Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   GOP: Okay, we're no longer going to try and distribute electoral votes by district. And please pay no attention to our plan to split off electoral votes by popular vote   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 201
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

2985 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Feb 2013 at 10:52 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



201 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-04 10:52:28 AM  
There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.
 
2013-02-04 10:53:57 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.


Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?
 
2013-02-04 10:55:52 AM  

nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?


This guy does:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Oh, compelling...no
 
2013-02-04 10:57:24 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.


That would require another Constitutional amendment, right? I'll be old and grey before another one of those passes.
 
2013-02-04 10:58:14 AM  
The compelling argument seems to be that people in Montana are just somehow more worthy to have a say in the presidency than those in California, NY or Texas.

/Unless of course you live in a state where you vote for who won't become president, then you have no say at all
//Can we just agree that the EC is anachronistic and plays no decent role in a modern system?
 
2013-02-04 11:01:10 AM  

Bendal: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

That would require another Constitutional amendment, right? I'll be old and grey before another one of those passes.


Nope. A group of states with 270 or more electoral votes could join an interstate compact whereby they all agree to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. 100% constitutional.
 
2013-02-04 11:02:22 AM  

nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?


That won't guarantee the GOP a victory like their batshiat stupid district plan did.
 
2013-02-04 11:03:56 AM  

nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?


I can't really think of one.  Anyone else?
 
2013-02-04 11:04:46 AM  
IRV in NPV? OMG
 
2013-02-04 11:05:06 AM  

nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?


Considering James Madison wanted to do a popular vote to elect the president until the Southern states biatched about having less power because they wouldn't let their slaves vote, no.
 
2013-02-04 11:05:35 AM  
Instead of changing their failed policies they choose to alter the system to alienate voters......let me know how that works out.
 
2013-02-04 11:05:55 AM  

nekom: Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?


All of the state-level GOP-held states that vote for a democrat for President?
 
2013-02-04 11:06:00 AM  

Cythraul: I can't really think of one.  Anyone else?


A couple of states would lose their disproportionate representation, but that's probably not a bad thing.
 
2013-02-04 11:07:55 AM  

Cythraul: nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?

I can't really think of one.  Anyone else?


An argument for Bush getting "elected" instead of Gore? Everyone who hates America has one I guess.
 
2013-02-04 11:08:05 AM  

nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?


I don't know if it's a compelling argument, but one problem with a national popular vote is that in a close popular vote, we'd have to have every state count their votes quickly...and more importantly...accurately. I'm looking at you, Florida and Ohio.

Remember, this year Florida had issues counting the vote, but it didn't matter, because Obama won the rest of the electoral college by a wide enough margin that Florida was irrelevant.
 
2013-02-04 11:08:16 AM  
I'm ok with this.  It will give more political power to population centers (cities with media markets) and make the effort to reach out to rural voters less important.  This, intern, will reduce the power of tea-party Derp.

yes, the GOP may end up winning more than they do now, but the GOP will start to become more urban-focused in the process so the entire system can become more liberal.
 
2013-02-04 11:08:22 AM  
Has there ever been research in to what this kind of switch to a popular national vote would do for turnout?
 
2013-02-04 11:09:27 AM  

Krieghund: Remember, this year Florida had issues counting the vote, but it didn't matter, because Obama won the rest of the electoral college by a wide enough margin that Florida was irrelevant.


But also remember that in that case, Florida's votes also didn't matter because Obama won the popular vote with a wide margin as well.
 
2013-02-04 11:10:44 AM  

Krieghund: nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?

I don't know if it's a compelling argument, but one problem with a national popular vote is that in a close popular vote, we'd have to have every state count their votes quickly...and more importantly...accurately. I'm looking at you, Florida and Ohio.

Remember, this year Florida had issues counting the vote, but it didn't matter, because Obama won the rest of the electoral college by a wide enough margin that Florida was irrelevant.


National standards for voting?  That might help.
 
2013-02-04 11:11:12 AM  

Krieghund: nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?

I don't know if it's a compelling argument, but one problem with a national popular vote is that in a close popular vote, we'd have to have every state count their votes quickly...and more importantly...accurately. I'm looking at you, Florida and Ohio.

Remember, this year Florida had issues counting the vote, but it didn't matter, because Obama won the rest of the electoral college by a wide enough margin that Florida was irrelevant.


That's an argument for modernizing our election system, not for balkanizing it.
 
2013-02-04 11:11:25 AM  

Krieghund: I don't know if it's a compelling argument, but one problem with a national popular vote is that in a close popular vote, we'd have to have every state count their votes quickly...and more importantly...accurately. I'm looking at you, Florida and Ohio.

Remember, this year Florida had issues counting the vote, but it didn't matter, because Obama won the rest of the electoral college by a wide enough margin that Florida was irrelevant.


So what you are saying is that a change like this may force states to upgrade and update their polling technology and laws?

I am sold.
 
2013-02-04 11:11:35 AM  

Mighty Taternuts: Has there ever been research in to what this kind of switch to a popular national vote would do for turnout?


I think it would help turnout for Dems.  The GOP demographics tend to vote no matter what.  It is the low-turnout Dems that are a problem and it is hard to convince a low-turnout-Dem to go vote in Utah or Wyoming because they don't matter.  Suddenly, we would see huge Get Out The Vote efforts nation-wide in all states.  That would have great down-ballot effect on state legislative efforts as well.  Suddenly all these low-turnout-dems go to the polls all across the country and the GOP would have a wave election against them.
 
2013-02-04 11:11:37 AM  
The only problem with national popular vote is the electoral shenanigans that can take place regarding so-called third party contenders.  If the GOP decide to run "democrat light" as a contender to siphon votes, front them enough cash to get on the ballot in all 50, it could allow them to swing the election in a more profound way than running the same contender under the electoral college.  Or the DNC could run "ridiculous extremist" republican to siphon votes from the "hard-tack-to-center already extremist but pretending to be on the level so maybe we can win this thing" candidate the GOP is sure to run.
 
2013-02-04 11:11:38 AM  
How would a recount work in a national popular vote?
 
2013-02-04 11:12:50 AM  
Serious question... not that long ago, it was the left that insisted on moving to a ME/NE electoral vote model. What changed? It seems that the degree to which people like that model is inversely proportional to the incumbency of their party.

I think that model makes sense, since it gets closer to the goal of the popular vote while still reflecting regional and urban/rural differences and it doesn't require a constitutional amendment. Of course the current handwringing over it involves gerrymandering, but that's a problem that needs to be addressed anyway. If districts were drawn so that they're not taking into account anything other than population distribution and some geography (the goal being something like "districts need to be drawn with the shortest practical boundaries"), then would the ME/NE model be so bad? Of course, one man's "equalization" is another man's "gerrymandering".

As bad as the current model is, the NPV model is even worse. It sounds great until one day people in MA suddenly have to give all their electoral votes because someone like Perry managed to pull off a 50-vote victory. If you're going to do popular vote, do it right. Offer up a constitutional amendment and let it go through the proper channels.
 
2013-02-04 11:12:52 AM  

Citrate1007: Instead of changing their failed policies they choose to alter the system to alienate voters......let me know how that works out.


Isn't that how we got the EC in the first place? They altered the system away from the "natural" 1 man/1 vote rather than alter their failed policies (though I guess slavery was still pretty awesome at that point, at least for white folk in the South).
 
2013-02-04 11:13:23 AM  
Republicans just have it all wrong...

They seem to think the way to win is to find new ways to game the system.

Perhaps if they realized that we want them to start governing honestly and with good intentions that we might actually consider voting for them again someday they might have a chance. As it stands, they seem to think that demonizing and alienating 3/4 of the country is going do it for them. It's absurd.
 
2013-02-04 11:14:00 AM  

Paincakes: How would a recount work in a national popular vote?


I don't know - how does it work anywhere else? France manages it. So does California. So does Russia (eh, maybe).

Wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world, but it can be done. Better to be costly than inaccurate.
 
2013-02-04 11:14:31 AM  
If we're switching our election laws, let's blow up the whole Weeners the post thing.  I'm fine with a national popular vote, but for the love of God just make it a parliamentary system.
 
2013-02-04 11:14:39 AM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Serious question... not that long ago, it was the left that insisted on moving to a ME/NE electoral vote model. What changed?


What changed was the push to only implement this change in blue states.
 
2013-02-04 11:14:43 AM  

nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?


I've been promoting this for -- literally -- twenty years. The people I suggest it to have always dismissed it. "Nah, impossible, couldn't work, totally unfair, ignores states' rights, too easy to cheat, the Founding Fathers were against it," et bleeding cetera. Maybe, with blatant gerrymandering in recent years, its time has finally come.

What is so freaking terrible about a REAL "one man one vote" system?
 
2013-02-04 11:14:50 AM  

OceanVortex: Mighty Taternuts: Has there ever been research in to what this kind of switch to a popular national vote would do for turnout?

I think it would help turnout for Dems.  The GOP demographics tend to vote no matter what.  It is the low-turnout Dems that are a problem and it is hard to convince a low-turnout-Dem to go vote in Utah or Wyoming because they don't matter.  Suddenly, we would see huge Get Out The Vote efforts nation-wide in all states.  That would have great down-ballot effect on state legislative efforts as well.  Suddenly all these low-turnout-dems go to the polls all across the country and the GOP would have a wave election against them.


I have always found the initiative to go out and vote, but I have had to drag myself out to the polling place a few times because my general mindset was, "Why bother to vote? The electoral votes in North Carolina almost always go Republican anyway."

So, that's a good point you made.  I had not even thought of that.
 
2013-02-04 11:15:03 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.


With instant runoff.
 
2013-02-04 11:15:45 AM  
Weeners the post filters to weeners?
 
2013-02-04 11:16:19 AM  

IrateShadow: Cythraul: I can't really think of one.  Anyone else?

A couple of states would lose their disproportionate representation, but that's probably not a bad thing.


So candidates might need to campaign in places like NYC, Houston, and Las Vegas instead of Buttfark, Iowa and East Jesus, New Hampshire (and other locales of super-concentrated Real American-ness)??  The horror!
 
2013-02-04 11:16:33 AM  
So the repubs are going to try to seal the next election by going for something that a lot of dems have been calling for sence at least 2000?  Well OK then.
 
2013-02-04 11:17:02 AM  

nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?



i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-04 11:17:47 AM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Serious question... not that long ago, it was the left that insisted on moving to a ME/NE electoral vote model. What changed? It seems that the degree to which people like that model is inversely proportional to the incumbency of their party.

I think that model makes sense, since it gets closer to the goal of the popular vote while still reflecting regional and urban/rural differences and it doesn't require a constitutional amendment. Of course the current handwringing over it involves gerrymandering, but that's a problem that needs to be addressed anyway. If districts were drawn so that they're not taking into account anything other than population distribution and some geography (the goal being something like "districts need to be drawn with the shortest practical boundaries"), then would the ME/NE model be so bad? Of course, one man's "equalization" is another man's "gerrymandering".

As bad as the current model is, the NPV model is even worse. It sounds great until one day people in MA suddenly have to give all their electoral votes because someone like Perry managed to pull off a 50-vote victory. If you're going to do popular vote, do it right. Offer up a constitutional amendment and let it go through the proper channels.


Why is a constitutional amendment the "proper channel" for this? States can enter into interstate compacts with other states without Congressional consent when those compacts do not impinge on federal supremacy. States have the plenary power to choose how they allocate their electoral votes for president. If they want to give it to the candidate who makes the best batch of chili con carne, they have the power to do that. That means an interstate compact between states with 270 or more electoral votes to give their votes to the candidate with the most popular votes is 100% kosher.
 
2013-02-04 11:18:37 AM  

Shaggy_C: nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?


[i48.tinypic.com image 650x534]


How does a 'tyranny of the majority' scenario apply to our current electoral system?
 
2013-02-04 11:18:53 AM  
I'm perfectly fine with this. Just make sure it applies to all states. Texas should be fun.
 
2013-02-04 11:19:10 AM  

Elandriel: The only problem with national popular vote is the electoral shenanigans that can take place regarding so-called third party contenders.  If the GOP decide to run "democrat light" as a contender to siphon votes, front them enough cash to get on the ballot in all 50, it could allow them to swing the election in a more profound way than running the same contender under the electoral college.  Or the DNC could run "ridiculous extremist" republican to siphon votes from the "hard-tack-to-center already extremist but pretending to be on the level so maybe we can win this thing" candidate the GOP is sure to run.


The same thing is done in the electoral system we have now. *points at Nader in Florida in 2000* If that guy hasn't been on the ballot, what would have the election looked like?
 
2013-02-04 11:19:49 AM  

DamnYankees: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Serious question... not that long ago, it was the left that insisted on moving to a ME/NE electoral vote model. What changed?

What changed was the push to only implement this change in blue states.


also this addendum:
All proposals involve using current congressional districts, in all of their severely gerrymandered gory details.  You move to a congressional district system post-redistricting following a system like that found in Iowa and its not a bad idea.
 
2013-02-04 11:19:58 AM  

Cythraul: OceanVortex: Mighty Taternuts: Has there ever been research in to what this kind of switch to a popular national vote would do for turnout?

I think it would help turnout for Dems.  The GOP demographics tend to vote no matter what.  It is the low-turnout Dems that are a problem and it is hard to convince a low-turnout-Dem to go vote in Utah or Wyoming because they don't matter.  Suddenly, we would see huge Get Out The Vote efforts nation-wide in all states.  That would have great down-ballot effect on state legislative efforts as well.  Suddenly all these low-turnout-dems go to the polls all across the country and the GOP would have a wave election against them.

I have always found the initiative to go out and vote, but I have had to drag myself out to the polling place a few times because my general mindset was, "Why bother to vote? The electoral votes in North Carolina almost always go Republican anyway."

So, that's a good point you made.  I had not even thought of that.


That also works for repubs in CA, NY, IL, MA.  I know of plenty of repub voters in IL that just dont vote because it (almost) always goes for the dems.
 
2013-02-04 11:20:11 AM  

MattStafford: If we're switching our election laws, let's blow up the whole Weeners the post thing.  I'm fine with a national popular vote, but for the love of God just make it a parliamentary system.


Gotta love the Fark filter.

And I don't necessarily agree with shifting to a parliamentary system, but yes, FPTP voting is asinine. I'd prefer either approval voting (simpler to explain to the masses) or Schulze voting (guarantees a majority winner). You could use either as a way to shift from single-member Congressional districts to multi-member Congressional districts too.
 
2013-02-04 11:21:25 AM  

Saiga410: So the repubs are going to try to seal the next election by going for something that a lot of dems have been calling for sence at least 2000?  Well OK then.


NPV makes great sense as long as it isn't just blue states doing it. Pretty much everyone agrees. But you knew that.
 
2013-02-04 11:21:46 AM  
Here's a basic rule we need to have about any discussion of the popular vote.

Before airing a criticism of how it works, please remember that huge countries like France and Brazil make ti work, as do our huge states, like Texas, California and New York, who all manage to vote for governors. Please remember that any generic criticism has already been dealt with, so try to understand you aren't the first person to think of possible problems.
 
2013-02-04 11:23:03 AM  

Cythraul: nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?

I can't really think of one.  Anyone else?


The only legitimate argument I can think of is that a localized disaster (hurricane in Florida or Texas, another storm like Sandy in the northeast, massive earthquake in LA or SF, etc) could cause a disproportionate number of voters of a specific segment of the country to be unable to vote. Under the electoral college, their representation relative to everyone else wouldn't be impacted (because the proportion of the vote would still turn out and be represented fully under the electoral college), while under a national popular vote, this wouldn't be the case.

Still don't think it's enough of a reason to not have it - particularly if bundled with early voting - but it is a decent argument to be made.
 
2013-02-04 11:23:16 AM  

Shaggy_C: nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?


[i48.tinypic.com image 650x534]


FAIL.

That's neither an argument, nor compelling.
 
2013-02-04 11:23:45 AM  

Krieghund: nekom: Lionel Mandrake: There's only one acceptable alternative to the current system: National popular vote.

Honestly, does anyone have a compelling argument against this?

I don't know if it's a compelling argument, but one problem with a national popular vote is that in a close popular vote, we'd have to have every state count their votes quickly...and more importantly...accurately. I'm looking at you, Florida and Ohio.

Remember, this year Florida had issues counting the vote, but it didn't matter, because Obama won the rest of the electoral college by a wide enough margin that Florida was irrelevant.


I would say that's more of a problem with the current system. As it is now, Florida and Ohio represent a large number of electoral votes, so if there are a few precincts in that state that are slow to report, a large number of electoral votes hang in the balance. Uncounted votes are more likely to swing a state and its electoral votes than a national election based on popular vote.
 
2013-02-04 11:24:01 AM  
I'm ok with this.
 
Displayed 50 of 201 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report