7 ms·

> I'd like to see most independents / democratic people unite under a real progressive platform next election and stop the extremist cycle of social issues vs f

by duaneb 10y ago

> I'd like to see most independents / democratic people unite under a real progressive platform next election and stop the extremist cycle of social issues vs fear mongering. There's virtually zero chance of this happening without another party collapsing first. Hell, even then, independents are harder to herd than cats.

zanny 10y ago
Its impossible to happen under the system as it is established, but you just needed to push for a constitutional amendment and / or state compact like the one to overturn the electoral college to change the voting system to support either proportional (doesn't work when you elect a single seat like the president) or STV (ie runoff voting). The chance of that happening in the next four years? Really low. About as unlikely as it has been since the Internet established itself as a place to talk about how to fix the voting system. But unlikely doesn't mean you don't try, and don't talk about it where you can.
- fixxer 10y ago
  Changing from electoral college to pop vote also means the nature of campaigning will change. California, for example, has a huge population of Republicans and now their vote would matter. I don't think Trump did any non military focused rallies there. I am in Illinois. I didn't vote in 2008 or 2012 because I knew my vote would have no impact. Give me a popular vote and you might have Romney... Be careful what you wish for.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    Romney lost 51-47 in the popular vote.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      That's not a useful fact, because both candidates would have campaigned differently if the president was chosen by popular vote rather than the electoral college. It's very unlikely that the popular vote would have been the same.
    - hdctambien 10y ago
      Of those that voted. I think fixxer is saying that there are alot of people that don't vote (about half of the voting population) because they are an X in a Y state so they don't think their vote will change that. But if the electoral college went poof, a lot more of the missing 50% would vote and that could change the expected value of a popular vote.
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        This isn't so much directed at you, but this seems a great place to note that there are races on the ballot other than president, usually your local elections will have a bigger impact on your day-to-day life than the national ones, and your vote carries orders of magnitude more weight. Pay attention down-ballot!
        jsight 10y ago
        In my district, the margins on those were even larger than the presidential margins. I still voted, but the outcomes were all very predictable here.
        dllthomas 10y ago
        Are you actually saying the difference - in number of votes - for President for your state was smaller than the difference - in number of votes - for every local judge, school board member, etc? I mean, not impossible, but surprising. Where are you located?
        jsight 10y ago
        The number of votes was only wider in one or two of them (statewide races). The local races were mostly uncontested (or lightly contested).
        dllthomas 10y ago
        Gotcha.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    Wouldn't Romney in 2012 have been better if it avoided Trump 2016?
    - fixxer 10y ago
      Lol. Bill Maher misses W.
  - rhblake 10y ago
    > California, for example, has a huge population of Republicans and now their vote would matter. And at the same time votes from Democrats in California would also matter more. I'd assume a number of people who'd vote Democrat in CA don't vote because they know the Democrats won't lose anyway.
    - fixxer 10y ago
      Maybe. My point isn't partisan, but more along the lines of "you don't know how this will play out." I'm all for a popular vote, but I don't think you're going to see a swing to the left necessarily.
      - serge2k 10y ago
        It would drastically reduce the voting power of several red states. Only recently (since 2000) has the EC being different than the popular vote been a problem. Both times it's gone in the republicans favour. It would definitely be radical change though.
        fixxer 10y ago
        Kind of a small sample size, right? I guess I'm hesitant to change the political dynamic of a nation based on just that.
        serge2k 10y ago
        There are other good reasons too. The system isn't fair, voters in low pop states have more power than california. The system emphasizes swing states above others, as the country is so split right now. The system is worse for third party candidates (especially if a STV or ranked system was used. This would also please the Bernie or bust folk). The system is outdated, it was meant to have a group of well informed electors make the decision about who is president. This doesn't makes sense anymore as the electors are pretty much bound to the will of the states popular vote, and people have access to more information. Plus the whole safeguard against someone unqualified idea has been tossed out the window now anyway.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  The electoral college doesn't need to change. The two bigger problems to me are: * Winner-takes-all means that in any state that is %60/%40, the 40%'s votes don't affect the election at all. * Congressmen are representing too many people. If more states worked like Nebraska and Maine, then people in rural counties in California could decide a few seats on the electoral college. And there's an amendment outstanding to change the number of representatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am... Ranked choice voting is also interesting, but I think not as important right now.
- 75j 10y ago
  It's actually more likely to happen than ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... But, ditching the electoral college is only a small part of the solution to the core problems in US politics.
fixxer 10y ago
Because very few of them are truly independent.
- duaneb 10y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree, but how does this follow from what I said? I'd argue people are TOO independent to reach a third party consensus.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    Independent white men are generally Republican voters, for example. Big difference between being independent and not identifying with a party. Hence, they are hard to herd because they are actually already decided. This isn't conjecture. I've seen the base files.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      I'm gonna need a massive citation here. > This isn't conjecture. I've seen the base files. Until you share, it's conjecture.
      - fixxer 10y ago
        DNC base files (back when I worked for that side), but based on how shit their polls were, feel free to question my claim. The name of the game isn't changing hearts and minds (generally), but turnout. 2016 isnt an outlier. Look at county level returns.
      - dlp211 10y ago
        http://themonkeycage.org/2009/12/three_myths_about_political_in/ http://themonkeycage.org/2009/12/three_myths_about_political...
        leereeves 10y ago
        Where does that link support the statement that: > Independent white men are generally Republican voters ?

by duaneb 10y ago

zanny 10y ago

Its impossible to happen under the system as it is established, but you just needed to push for a constitutional amendment and / or state compact like the one to overturn the electoral college to change the voting system to support either proportional (doesn't work when you elect a single seat like the president) or STV (ie runoff voting). The chance of that happening in the next four years? Really low. About as unlikely as it has been since the Internet established itself as a place to talk about how to fix the voting system. But unlikely doesn't mean you don't try, and don't talk about it where you can.

fixxer 10y ago
Changing from electoral college to pop vote also means the nature of campaigning will change. California, for example, has a huge population of Republicans and now their vote would matter. I don't think Trump did any non military focused rallies there. I am in Illinois. I didn't vote in 2008 or 2012 because I knew my vote would have no impact. Give me a popular vote and you might have Romney... Be careful what you wish for.
- CalChris 10y ago
  Romney lost 51-47 in the popular vote.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    That's not a useful fact, because both candidates would have campaigned differently if the president was chosen by popular vote rather than the electoral college. It's very unlikely that the popular vote would have been the same.
  - hdctambien 10y ago
    Of those that voted. I think fixxer is saying that there are alot of people that don't vote (about half of the voting population) because they are an X in a Y state so they don't think their vote will change that. But if the electoral college went poof, a lot more of the missing 50% would vote and that could change the expected value of a popular vote.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      This isn't so much directed at you, but this seems a great place to note that there are races on the ballot other than president, usually your local elections will have a bigger impact on your day-to-day life than the national ones, and your vote carries orders of magnitude more weight. Pay attention down-ballot!
      - jsight 10y ago
        In my district, the margins on those were even larger than the presidential margins. I still voted, but the outcomes were all very predictable here.
        dllthomas 10y ago
        Are you actually saying the difference - in number of votes - for President for your state was smaller than the difference - in number of votes - for every local judge, school board member, etc? I mean, not impossible, but surprising. Where are you located?
        jsight 10y ago
        The number of votes was only wider in one or two of them (statewide races). The local races were mostly uncontested (or lightly contested).
        dllthomas 10y ago
        Gotcha.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  Wouldn't Romney in 2012 have been better if it avoided Trump 2016?
  - fixxer 10y ago
    Lol. Bill Maher misses W.
- rhblake 10y ago
  > California, for example, has a huge population of Republicans and now their vote would matter. And at the same time votes from Democrats in California would also matter more. I'd assume a number of people who'd vote Democrat in CA don't vote because they know the Democrats won't lose anyway.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    Maybe. My point isn't partisan, but more along the lines of "you don't know how this will play out." I'm all for a popular vote, but I don't think you're going to see a swing to the left necessarily.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      It would drastically reduce the voting power of several red states. Only recently (since 2000) has the EC being different than the popular vote been a problem. Both times it's gone in the republicans favour. It would definitely be radical change though.
      - fixxer 10y ago
        Kind of a small sample size, right? I guess I'm hesitant to change the political dynamic of a nation based on just that.
        serge2k 10y ago
        There are other good reasons too. The system isn't fair, voters in low pop states have more power than california. The system emphasizes swing states above others, as the country is so split right now. The system is worse for third party candidates (especially if a STV or ranked system was used. This would also please the Bernie or bust folk). The system is outdated, it was meant to have a group of well informed electors make the decision about who is president. This doesn't makes sense anymore as the electors are pretty much bound to the will of the states popular vote, and people have access to more information. Plus the whole safeguard against someone unqualified idea has been tossed out the window now anyway.
MichaelBurge 10y ago
The electoral college doesn't need to change. The two bigger problems to me are: * Winner-takes-all means that in any state that is %60/%40, the 40%'s votes don't affect the election at all. * Congressmen are representing too many people. If more states worked like Nebraska and Maine, then people in rural counties in California could decide a few seats on the electoral college. And there's an amendment outstanding to change the number of representatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am... Ranked choice voting is also interesting, but I think not as important right now.
75j 10y ago
It's actually more likely to happen than ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... But, ditching the electoral college is only a small part of the solution to the core problems in US politics.

fixxer 10y ago

Because very few of them are truly independent.

duaneb 10y ago
I don't necessarily disagree, but how does this follow from what I said? I'd argue people are TOO independent to reach a third party consensus.
- fixxer 10y ago
  Independent white men are generally Republican voters, for example. Big difference between being independent and not identifying with a party. Hence, they are hard to herd because they are actually already decided. This isn't conjecture. I've seen the base files.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    I'm gonna need a massive citation here. > This isn't conjecture. I've seen the base files. Until you share, it's conjecture.
    - fixxer 10y ago
      DNC base files (back when I worked for that side), but based on how shit their polls were, feel free to question my claim. The name of the game isn't changing hearts and minds (generally), but turnout. 2016 isnt an outlier. Look at county level returns.
    - dlp211 10y ago
      http://themonkeycage.org/2009/12/three_myths_about_political_in/ http://themonkeycage.org/2009/12/three_myths_about_political...
      - leereeves 10y ago
        Where does that link support the statement that: > Independent white men are generally Republican voters ?