the rest of us.

 

And it would make states like CA much more of a battleground. Candidates would fight for every point they get from CA voters, not ignore the state entirely because it's guaranteed to go to the Democratic candidate.

 

I would be perfectly ok with that.  As I said, it could use some re-balancing, but eliminating it altogether because your side got the worse end of it this time loses perspective on the protections it provides to minority groups and rural voters.

 

The Illinois model would be a terrible thing, over time, for the country.  We simply cannot go down that route without some pretty terrible ramifications.

 

Brock's idea is one I've heard before and support.  It offers a compromise that makes more votes count in general.  I'd like to see that model run against the past few elections to see the effects, but I'm on board with the principle of it.

[ashbury]

Try this. Probably best just to find a used copy of the book.

 

https://archive.org/stream/theoryofgamesand030098mbp/theoryofgamesand030098mbp_djvu.txt

It's like you read my resume, or something

 

Johnny von Neumann made some fundamental contributions in understanding seeming paradoxes that a truly free market can have, and helped launch the math that underlies how they can be analyzed. I'm not sure he put together an all-encompassing economic theory that gets down into tax policy, remedies for collusion, outside governmental forces, etc. His best work applies to well-structured problems, IMO - you can't run a linear program every time it's time to collect taxes.

 

As a baseball aside, I think that if I were running a team, any candidate for head of the analytics department had better not have an "Aleppo moment" when I casually mention JvN during the job inteview. "If you had a chance to bring John von Neumann onto your group of analysts, would you do it?"

[Mike Sixel]

BTW, I think courting votes and formulating policy are two very distinct things. One can work hard to turn out the vote in populous areas, w/o ignoring policy in less populous areas. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

BTW, I think courting votes and formulating policy are two very distinct things. One can work hard to turn out the vote in populous areas, w/o ignoring policy in less populous areas. 

And, the president doesn't have much direct power on policy.  That's the legislative branch, where there's already a big powerful chamber explicitly designed to ensure state equality.

 

In fact, I know a lot of voters actually like to have government divided between the two parties, but the electoral college effectively takes that option off the ballot for many in regards to the executive branch.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Make the electoral college representative. If a rural state goes 80% red, then they get 80% red votes in the EC.

Mathematically, this is exactly the same as just using the popular vote (unless you do rounding).   It just changes the denominator to 538 instead of the total number of votes cast.
 

It would actually be bad to do this, and still keep the requirement for 270 electoral votes, because that would effectively require a candidate to get 50.2% of the total popular vote or else throw the election to the House of Representatives.  That would mean 4 of the last 7 elections would have been decided by the House, plus 1976, 1968, 1960, 1948, etc.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Mathematically, this is exactly the same as just using the popular vote (unless you do rounding). It just changes the denominator to 538 instead of the total number of votes cast.

 

It would actually be bad to do this, and still keep the requirement for 270 electoral votes, because that would effectively require a candidate to get 50.2% of the total popular vote or else throw the election to the House of Representatives. That would mean 4 of the last 7 elections would have been decided by the House, plus 1976, 1968, 1960, 1948, etc.

Sure, 270 to win would have to be discarded in this system.

 

And it's not quite the same as moving to a straight popular vote, as rural states would maintain their slight vote edge.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sure, 270 to win would have to be discarded in this system.

And it's not quite the same as moving to a straight popular vote, as rural states would maintain their slight vote edge.

 

Why is that good?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Why is that good?

 

Has this not already been established?

 

While yes, a party could pander to the urban areas and still reach out to meaningless voters out of the kindness of their heart.....but why would they?  And we have actual, real evidence that they would just forget about them and ignore them.  The party with the supposed moral highground has willfully ignored them for decades and that's WITH the electoral college.  It's why the Orange Menace is in power.  It's why most of Illinois wants Chicago to be it's own state.  

 

Your argument seems to be: "Sure they'll pander to the voters that matter, but out of the kindness of their heart they'll craft platforms to help all"

 

What the hell political party that has ever existed has had that kind of moral compass?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Has this not already been established?

 

While yes, a party could pander to the urban areas and still reach out to meaningless voters out of the kindness of their heart.....but why would they?  And we have actual, real evidence that they would just forget about them and ignore them.  The party with the supposed moral highground has willfully ignored them for decades and that's WITH the electoral college.  It's why the Orange Menace is in power.  It's why most of Illinois wants Chicago to be it's own state.  

 

Your argument seems to be: "Sure they'll pander to the voters that matter, but out of the kindness of their heart they'll craft platforms to help all"

 

What the hell political party that has ever existed has had that kind of moral compass?

 

There are such better ways to have this conversation without the vitriol and hyperbole. Frankly, I've lost interest talking to you on this thread.

 

You still haven't answered why MY vote should count less, because I choose to live in a populated area. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And it's not quite the same as moving to a straight popular vote, as rural states would maintain their slight vote edge.

Pretty darn close.  Using the data from this site:

 

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?ev=1&vot=1&sort=&fips=0&search=&search_name=&datatype=national&f=0&off=0&year=2016&sort_dir=&submit=Submit

 

I get the following results for your plan:

 

EV

Clinton 47.524%

Trump 46.767%

margin: 0.562%

 

Popular

Clinton 47.546%

Trump 46.985%

margin: 0.757%

 

The next election that's within 0.2%, we'd be wondering why we did it this way.

[TheLeviathan]

 

There are such better ways to have this conversation without the vitriol and hyperbole. Frankly, I've lost interest talking to you on this thread.

 

You still haven't answered why MY vote should count less, because I choose to live in a populated area. 

 

There is no vitriol or hyperbole.  The Democrats have spent several decades ignoring blue collar, rural voters.  And, with the electoral college, they had real reasons to seek their support.  If you remove the electoral college you give them even LESS reason to seek their support.  

 

We've already seen how one party would concentrate their efforts away from rural areas.  Imagine how much worse that concentration of pandering, power, entitlements, etc. would get if you stripped the electoral college out of the equation?  You'd be inviting revolt within a generation.  

 

So yes, your vote counts less because you chose to live in a densely populated area.  Just like many Republicans vote means less living in California.  Or Dems in Texas.  And the reason for that is to prevent the political system from ignoring large chunks of the electorate in favor of concentrating on only those they need to win.

 

Is it perfect?  Of course not.  But it's better than open revolt or tyranny of the majority.  The size of our country and the nature of it force us to operate a little differently, otherwise we jeopardize a fair system.  You may not like all the ramifications of the Electoral College - but it's fair to the process and ensures no area is left behind.  Remove the EC and you are almost guaranteeing a process of disenfranchisement at historic levels.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

There is no vitriol or hyperbole.  The Democrats have spent several decades ignoring blue collar, rural voters.  And, with the electoral college, they had real reasons to seek their support.  If you remove the electoral college you give them even LESS reason to seek their support.  

 

We've already seen how one party would concentrate their efforts away from rural areas.  Imagine how much worse that concentration of pandering, power, entitlements, etc. would get if you stripped the electoral college out of the equation?  You'd be inviting revolt within a generation.

These sound like good talking points, but I'm not sure if they really hold up to scrutiny.  Have the Democrats really been ignoring rural areas, as compared to Republicans?  NAFTA was bipartisan, and it helped farmers even if it hurt some blue collar workers (although blue collar jobs were drying up well before NAFTA came along).  Democrats have generally restricted income tax increases to higher income earners, who are much more likely to live near urban centers.

 

With the "rural voters" I know, virtually all of the difference comes down to social issues.  And I'm really not sure what Democrats could do to bridge that gap, other than overturning Roe v Wade.

EDIT: I'd say the Democrats have often lost the optics battle with Republicans in regards to rural voters, but that's not the same thing as actually ignoring them, withholding entitlements, etc.

[stringer bell]

The current situation isn't rural/urban. How many visits did Trump or Clinton make to the Dakotas, Montana and Idaho?

 

OTOH, there were plenty of visits to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Colorado. It is all about chances of winning the state. I think direct election by popular vote is better than what we have now, but there is probably some tweak to the EC which would improve the system.

[TheLeviathan]

 

These sound like good talking points, but I'm not sure if they really hold up to scrutiny.  Have the Democrats really been ignoring rural areas, as compared to Republicans?  NAFTA was bipartisan, and it helped farmers even if it hurt some blue collar workers (although blue collar jobs were drying up well before NAFTA came along).  Democrats have generally restricted income tax increases to higher income earners, who are much more likely to live near urban centers.

 

With the "rural voters" I know, virtually all of the difference comes down to social issues.  And I'm really not sure what Democrats could do to bridge that gap, other than overturning Roe v Wade.

EDIT: I'd say the Democrats have often lost the optics battle with Republicans in regards to rural voters, but that's not the same thing as actually ignoring them, withholding entitlements, etc.

 

"As compared to Republicans" is sort of where this argument breaks down.  Of course neither side is really doing much for them, I've said nothing to contradict that.  The optics are what matters because, over time, the optics become platforms.  Especially when you give both parties cause to no longer care about that demographic. (In a scenario when the electoral college is gone)  

 

The Electoral College forces both parties to care about the entire geographic swath of the country.  Removing it all but guarantees the vast majority gets ignored.  It gives incentive for the parties to only further ignore those they don't feel can impact the election and concentrate all efforts to encourage voting on urban epicenters.  

 

And, worst of all, you will do this.  Only on a much greater scale.  Read that and tell me you can't see some seriously negative consequences from even further deepening the divide.   Image being a woman, LBGTQ individual, or some other minority in these areas.  There are a lot of nasty dominos that would fall if you only further marginalize an entire group of people.

 

Many of those things are already happening.  Now imagine what happens when you completely neuter their voice.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And, worst of all, you will do this.  Only on a much greater scale.  Read that and tell me you can't see some seriously negative consequences from even further deepening the divide.   Image being a woman, LBGTQ individual, or some other minority in these areas.  There are a lot of nasty dominos that would fall if you only further marginalize an entire group of people.

That LGBTQ individual living in a rural area?  Their presidential vote was likely ignored (and practically their state/local votes too).  And you're arguing that's a good thing for them?

 

Being LGBTQ in a rural area will likely suck regardless, now and for some time into the future, because of local/state policy and attitudes.  I don't see why you'd want to silence their voice in the one election they might be able to affect, and that might help set the tone for how quickly those policies and attitudes change.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That LGBTQ individual living in a rural area?  Their presidential vote was likely ignored (and practically their state/local votes too).  And you're arguing that's a good thing for them?

 

Being LGBTQ in a rural area will likely suck regardless, now and for some time into the future, because of local/state policy and attitudes.  I don't see why you'd want to silence their voice in the one election they might be able to affect, and that might help set the tone for how quickly those policies and attitudes change.

 

A rural LGBTQ person in Minnesota isn't ignored.  Maybe in Alabama, but I've stated I'm open to looking at how we can blend the popular vote better with the EC.  I'm opposed to removing the EC in full.  That would be a gigantic blunder in the long run.  I don't have a nuanced plan to fix it, I admit, but I also know the suggestion to remove it is very short-sighted.

 

Marginalizing huge geographic portions of the country, and the populace that goes with them, is just an untenable outcome IMO.  Removing the EC will do that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

A rural LGBTQ person in Minnesota isn't ignored.  Maybe in Alabama, but I've stated I'm open to looking at how we can blend the popular vote better with the EC.  I'm opposed to removing the EC in full.  That would be a gigantic blunder in the long run.  I don't have a nuanced plan to fix it, I admit, but I also know the suggestion to remove it is very short-sighted.

 

Marginalizing huge geographic portions of the country, and the populace that goes with them, is just an untenable outcome IMO.  Removing the EC will do that.

But in Minnesota, while that LGBTQ vote might be counted, most rural presidential votes are currently "ignored."  Abolishing the electoral college would actually give more power to those individuals, as well as in Illinois, as well as Republicans in California and NY.  A far cry from being "completely neutered" as you claim.

 

If you're looking for a "better blend" in vote counting, you can't do much better than eliminate the electoral college.  Remove the outsized weighting given to votes in WY, SD, ND, etc., and in turn, increase the weighting of like-minded dissension votes in MN, IL, CA, NY, etc.

[Mike Sixel]

 

A rural LGBTQ person in Minnesota isn't ignored.  Maybe in Alabama, but I've stated I'm open to looking at how we can blend the popular vote better with the EC.  I'm opposed to removing the EC in full.  That would be a gigantic blunder in the long run.  I don't have a nuanced plan to fix it, I admit, but I also know the suggestion to remove it is very short-sighted.

 

Marginalizing huge geographic portions of the country, and the populace that goes with them, is just an untenable outcome IMO.  Removing the EC will do that.

 

So, if I understand, your concern is geography.....and mine is equal votes for everyone. Your posts are very absolute, as if you are certain this is a disaster, without any acknowledgement that my vote counting less isn't inherently fair at all. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

And again, we're just talking about presidential elections.  Rural state voters would keep their outsized weighing in the Senate, which is more than enough to keep them from being "ignored" or "completely neutered."

 

In fact, it was those Senate voices who postponed filling the Supreme Court vacancy this year, to further motivate their constituents to vote in the presidential election.  So these rural state votes are getting outsized impact on all three branches of the federal government!  

 

Even abolishing the electoral college would leave them with outsized impact on ~1.5 branches (recognizing the role of the Senate in forming the Supreme Court).  That seems like enough, doesn't it?  A far cry from being "ignored" or "completely neutered" or cause for civil war.  And a far better blend/balance of that voice in the national conversation than we currently have.

[stringer bell]

With the "winner take all" Electoral College, the so-called Swing States get all the attention. It doesn't matter if they are primarily rural or primarily urban. Why do people in North Carolina get so much more attention than those in New Jersey? It is because there is a decent chance for either party to win NC and just about no chance for a Republican to win NJ.

 

If everyone has access to the internet and a television, all should be subjected to the same amount of election campaign. Campaigns would be different and I think better if every vote cast in every state meant the same amount and right now that isn't the case.

 

If the electoral college was gone and the president was elected by popular vote, candidates might go to the farm, but it wouldn't have to be in Ohio or New Hampshire and they might go to a factory, but it wouldn't have to be in Pennsylvania. They could campaign from a suburban mall or a soul food restaurant, but those campaign spots wouldn't have to be in swing states.

 

It is pretty undemocratic for the "loser" have more than a million more votes than the person elected. BTW, I'd feel the same if Trump won the popular vote and Clinton won the Electoral College.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Imagine being a Republican in Minnesota. If you're under the age of 60, your vote for president has never counted. Not once. You may as well leave the box unchecked every four years because you're irrelevant.

 

That's disheartening.

 

And I don't get how the EC prevents states from being ignored. I'd say the opposite is true.

 

When did Clinton last visit Minnesota? Trump didn't bother to come until the election was almost here, either... and he never left the airport.

 

How do you think Idaho voters feel about their issues being addressed during presidential elections? Montana?

 

Candidates ignore states all the time because they're "in the bag". If that's not a sign that our representation is skewed - particularly when those same candidates basically live in Ohio for three months - I don't know what is.

 

Put those states in play with Minnesota's EC votes up for grabs in 10% increments and then observe how often candidates swing by to visit us.

[Vanimal46]

 

Imagine being a Republican in Minnesota. If you're under the age of 60, your vote for president has never counted. Not once. You may as well leave the box unchecked every four years because you're irrelevant.

 

That's disheartening.

 

And I don't get how the EC prevents states from being ignored. I'd say the opposite is true.

 

When did Clinton last visit Minnesota? Trump didn't bother to come until the election was almost here, either... and he never left the airport.

 

How do you think Idaho voters feel about their issues being addressed during presidential elections? Montana?

 

Candidates ignore states all the time because they're "in the bag". If that's not a sign that our representation is skewed - particularly when those same candidates basically live in Ohio for three months - I don't know what is.

 

Put those states in play by putting Minnesota's EC votes up for grabs in 10% increments and then observe how often candidates swing by to visit us.

That's kind of how I felt voting for Hillary in Texas.... And there's plenty of examples out there of people in other states feeling like me that day.... Like our vote did not matter. Perhaps if something were done to improve the system, there would be a higher turnout to vote. 

[biggentleben]

So VICE news pointed out something ironic to me...

 

Hillary had her campaign night gathering in a place that had a glass ceiling. You cannot make that up.

[TheLeviathan]

 

So, if I understand, your concern is geography.....and mine is equal votes for everyone. Your posts are very absolute, as if you are certain this is a disaster, without any acknowledgement that my vote counting less isn't inherently fair at all. 

 

It's partially geography, largely because that's the relevant issue today.  It's also about the populace, the safety of the democracy, the efficacy of the election, and cohesiveness of the voting public.  The truth is, removing the EC would also create an unequal balance in voting.  One, in my opinion, more stark and more widely dangerous than the flaws of the EC now.  

 

My objection to you is that you seem to be stamping your foot and saying "but my vote!" without looking at the larger picture for how the EC prevents the tyranny of the majority.  I mean, you've flat out ignored numerous points and arguments I've made in favor of it and continued stamping your foot. I don't deny that your vote is on unequal footing if you are an urbanite in a blue state.  I don't even disagree that we should make the popular vote matter more.  (I've said that repeatedly, I'm in favor of a hybrid)

 

What I disagree with is how quick we are (especially for the losing side every cycle) to complain about the negative aspects of the EC without acknowledging the very positive bulwarks it provides to keep the election process from becoming a giant s*!$ storm.  And, most importantly, the effect it has on keeping politicians from focusing too specifically on any one group or region.  

 

I look at it like this.  The Cubs and the Indians played themselves to a 27-27 tie in runs scored.  If we handled the Presidential Election like that, we'd have to declare the World Series a tie.  Instead, we count how they did game to game and decided it 4-3.  We do that because if a team wins one game 11-0 but loses the next six 1-0, they shouldn't be declared the winner.  Likewise, you shouldn't let one imbalance (in this case, New York or California) over run the majority of the other outcomes.  It let's 11-0 win the day rather than the 6-1 edge in games played.

In a country with such a wide range of beliefs (and such a large geographic range) I think we do a disservice to the outcome to let popular vote alone decide the outcome.  A hybrid of some kind is much more appealing to me.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Tyranny of the majority rings hollow here. We still have the Senate giving equal weight to the states. Not to mention a fair amount of autonomy for state governments.

 

Also every other office is decided by majority/plurality vote, and we don't worry about tyranny of the majority there. Why? Because our system has checks and balances, even on the presidency.

 

Letting the presidency be decided by unweighted popular vote wouldn't be ignoring voters, it would just be rebalancing one part of the system where there has been ample evidence it is needed. Diverse geographical areas would still have an equal voice in the Senate, and a hand in approviding Supreme Court justices. That seems plenty fair, and more logical than continuing to let some people's votes count more or less in our one nationwide election.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I look at it like this. The Cubs and the Indians played themselves to a 27-27 tie in runs scored. If we handled the Presidential Election like that, we'd have to declare the World Series a tie. Instead, we count how they did game to game and decided it 4-3. We do that because if a team wins one game 11-0 but loses the next six 1-0, they shouldn't be declared the winner. Likewise, you shouldn't let one imbalance (in this case, New York or California) over run the majority of the other outcomes. It let's 11-0 win the day rather than the 6-1 edge in games played

This analogy doesn't really work, IMO. Runs are weighted equally in games. And games are equally weighted sequential events in a series, not unequal simultaneous ones.

 

If we were talking about a series of runoff elections, it might work. But in a one-shot contest, it doesn't make sense to weigh certain runs or votes differently. Such weightig almost certainly causes more dissatisfaction or disinterest in the outcome than the perceived benefits.

[TheLeviathan]

 

This analogy doesn't really work, IMO. Runs are weighted equally in games. And games are equally weighted sequential events in a series, not unequal simultaneous ones.

If we were talking about a series of runoff elections, it might work. But in a one-shot contest, it doesn't make sense to weigh certain runs or votes differently. Such weightig almost certainly causes more dissatisfaction or disinterest in the outcome than the perceived benefits.

 

It isn't perfect, but you missed the point.  Weighting all runs as equal over a series of different events, takes those runs out of context.  Likewise, weighting all votes as equal over a series of different states takes those votes out of context.  In a smaller, more homogenous country that isn't such a big deal.  In a large, diverse country it's a VERY big deal to remove the context.  It removes the impact of having broad appeal to large regions of the country in favor of isolated popularity.

 

Just like weighting all 11 runs in a blowout isolates that success and gives it too much power over a larger sample of poor results by removing the context of how and when they happened.  

 

You keep saying removing the EC will help votes not count more or less and that is only strictly true.  In terms of practical effect you risk making the difference in vote value only increase.  I care much more about the practical effect, which is what the EC is attempting to equalize.