U.S. Politics Thread

[Ithekro]

Any state can change how it decides to split its electoral votes. Both Nebraska and Maine currently divide their votes by congressional districts. (Nebraska is mostly Republican while Maine is mostly Democrat)

The proposal to divide the electoral votes by population has been discussed before, and in some ways is beneficial for states that have solid support for one party, as it makes the cadidates have to work in those states again rather than just the swing states.

That it isn't being introduced in other states is those state's problem. (Propositions are really easy to get up to a vote in California due to our Progressive era State Constitution. This was also how we were able to recall a Governor and elect the Governator for a few terms).

California has in the past been a trend setter before its time when it comes to changing the laws of the land in odd ways. Maybe this is a step to breaking the "winner-takes-all" cycle of the Electoral College.

California is presently more than 10% of the electoral college. Yet we generally know how the state will vote these days. So it is rare for a candidate to even bother coming to California after the party primaries. Which seems weird since we are a very large potion of the nation's population. With some form of divide in the way the Electors go in this state, we can get some action going on, and be relevant politically again outside the "solid Blue state, no need to campaign there" model we have now.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

With some form of divide in the way the Electors go in this state, we can get some action going on, and be relevant politically again outside the "solid Blue state, no need to campaign there" model we have now.

You a masochist? Can't think of any other reason why you would want election campaign crap.

[Ithekro]

It also may get people out to vote again. Wasn't it synaesthetic that said she wouldn't vote for President because her vote didn't matter in California. The state was so solidly Democrat that no vote mattered...they would still win. A Democratic voter wouldn't need to go vote because they knew they'd win. Third Party, even with the mass support in the state doesn't do anything because of the' winner takes all' electoral college. The Republican Party can't manage enough votes even with voter apathy to with the Presiedental election in California these days. Even with a Republican Governor from time to time, the Democratic Party has a solid hold in this state.

I prefer motion to what will be history. It makes reading about it easier. Even with a dull teacher.

[Reckoner]

I wouldn't mind if it this is what every state adopted (I would love that), but if it's just California then it's basically saying that we want to give Republicans more skewed leverage than they already have in this country.

[Ithekro]

About 20 to 25 more electoral votes. If Obama's count these last years is anything to base things on, that's not enough to shift the balance of power. The Democrats would still have over 300 electoral votes when they need 270 to win.

The only other change I can see is if Puerto Rico joins us as the 51st state and they add more congressmen, and thus electors for the college over the current 538. I hope they add more at that point instead of just shifting the number around again like they've been doing since 1964.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I wouldn't mind if it this is what every state adopted (I would love that), but if it's just California then it's basically saying that we want to give Republicans more skewed leverage than they already have in this country.

I can see it starting in California, and then spreading as other states want to either get the campaign money, or as a counter in states like Texas by the local Democrats.

[GDB]

Yeah, as if red states, especially Texas, would ever pass something like that.

[Ithekro]

Or Florida, divide the swing state and let both sides have a slice.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It also may get people out to vote again. Wasn't it synaesthetic that said she wouldn't vote for President because her vote didn't matter in California. The state was so solidly Democrat that no vote mattered...they would still win. A Democratic voter wouldn't need to go vote because they knew they'd win. Third Party, even with the mass support in the state doesn't do anything because of the' winner takes all' electoral college. The Republican Party can't manage enough votes even with voter apathy to with the Presiedental election in California these days. Even with a Republican Governor from time to time, the Democratic Party has a solid hold in this state.

I prefer motion to what will be history. It makes reading about it easier. Even with a dull teacher.

Then just go for compulsory voting. Seriously, half of America's election issues came from people not having to vote. But we both know that would change about as likely as America starting to use the metric system.

[Ithekro]

Forcing Americans to undulge in their rights is like pushing a string.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Forcing Americans to undulge in their rights is like pushing a string.

If there was political will, it would happen. The problem is that it would literally change the political landscape, and as such no one is willing to rock the boat as there is always a chance their party would lose out in the change-over. No one really know what the American People truly want, because so few of them ever cared to vote on it.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

California is presently more than 10% of the electoral college. Yet we generally know how the state will vote these days. So it is rare for a candidate to even bother coming to California after the party primaries. Which seems weird since we are a very large potion of the nation's population. With some form of divide in the way the Electors go in this state, we can get some action going on, and be relevant politically again outside the "solid Blue state, no need to campaign there" model we have now.

Would you? Or would candidates think that the best campaign in the world would only net them an additional five electoral votes, if that?

[Ithekro]

Sometimes that is all it takes, depending on the campaign and how wide spread the changes are.

[Anh_Minh]

- You're the one who said it didn't matter if the Democrats were amputated of 25 Californian electoral votes.
- Considering they have time and money constraints, for the same 5 votes, don't you think it's better to talk to 2 millions people rather than 38 millions?

(Sure, if every state did the same, or if you did away with the electoral college entirely, it'd be different. But if only California does it, or only California and other blue states, then it's a serious blow to the Democrats.)

[mvymvy]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Any state can change how it decides to split its electoral votes. Both Nebraska and Maine currently divide their votes by congressional districts. (Nebraska is mostly Republican while Maine is mostly Democrat)

The proposal to divide the electoral votes by population has been discussed before, and in some ways is beneficial for states that have solid support for one party, as it makes the cadidates have to work in those states again rather than just the swing states.

That it isn't being introduced in other states is those state's problem. (Propositions are really easy to get up to a vote in California due to our Progressive era State Constitution. This was also how we were able to recall a Governor and elect the Governator for a few terms).

California has in the past been a trend setter before its time when it comes to changing the laws of the land in odd ways. Maybe this is a step to breaking the "winner-takes-all" cycle of the Electoral College.

California is presently more than 10% of the electoral college. Yet we generally know how the state will vote these days. So it is rare for a candidate to even bother coming to California after the party primaries. Which seems weird since we are a very large potion of the nation's population. With some form of divide in the way the Electors go in this state, we can get some action going on, and be relevant politically again outside the "solid Blue state, no need to campaign there" model we have now.

Throughout the states, the whole-number proportional approach would be, in effect, a “winner-take-one” system (that is, the candidate receiving the most popular votes in the state would win an advantage of one electoral vote over the second-place candidate). The only exceptions would be that two or three electoral votes might be in play in California (with 55 electoral votes) and that two electoral votes might occasionally be in play in Texas (38 electoral votes), New York (29 electoral votes), and Florida (29 electoral votes). Texas, New York, and Florida, would be “winner-take-two” or “winner-take-one” states, and California would be a “winner-take-two” or a “winner-take-three” state. Under the whole-number proportional approach, most states would not hover anywhere near the critical boundary point and hence would be ignored by presidential campaigns.

Originally Posted by GDB

You a masochist? Can't think of any other reason why you would want election campaign crap.

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]

In apportionment of federal grants by the executive branch, swing states received about 7.6% more federal grants and about 5.7% more federal grant money between 1992 and 2008 than would be expected based on patterns in other states.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues.

“Maybe it is just a coincidence that most of the battleground states decided by razor-thin margins in 2008 have been blessed with a No Child Left Behind exemption. “ – Wall Street Journal , June 5, 2012

As of June 7, 2012 “Six current heavily traveled Cabinet members, have made more than 85 trips this year to electoral battlegrounds such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a POLITICO review of public speeches and news clippings. Those swing-state visits represent roughly half of all travel for those six Cabinet officials this year.”

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It also may get people out to vote again. Wasn't it synaesthetic that said she wouldn't vote for President because her vote didn't matter in California. The state was so solidly Democrat that no vote mattered...they would still win. A Democratic voter wouldn't need to go vote because they knew they'd win. Third Party, even with the mass support in the state doesn't do anything because of the' winner takes all' electoral college. The Republican Party can't manage enough votes even with voter apathy to with the Presiedental election in California these days. Even with a Republican Governor from time to time, the Democratic Party has a solid hold in this state.

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

If presidential campaigns now did not ignore more than 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions (including California) with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

Originally Posted by Ithekro

. . .
I can see it starting in California, and then spreading as other states want to either get the campaign money, or as a counter in states like Texas by the local Democrats.

There is a prohibitive political impediment associated with the adoption of the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis by individual states. Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Bill Owens and to reject, by a two-to-one margin, the ballot measure in November 2004 to award Colorado’s electoral votes using the whole-number proportional approach. This inherent defect cannot be remedied unless all 50 states and the District of Columbia were to simultaneously enact the proportional approach. This inherent defect cannot be remedied if, for example, 10, 20, 30, or even 40 states were to enact the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis. If as many as 48 or 49 states allocated their electoral votes proportionally, but just one or two large, closely divided battleground winner-take-all states did not, the state(s) continuing to use the winner-take-all system would immediately become the only state(s) that would matter in presidential politics. Thus, if states were to start adopting the proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining winner-take-all states and thereby decrease the chance that the additional winner-take-all states would adopt the approach. A state-by-state process of adopting the proportional approach would bring itself to a halt.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

California pass a law few years ago making the electoral vote proportional to the number of votes IF 2/3 of the states also goes proportional voting.

No.

On August 8, 2011 California Governor Jerry Brown signed the National Popular Vote bill.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

In a 2008 survey of Californians, 70 percent of residents and likely voters supported a national popular vote, while 21 percent of residents and 22 percent of likely voters preferred that the current state winner-take-all Electoral College system continue. Democrats (76%) and independents (74%) were more likely to support a change to popular vote than Republicans, but 61 percent of Republicans supported this change.

NationalPopularVote

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Proportional voting is just a way to encourage voter participation. As I say, if voting was compulsory you wouldn't need all that. America is screwed up because so few of its people actually matters.

In Australia I was unhappy with the outcome of the Federal Election. But at least I know it was fair because the people made their choice. I believe my countrymen made a big mistake, but it is their choice to do so and I can't stop them.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

- You're the one who said it didn't matter if the Democrats were amputated of 25 Californian electoral votes.
- Considering they have time and money constraints, for the same 5 votes, don't you think it's better to talk to 2 millions people rather than 38 millions?

(Sure, if every state did the same, or if you did away with the electoral college entirely, it'd be different. But if only California does it, or only California and other blue states, then it's a serious blow to the Democrats.)

Being a few years out from 2016, if California goes that way, then there would likely be a Democratic counterpoint elsewhere. Someplace were the Domacrats have some numbers in the state but never enough to swing the state to their side (a red state). There is bound to be a few of those around. Unless the only places that can warrent such feats are states with largely Democratic cities surrounded by towns and rural lands that vote Republican. Texas seems like the logical counter to California. But then, California is the largest state in terms of population...by a lot. Over 10% of the population and has had numerous attempt to divide the state since it was brought into the Union in 1850.

My hope is more that the Third Parties might actually get a real voice with such changes, as they would be able to gain electoral votes in large states. And thus start to be credible in the eyes of people, thus gaining more votes and perhaps ending the two party stalemate.

[mvymvy]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Being a few years out from 2016, if California goes that way, then there would likely be a Democratic counterpoint elsewhere. Someplace were the Domacrats have some numbers in the state but never enough to swing the state to their side (a red state). There is bound to be a few of those around. Unless the only places that can warrent such feats are states with largely Democratic cities surrounded by towns and rural lands that vote Republican. Texas seems like the logical counter to California. But then, California is the largest state in terms of population...by a lot. Over 10% of the population and has had numerous attempt to divide the state since it was brought into the Union in 1850.

My hope is more that the Third Parties might actually get a real voice with such changes, as they would be able to gain electoral votes in large states. And thus start to be credible in the eyes of people, thus gaining more votes and perhaps ending the two party stalemate.

In a situation in which a third party candidate gets some electoral votes that ends up with no candidate getting a majority of the electoral votes, the election of the President would be thrown into the U.S. House (with each state casting one vote) and the election of the Vice President would be thrown into the U.S. Senate.

If the composition of the U.S. House of Representatives is as it is today, it would result in the election of the Republican.

[Vexx]

Which translates mostly as that the process of redistricting is broken (GOP gerrymandering and yes, the Dems have done it as well in the past). Some states have rectified it with party-neutral districting.

If the House were districted by a few simple rules of population and geography, the mix of Representatives would be almost 50%/50% -- not the completely screwed up percentage we see today.

[Ithekro]

California is aleady doing party-neutral districting.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

California is aleady doing party-neutral districting.

And ironically, it made Republicans actually lose seats and gave us a super majority in the state legislature. This is despite California being a blue state, as you would think the gerrymandering normally favors the ruling party...