• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

We're stuck with the electoral college. But there is a workaround

 
 
 
I'm wondering about one part of this. Yes, so far it is only blue states that have signed on, which means there is a theoretical possibility of an EC landslide for a Republican, and I would find the reaction interesting to watch, but that's not the point I'm wondering this time.

Code: 
Year    Rep %   Dem %   Result
2016    46.1    48.2    No Majority
2012    47.2    51.1    Majority
2008    45.7    52.9    Majority
2004    50.7    48.3    Majority
2000    47.9    48.4    No Majority
1996    40.7    49.2    No Majority
1992    37.4    43.0    No Majority
1988    53.4    45.6    Majority
1984    58.8    40.6    Majority
1980    50.7    41.0    Majority

Okay, that's interesting. There have been several elections within my lifetime when there was no actual majority to determine who should get the EC votes of states in a compact of this nature. What should those states do if no candidate breaks 50% of votes cast?
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
I'm wondering about one part of this. Yes, so far it is only blue states that have signed on, which means there is a theoretical possibility of an EC landslide for a Republican, and I would find the reaction interesting to watch, but that's not the point I'm wondering this time.

Code: 
Year    Rep %   Dem %   Result1 Result !!
2016    46.1    48.2    No Majority   Fewer votes
2012    47.2    51.1    Majority      More votes
2008    45.7    52.9    Majority      More votes
2004    50.7    48.3    Majority      More votes
2000    47.9    48.4    No Majority   Fewer votes
1996    40.7    49.2    No Majority   More votes
1992    37.4    43.0    No Majority   More votes
1988    53.4    45.6    Majority      More votes
1984    58.8    40.6    Majority      More votes
1980    50.7    41.0    Majority      More votes

Okay, that's interesting. There have been several elections within my lifetime when there was no actual majority to determine who should get the EC votes of states in a compact of this nature. What should those states do if no candidate breaks 50% of votes cast?
Click to expand...

Fixed it
 
The Nevada Assembly passed NV's most recent NPV bill by 23-17 and the NV Senate by 12-8. These are both majorities, but not the 2/3 majorities necessary for overriding the governor's veto. One would need 27-13 in the Assembly and 14-6 in the Senate.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
I'm wondering about one part of this. Yes, so far it is only blue states that have signed on, which means there is a theoretical possibility of an EC landslide for a Republican, and I would find the reaction interesting to watch, but that's not the point I'm wondering this time.
Click to expand...
An EC landslide for a Republican due to the votes cast by blue states can only happen if states that together have most of the EC votes join the compact. But in that case, it seems to me that a Democrat victory as a result is much more probable than a Republican landslide (it's theoretically possible, but then, theoretically it is possible now as well). In the long run, demographic trends seem to favor bigger differences for Democrats in the popular vote.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Okay, that's interesting. There have been several elections within my lifetime when there was no actual majority to determine who should get the EC votes of states in a compact of this nature. What should those states do if no candidate breaks 50% of votes cast?
Click to expand...

The compact doesn't require a majority, just the most votes.
 
blastula said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Okay, that's interesting. There have been several elections within my lifetime when there was no actual majority to determine who should get the EC votes of states in a compact of this nature. What should those states do if no candidate breaks 50% of votes cast?
Click to expand...

The compact doesn't require a majority, just the most votes.
Click to expand...

Pity. It would be better if it actually required a majority.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
blastula said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Okay, that's interesting. There have been several elections within my lifetime when there was no actual majority to determine who should get the EC votes of states in a compact of this nature. What should those states do if no candidate breaks 50% of votes cast?
Click to expand...

The compact doesn't require a majority, just the most votes.
Click to expand...

Pity. It would be better if it actually required a majority.
Click to expand...

Nope, that would be foolish.
 
fromderinside said:
It would be even better that if every citizen must vote or suffer tax penalty. Maybe it would be best if one got a significant reduction in taxes if one voted in a capitalistic economy.
Click to expand...
You could call it the "poll tax break."

But that would seemingly reward people of higher income who pay taxes and fail to offer ANY incentive to people at the bottom who currently don't pay any taxes. Eh? why not. At least this way is a method to encourage voting that might conceivably pick up some Republican votes.
 
zorq said:
fromderinside said:
It would be even better that if every citizen must vote or suffer tax penalty. Maybe it would be best if one got a significant reduction in taxes if one voted in a capitalistic economy.
Click to expand...
You could call it the "poll tax break."

But that would seemingly reward people of higher income who pay taxes and fail to offer ANY incentive to people at the bottom who currently don't pay any taxes. Eh? why not. At least this way is a method to encourage voting that might conceivably pick up some Republican votes.
Click to expand...

If it is written as a tax deduction, it helps only those who actually pay taxes. If it is written as a tax penalty, it could conceivably even hit those who currently don't pay any taxes.

Still, I have seen people argue that the counter-point to "no taxation without representation" is "no representation without taxation."
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
zorq said:
fromderinside said:
It would be even better that if every citizen must vote or suffer tax penalty. Maybe it would be best if one got a significant reduction in taxes if one voted in a capitalistic economy.
Click to expand...
You could call it the "poll tax break."

But that would seemingly reward people of higher income who pay taxes and fail to offer ANY incentive to people at the bottom who currently don't pay any taxes. Eh? why not. At least this way is a method to encourage voting that might conceivably pick up some Republican votes.
Click to expand...

If it is written as a tax deduction, it helps only those who actually pay taxes. If it is written as a tax penalty, it could conceivably even hit those who currently don't pay any taxes.

Still, I have seen people argue that the counter-point to "no taxation without representation" is "no representation without taxation."
Click to expand...

Or you could just levy a small fine on anyone who doesn't attend the polls. A $20 fine here in Australia gets us a turnout of around 90-95%, with less than 5% of those who turn out failing to cast a valid ballot.
 
Last edited:
I've captured the video and the pictures. Here's what AOC says in the video:
All right everyone, it's been a minute. We're coming to you live from the Electoral College - many votes here, as you can see. Very efficient way to choose leadership of the country. I mean, I can't think of any other way, can you?
Click to expand...
The video shows what looks like a wheat field in some flatland.

Some others have also done so:
Mike Rundle on Twitter: "LMAO @AOC with the Electoral College dig on her Instagram story today 😂 https://t.co/Z0VL8eFDmF" / Twitter
Public Citizen on Twitter: ".@AOC: We're coming to you live from the Electoral College - many votes here, as you can see. 😂😂😂 https://t.co/7FVW2H7fZ5" / Twitter

This reminds me of Queen of Swords and her Nutwatches.
 
lpetrich said:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@ocasio2018) • Instagram photos and videos - click on AOC's portrait in the upper left for the current Instagram story.

AOC does a cute slam of the Electoral College.

Instagram stories expire in 24 hours, and the current one is 3 hours old, as I write this. So it'll expire in 21 hours.

Either AOC herself or some of her fans might save it.

She linked to Why Every Defense of the Electoral College Is Wrong
Click to expand...
Trump's presidency is the exact reason why the EC should have existed. That it didn't do the one thing it was tasked to do makes it completely unnecessary.
 
AOC then posted screenshots of Why Every Defense of the Electoral College Is Wrong with her comments on them. The article is delightfully snarky, and AOC adds her own snark.

"Here’s Every Defense of the Electoral College — and Why They’re All Wrong"
AOC: "To all the Republicans getting big mad bc the electoral college is, in fact, a scam:"

"1. The Electoral College currently exists, therefore it is good."
"(A) The founders thought superhard about this, and so we should defer to their judgement."
AOC noted that only landowning men had the vote at first, that even low-income white men couldn't vote. She then noted that millions of Americans in US Territories are denied the right to vote. DC, Puerto Rico, etc. I checked on  List of states and territories of the United States by population, and Puerto Rico is between CT and UT, DC is between AK and VT, and all the rest are much less than WY. Guam, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands add up to 2/3 of WY.

Also a lot of people released from prison.

AOC asks where are the EC defenders on DC and US territories?

Back to the article. "As political theorists, these dudes were so foresighted, they assumed that America would never have political parties." They also decided that the Vice President would be the presidential candidate who got the second most votes. That proved impractical when political parties emerged, so it was changed in the 12th Amendment.

"(B) It would put us on a slippery slope to abolishing the Senate."

The U.S. Senate is facing a legitimacy crisis – ThinkProgress
The Senate is so crazily designed it would be literally illegal for a US state to copy it - Vox
One of the more curious aspects of American democracy is that it is literally unconstitutional for states to adopt the same system of government as the nation as a whole. In the case of Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that all state legislature districts have to have roughly equal populations, because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment enshrines a principle of "one man, one vote." That means that an institution like the US Senate, with wildly unequal populations in its various "districts," cannot exist at the state level — at least not anymore.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of effort to abolish or work around the Electoral College: National Popular Vote - but not nearly as much to reform the Senate.
 
"2. Abolishing the Electoral College would definitely have this bad effect, for reasons so logically sound I don’t need to provide evidence for them (even though other defenders of the Electoral College insist it would have the opposite effect, which would also be bad)."

"(A) It would give too little political power to white people."
Earlier this year, former Maine governor Paul LePage argued that under a national popular vote, “white people will not have anything to say. It’s only going to be the minorities that would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida.”
Click to expand...
AOC noted that population concentrations produce racial discrepancies: White = 1, black = 0.95, Hispanic = 0.91, Asian = 0.93. Not big ones, but enough to throw close elections. The Senate is worse.

"(B) It would give too much political power to white people."

Totally preposterous bullshit.

"(C) It would give large states too much power."

AOC: "You may have heard this Electoral College argument the most: that families in suburbs & cities MUST have their votes suppressed in order to give rural voters a 'fair shake'"

AOC: "(Could you imagine if we had this kind of democracy-altering 'fairness' provision for literally any other group? If we weighed, for example, Black and Indigenous voters more because of unfairness?)"

AOC also highlighted parts of the article that noted how the EC disenfranchises Republicans in heavily Democratic states. EC defenders seem reluctant to address this issue. Do they consider it an acceptable sacrifice?

"(D) It would give small states too much power."

Also totally preposterous bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom