4 ms·

News flash: Trump would still have won, just with a different campaign strategy and a different platform. Promise a little more of what CA and NY want, and a li

by m0zg 7y ago

News flash: Trump would still have won, just with a different campaign strategy and a different platform. Promise a little more of what CA and NY want, and a little less of what everybody else wants, and he'd get the popular vote, too. In fact I think this would make it _easier_ for a populist to win, not harder, because all they'd have to worry about is crafting a campaign message that resonates with the majority and portrays their opponent as Satan in the flesh.

jayd16 7y ago
Good. Then partisanship shouldn't matter when it comes to the merit of this proposal.
jeanperrot 7y ago
That's exactly the goal. The point is not to pick a different winner, it is to re-enfranchise voters in states that are strongly 'red' or strongly 'blue'
outside1234 7y ago
I mean, if he had won the popular vote, then fine, he is the winner. All this is asking is 1 person 1 vote.
- m0zg 7y ago
  This would lead to e.g. Wyoming being run by California though. I'm sure Wyomingites would totally love that.
  - outside1234 7y ago
    Wyoming would still have a state legislature - I am not sure I see your point. If you are saying that each person in Wyoming would have 1 vote towards the presidency and each person in California would have 1 vote towards the presidency, then I agree.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      The point is, Wyoming and many other less populated states, would then have very, very limited say in who becomes the head of the executive branch, and therefore holds the veto power over whatever the legislative branch is able to put together whenever they feel like actually doing any work. That's the whole idea: no matter how sparsely populated, each state has at least _some_ say when electing the dude (or dudette) who runs the country, and that say is deliberately disproportionate to its population. Were it up to me, I'd let the smaller states have a larger number of representatives as well. E pluribus unum and all that.
      - jonathankoren 7y ago
        That's how democracy works. If a region wants more say, they should have more people. No one complains that Lost Springs (population 4) has a "very, very limited say in who becomes the head of the executive branch" of Wyoming. It's same really. It's just lines on a map, nothing to do with state or national identity.
    - felipemnoa 7y ago
      >>Wyoming would still have a state legislature - I am not sure I see your point. It means that California would have more influence at the federal level than it does now. And since federal laws apply to all states it means that indirectly California would have more influence on Wyoming.
      - Taniwha 7y ago
        so? California has more people - it should have influence proportional to it's population - remember that in most states (except for Wyoming) electoral college votes are dominated by house seats (which are proportional to population).
        m0zg 7y ago
        If you want the US to stay whole, that's a big problem. Technically states can secede, or form a separate union if they so desire. That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds.
  - jeanperrot 7y ago
    Wyoming gets 3 votes in the electoral college, California gets 55 - I am not sure what point you are making. The net effect of the electoral college is that the president is effectively picked by the voters of a handful of swing states. Wyoming is not one of these swing states. Removing the electoral college would lead to the president being picked by the voters of all states, which seems a lot better.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    Another way to look at it is California conservatives and Wyoming liberals would finally have a voice.
    - Taniwha 7y ago
      yes exactly - FPP voting as practiced in the US (at the house seat level right up to state electoral college votes) means that vast numbers of people are disenfranchised
  - mikeash 7y ago
    We currently have minority rule at the federal level. Is that better?

by m0zg 7y ago

jayd16 7y ago

Good. Then partisanship shouldn't matter when it comes to the merit of this proposal.

jeanperrot 7y ago

That's exactly the goal. The point is not to pick a different winner, it is to re-enfranchise voters in states that are strongly 'red' or strongly 'blue'

outside1234 7y ago

I mean, if he had won the popular vote, then fine, he is the winner. All this is asking is 1 person 1 vote.

m0zg 7y ago
This would lead to e.g. Wyoming being run by California though. I'm sure Wyomingites would totally love that.
- outside1234 7y ago
  Wyoming would still have a state legislature - I am not sure I see your point. If you are saying that each person in Wyoming would have 1 vote towards the presidency and each person in California would have 1 vote towards the presidency, then I agree.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    The point is, Wyoming and many other less populated states, would then have very, very limited say in who becomes the head of the executive branch, and therefore holds the veto power over whatever the legislative branch is able to put together whenever they feel like actually doing any work. That's the whole idea: no matter how sparsely populated, each state has at least _some_ say when electing the dude (or dudette) who runs the country, and that say is deliberately disproportionate to its population. Were it up to me, I'd let the smaller states have a larger number of representatives as well. E pluribus unum and all that.
    - jonathankoren 7y ago
      That's how democracy works. If a region wants more say, they should have more people. No one complains that Lost Springs (population 4) has a "very, very limited say in who becomes the head of the executive branch" of Wyoming. It's same really. It's just lines on a map, nothing to do with state or national identity.
  - felipemnoa 7y ago
    >>Wyoming would still have a state legislature - I am not sure I see your point. It means that California would have more influence at the federal level than it does now. And since federal laws apply to all states it means that indirectly California would have more influence on Wyoming.
    - Taniwha 7y ago
      so? California has more people - it should have influence proportional to it's population - remember that in most states (except for Wyoming) electoral college votes are dominated by house seats (which are proportional to population).
      - m0zg 7y ago
        If you want the US to stay whole, that's a big problem. Technically states can secede, or form a separate union if they so desire. That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds.
- jeanperrot 7y ago
  Wyoming gets 3 votes in the electoral college, California gets 55 - I am not sure what point you are making. The net effect of the electoral college is that the president is effectively picked by the voters of a handful of swing states. Wyoming is not one of these swing states. Removing the electoral college would lead to the president being picked by the voters of all states, which seems a lot better.
- jayd16 7y ago
  Another way to look at it is California conservatives and Wyoming liberals would finally have a voice.
  - Taniwha 7y ago
    yes exactly - FPP voting as practiced in the US (at the house seat level right up to state electoral college votes) means that vast numbers of people are disenfranchised
- mikeash 7y ago
  We currently have minority rule at the federal level. Is that better?