3 ms·

I'm really confused about this because I don't understand the incentives politicians have to adopt this in their own state. It clearly undermines their state's

by gfodor 7y ago

I'm really confused about this because I don't understand the incentives politicians have to adopt this in their own state. It clearly undermines their state's power in national elections. My (cynical) assumption is that this will be obeyed insofar as it helps bring about the desired outcome by those in power. It will be disregarded if it would shift the outcome in the other direction.

outside1234 7y ago
Does it? What if there state votes for the popular winner and that popular winner is not the winner? Remember, this will work both ways - eventually we will have a democrat that doesn't win the popular vote as well in the current system.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  It will only ever tip that way for a Democrat when Democrats become the party of rural voters.
  - outside1234 7y ago
    Why? There are plenty of small democratic states too - Rhode Island, Hawaii, etc. etc.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      They are vastly outnumbered by rural republican states.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    The urban/rural thing is a red herring. The Electoral college doesn't give more power to rural areas. It gives power to purple states, where the election is close. How many people are in the state doesn't matter.
- gfodor 7y ago
  If a state votes for the popular winner then they are already going to give their electoral votes to that winner, right? For the people of the state, this basically diluted the impact their vote has (kind of self evident, since that is the point of the electoral college)
marpstar 7y ago
I think a lot of people forget that US = United States. That is, states that are united. The electoral college attempts to "balance" the power that each STATE has to elect a president. The election is a state-level function. In my opinion, to switch to a popular-vote-wins system is to basically say "hey everyone in other states, go ahead and decide for our actual citizens".
- gnulinux 7y ago
  In that case Federal government has to regulate fewer things and needs to have less power. President's executive order will affect people in California too but somehow people in Wyoming had 2 times more power to elect this said president. I don't think this is fair at all. If you say States are given inalienable right to veto any and all law/executive order passed by the federal government, then you might as well just keep the senate (2 repr per state) and it could still be considered fair. But the current system blindly favors rural parts of the country.
  - gfodor 7y ago
    Not really, it balances the power. The knob that can be turned is the number of electoral votes each state has. Whereas changing it to the popular vote would favor the populous states, and remove the knob completely, so there'd be no path to balancing the power between small and large states in national elections.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  And the office is called "President of the United States", not "President of Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania".
standardUser 7y ago
It's not confusing if you ditch the cynicism. Many people genuinely believe that a system wherein the president is elected after winning fewer voters then their opponent on a regular basis is a system that should be changed.
- casefields 7y ago
  Let's completely take away the cynicism. If California cared about representation for minorities they would divvy up their electors proportionally so that the minority of their voters, republicans, would receive electors. But that would defeat the purpose of using their overwhelming majority of democrats to bludgeon national elections towards their preference.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    It is the tragedy of the commons: an equilibrium of bad choices, where if one state does the right thing alone, then it loses all of its influence to the competition (see Maine and Nebraska). The solution to the tragedy of the commons is coordination: if everyone does the right thing at the same time, nobody gets screwed for being first. Thus the NPVIC.

by gfodor 7y ago

outside1234 7y ago

Does it? What if there state votes for the popular winner and that popular winner is not the winner? Remember, this will work both ways - eventually we will have a democrat that doesn't win the popular vote as well in the current system.

rootusrootus 7y ago
It will only ever tip that way for a Democrat when Democrats become the party of rural voters.
- outside1234 7y ago
  Why? There are plenty of small democratic states too - Rhode Island, Hawaii, etc. etc.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    They are vastly outnumbered by rural republican states.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  The urban/rural thing is a red herring. The Electoral college doesn't give more power to rural areas. It gives power to purple states, where the election is close. How many people are in the state doesn't matter.
gfodor 7y ago
If a state votes for the popular winner then they are already going to give their electoral votes to that winner, right? For the people of the state, this basically diluted the impact their vote has (kind of self evident, since that is the point of the electoral college)

marpstar 7y ago

I think a lot of people forget that US = United States. That is, states that are united. The electoral college attempts to "balance" the power that each STATE has to elect a president. The election is a state-level function. In my opinion, to switch to a popular-vote-wins system is to basically say "hey everyone in other states, go ahead and decide for our actual citizens".

gnulinux 7y ago
In that case Federal government has to regulate fewer things and needs to have less power. President's executive order will affect people in California too but somehow people in Wyoming had 2 times more power to elect this said president. I don't think this is fair at all. If you say States are given inalienable right to veto any and all law/executive order passed by the federal government, then you might as well just keep the senate (2 repr per state) and it could still be considered fair. But the current system blindly favors rural parts of the country.
- gfodor 7y ago
  Not really, it balances the power. The knob that can be turned is the number of electoral votes each state has. Whereas changing it to the popular vote would favor the populous states, and remove the knob completely, so there'd be no path to balancing the power between small and large states in national elections.
hannasanarion 7y ago
And the office is called "President of the United States", not "President of Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania".

standardUser 7y ago

It's not confusing if you ditch the cynicism. Many people genuinely believe that a system wherein the president is elected after winning fewer voters then their opponent on a regular basis is a system that should be changed.

casefields 7y ago
Let's completely take away the cynicism. If California cared about representation for minorities they would divvy up their electors proportionally so that the minority of their voters, republicans, would receive electors. But that would defeat the purpose of using their overwhelming majority of democrats to bludgeon national elections towards their preference.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  It is the tragedy of the commons: an equilibrium of bad choices, where if one state does the right thing alone, then it loses all of its influence to the competition (see Maine and Nebraska). The solution to the tragedy of the commons is coordination: if everyone does the right thing at the same time, nobody gets screwed for being first. Thus the NPVIC.