4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - matwood 10y ago
    Exactly. As long as we are in an electoral system, discussing the popular vote as anything more than a novelty is a waste of time.
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.

by fixxer 10y ago

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.
- matwood 10y ago
  Exactly. As long as we are in an electoral system, discussing the popular vote as anything more than a novelty is a waste of time.

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.