6 ms·

> see also counting of the 'popular vote' for US president, a ballot which has never been tried, and whose results are unknowable. I don't follow this point. I

> see also counting of the 'popular vote' for US president, a ballot which has never been tried, and whose results are unknowable. I don't follow this point. I'm not an American, but my understanding is counting via simple popular vote vs "electoral college" doesn't change the ballot itself, you still vote for the president directly; it just changes the way the ballots are counted. Are you suggesting either something on the ballot is different, or that people would making a different vote if it was counted differently?

skrtskrt 5y ago
The point about the American election is that if people knew going into the vote that it was a popular vote across the country, voting behavior would change. Many people don’t vote at all because their preferred president has a 0% chance of winning their state and the vast majority of states are winner-take all with the electoral votes
- oneoff786 5y ago
  Or they don’t vote because their preferred president has a 100% chance of winning, which is more often the case given their community is already deeply red or blue
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Maybe they do vote because local elections are important.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Local elections can be important, but if all the candidates are bad, they're not.
  - skrtskrt 5y ago
    sure, the known set of rules causes some types of voters to be more likely to vote, and other types less likely. The point is that you can't possibly know how all those interactions among voters would play out if you did in fact update the rules
dagw 5y ago
or that people would making a different vote if it was counted differently? Two changes would happen. A lot of people who don't vote today because their state either heavily favours the 'wrong' candidate or the 'right' candidate will already win by a massive margin, would start voting, since all of sudden their vote matters a lot more. Secondly, and more importantly, candidates would campaign very differently. In todays system gaining 1-2 percentage points in swing states like Arizona, Georgia or North Carolina is worth infinitely more than gaining 5 percentage point in California, New York or Massachusetts, and politicians on both sides campaign accordingly. In a popular vote scenario those extra 5 points in California could swing the election which would change the entire focus of not only the campaign, but possibly even the type of policy and even candidates that the parties put forwards.
- treeman79 5y ago
  This also makes many states cease to matter. Already a big issue that big cities vote one way while rural voters go another way.
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    Stated differently, this makes states matter and rural voters matter in direct proportion to the number of people living there, because all people are equal. It's not right that a voter in Maine or New Hampshire, which have 1.3 million people and are roughly even between the two major parties, has a high probability of changing the outcome with their vote, while a voter in California or Texas - which have 30 times as many people - is essentially irrelevant to the outcome.
    - asiachick 5y ago
      This isn't so different in the EU is it? Smaller countries don't want their needs ignored by the bigger countries so they get more seats relative to their population than big countries. Maybe it's hard to imagine the United States of American to become 50 independent countries but isn't the way you keep them united is by promising the smaller ones that they won't be trampled on by the big ones?
djrogers 5y ago
> Are you suggesting either something on the ballot is different, or that people would making a different vote if it was counted differently? That's clearly true, in addition to the obvious fact that campaigning would change dramatically. The OP's point however was that we don't know the extent to which it's true. An obvious example of people making a different vote would be in California - I know more than one Republican who either didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party 'statement' candidate for president because they knew that all of the electoral votes in CA were going to the Democrat anyway. Undoubtedly the same thing happens with Democrats in TX or TN or wherever Republicans hold a huge majority and Electors are winner-take-all.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  I have done and will continue to do this too. It probably seems like a risk to people in other countries but there are generally very few surprises in the marquee races (I would never do this on down ballot candidates).

skrtskrt 5y ago

The point about the American election is that if people knew going into the vote that it was a popular vote across the country, voting behavior would change. Many people don’t vote at all because their preferred president has a 0% chance of winning their state and the vast majority of states are winner-take all with the electoral votes

oneoff786 5y ago
Or they don’t vote because their preferred president has a 100% chance of winning, which is more often the case given their community is already deeply red or blue
mywittyname 5y ago
Maybe they do vote because local elections are important.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Local elections can be important, but if all the candidates are bad, they're not.
- skrtskrt 5y ago
  sure, the known set of rules causes some types of voters to be more likely to vote, and other types less likely. The point is that you can't possibly know how all those interactions among voters would play out if you did in fact update the rules

dagw 5y ago

or that people would making a different vote if it was counted differently? Two changes would happen. A lot of people who don't vote today because their state either heavily favours the 'wrong' candidate or the 'right' candidate will already win by a massive margin, would start voting, since all of sudden their vote matters a lot more. Secondly, and more importantly, candidates would campaign very differently. In todays system gaining 1-2 percentage points in swing states like Arizona, Georgia or North Carolina is worth infinitely more than gaining 5 percentage point in California, New York or Massachusetts, and politicians on both sides campaign accordingly. In a popular vote scenario those extra 5 points in California could swing the election which would change the entire focus of not only the campaign, but possibly even the type of policy and even candidates that the parties put forwards.

treeman79 5y ago
This also makes many states cease to matter. Already a big issue that big cities vote one way while rural voters go another way.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  Stated differently, this makes states matter and rural voters matter in direct proportion to the number of people living there, because all people are equal. It's not right that a voter in Maine or New Hampshire, which have 1.3 million people and are roughly even between the two major parties, has a high probability of changing the outcome with their vote, while a voter in California or Texas - which have 30 times as many people - is essentially irrelevant to the outcome.
  - asiachick 5y ago
    This isn't so different in the EU is it? Smaller countries don't want their needs ignored by the bigger countries so they get more seats relative to their population than big countries. Maybe it's hard to imagine the United States of American to become 50 independent countries but isn't the way you keep them united is by promising the smaller ones that they won't be trampled on by the big ones?

djrogers 5y ago

> Are you suggesting either something on the ballot is different, or that people would making a different vote if it was counted differently? That's clearly true, in addition to the obvious fact that campaigning would change dramatically. The OP's point however was that we don't know the extent to which it's true. An obvious example of people making a different vote would be in California - I know more than one Republican who either didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party 'statement' candidate for president because they knew that all of the electoral votes in CA were going to the Democrat anyway. Undoubtedly the same thing happens with Democrats in TX or TN or wherever Republicans hold a huge majority and Electors are winner-take-all.

jimbob45 5y ago
I have done and will continue to do this too. It probably seems like a risk to people in other countries but there are generally very few surprises in the marquee races (I would never do this on down ballot candidates).