Election 2020

[revo]

I believe that the states can define how their votes get apportioned. If they want to split up their votes across the parties, I dont have an issue with it. It could likely help get both parties more active in the process in that state as they are competing for even the scraps.

Wouldn't doing this just be the same as the popular vote? If a candidate wins 51% of the popular vote, wouldn't they then receive 51% of the EC votes?

[Ken]

Wouldn't doing this just be the same as the popular vote? If a candidate wins 51% of the popular vote, wouldn't they then receive 51% of the EC votes?

Not really. It just shifts the "rounding" from the state level to the electoral college level.

The only way it would be exactly the same as the popular vote would be if states had fractional electoral college votes. i.e. if California had 55.2716328932964304300232 votes. In that case, if each state doled out their vote according to the popular vote within the state then it would match the overall popular.

But otherwise, you are still rounding early before summing (which is what is happening right now).

[baldgriff]

Wouldn't doing this just be the same as the popular vote? If a candidate wins 51% of the popular vote, wouldn't they then receive 51% of the EC votes?

How the state would apportion their votes is up to them, but in your idea, you would have to win the popular vote in every state - meaning you would have to be active in each state to win the vote in each state.

[DMT]

It's absurd that candidates don't have to campaign in every state.

[Judge Jude]

if voters didn't mindlessly stick to their tribes no matter what (which, if it wasn't obvious before.....) then things would be different.

[Kevin Seitzer]

if voters didn't mindlessly stick to their tribes no matter what (which, if it wasn't obvious before.....) then things would be different.

I have seen studies showing that Congress has become more polarized over the last 2-3 decades. Is there evidence this has happened among the voting public at large?

[Ken]

It's absurd that candidates don't have to campaign in every state.

Why? (serious question, not trying to trap you, interested in the reasoning)

I would understand that point prior to mass communications. But these days a candidate can put out a message that is heard anywhere and everywhere, why does it matter that he or she is in a specific physical location?

[DMT]

Why? (serious question, not trying to trap you, interested in the reasoning)

I would understand that point prior to mass communications. But these days a candidate can put out a message that is heard anywhere and everywhere, why does it matter that he or she is in a specific physical location?

You're right, I was just poorly expressing my agreement that the EC should be abolished. Every vote should be counted equally IMO.

[Ken]

Every vote should be counted equally IMO.

I agree with you.

[Kevin Seitzer]

You're right, I was just poorly expressing my agreement that the EC should be abolished. Every vote should be counted equally IMO.

It seems that most of the modern arguments for the EC revolve around the idea that rural areas should get extra representation in the presidential election.

Or more nakedly, that Republican votes should count more. But people justify it on the basis of heartland values, rural values, frontier values, values of farming people needing to not be overrun by the citied elites who don't understand their needs. There is probably some truth to that, but given that the Senate is already skewed heavily that way, it seems overkill that the presidential election should also favor rural interests.

Obviously in the more distant past it was about balancing slave states and free states.

[Judge Jude]

I have seen studies showing that Congress has become more polarized over the last 2-3 decades. Is there evidence this has happened among the voting public at large?

iirc, more and more states have longer and longer consecutive streaks of always voting for the same party. Reagan won 49 states, I think, but over time, state voters I think mostly have strongly preferred a Presidential side in up to 40+ states. NH, MO, AZ, NC, and a handful of others beyond those mentioned haven't quite locked in their preference in cement just yet. but some are getting there.

it's not that you can't win a secondary tier of states - but you can only do it in a blowout, when you already have won the losable states.

[Kevin Seitzer]

iirc, more and more states have longer and longer consecutive streaks of always voting for the same party. Reagan won 49 states, I think, but over time, state voters I think mostly have strongly preferred a Presidential side in up to 40+ states. NH, MO, AZ, NC, and a handful of others beyond those mentioned haven't quite locked in their preference in cement just yet. but some are getting there.

it's not that you can't win a secondary tier of states - but you can only do it in a blowout, when you already have won the losable states.

I'm sort of rolling this around in my own head, so I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, but is what is happening at the state level a reflection of changes in the polarization or "locked-in-edness" of individual voters, or rather about some change in the geographic voting tendencies of the electorate?

In other words, for example, maybe the electorate has always been 40% committed Democrats, 40% committed Republicans, and 20% that can be swayed, but now the geographic distribution of that electorate is more distinct. If the South/Bible Belt is dominated by white evangelical voters who won't vote Democrat and New England and the Pacific Coast states are dominated by liberal city folk who won't vote Republican, that might lock up those states in the electoral college without necessarily meaning that the American voting public as whole is any more crystallized than it was in the past.

I'm not saying you're wrong about increasing polarization of the electorate. It certainly feels that way. But I'm distrustful of that feeling and am curious about evidence. It may be that we only feel that way because of the way that our media consumption has changed.

[Judge Jude]

all of that is possible

[Judge Jude]

CNN had a one-hour show tonight on "The Democratic Primary Draw." It's a shame Jim Nantz wasn't available.

After Elizabeth Warren got stuck with all the misfit toys last time, a new plan emerged.

first, the bottom 10 - five to each debate - were drawn out of a box. very similar to how Golf Channel does the WGC Match Play Championship draw each year. then came the middle six candidates - three each night.

then the Big 4 - two each night.

the results - drumroll please....

Tuesday, aka White Night
Bernie and Warren
Mayor Pete
Beto
Klobuchar
Delaney
Hickenlooper
Ryan
Bullock
Williamson

Wednesday
Biden and Harris - the Thrilla in Manila!
Booker
Castro
Yang
Gillibrand
Gabbard
Bennet
Inslee
de Blasio

this is a "single elimination format" for at least half of this crew. they're going to smaller brackets in September, so good time to upset some favorites to show your worth.

[TranaGreg]

... It certainly feels that way. But I'm distrustful of that feeling and am curious about evidence.

I'm going to make this my new sig.