The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/electoral-college-national-popular-vote-compact-215541

Interesting article from Politico discussing a long term project, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which seeks to allow states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of having to go with the winner of that state.

The obvious advantage is that every vote would carry equal weight, unlike now, when the likes of Whitey casts a futile, pointless vote for president in Massachusetts or where my vote in NY is worth less than my in-laws' votes in one of the rural western states.

[sid waddell]

Believe whatever you want.....

I won't bother to join you in doing such, thanks, you're already pretty good at it. 

[Eamonnca1]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/electoral-college-national-popular-vote-compact-215541

Interesting article from Politico discussing a long term project, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which seeks to allow states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of having to go with the winner of that state.

The obvious advantage is that every vote would carry equal weight, unlike now, when the likes of Whitey casts a futile, pointless vote for president in Massachusetts or where my vote in NY is worth less than my in-laws' votes in one of the rural western states.

It would effectively abolish the electoral college without a constitutional amendment.

[whitey]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/electoral-college-national-popular-vote-compact-215541

Interesting article from Politico discussing a long term project, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which seeks to allow states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of having to go with the winner of that state.

The obvious advantage is that every vote would carry equal weight, unlike now, when the likes of Whitey casts a futile, pointless vote for president in Massachusetts or where my vote in NY is worth less than my in-laws' votes in one of the rural western states.

Would it not make more sense for each state to appoint their ELecorate College delegates proportionate to how their own state voted? Eg. If you get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the delegates for your state.

[J70]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/electoral-college-national-popular-vote-compact-215541

Interesting article from Politico discussing a long term project, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which seeks to allow states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of having to go with the winner of that state.

The obvious advantage is that every vote would carry equal weight, unlike now, when the likes of Whitey casts a futile, pointless vote for president in Massachusetts or where my vote in NY is worth less than my in-laws' votes in one of the rural western states.

Would it not make more sense for each state to appoint their ELecorate College delegates proportionate to how many their own state voted? Eg. If you get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the delegates for your state.

Think I would agree.

That would still put every vote into play, while being a lot fairer overall.

How many significant figures/decimal places though?

[Eamonnca1]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/electoral-college-national-popular-vote-compact-215541

Interesting article from Politico discussing a long term project, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which seeks to allow states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of having to go with the winner of that state.

The obvious advantage is that every vote would carry equal weight, unlike now, when the likes of Whitey casts a futile, pointless vote for president in Massachusetts or where my vote in NY is worth less than my in-laws' votes in one of the rural western states.

Would it not make more sense for each state to appoint their ELecorate College delegates proportionate to how their own state voted? Eg. If you get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the delegates for your state.

Nope. This way the popular vote is what gets to decide. Democracy will be restored.

[whitey]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/electoral-college-national-popular-vote-compact-215541

Interesting article from Politico discussing a long term project, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which seeks to allow states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of having to go with the winner of that state.

The obvious advantage is that every vote would carry equal weight, unlike now, when the likes of Whitey casts a futile, pointless vote for president in Massachusetts or where my vote in NY is worth less than my in-laws' votes in one of the rural western states.

Would it not make more sense for each state to appoint their ELecorate College delegates proportionate to how their own state voted? Eg. If you get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the delegates for your state.

Nope. This way the popular vote is what gets to decide. Democracy will be restored.

Hold off on the auld restoring!!!

I take it you know the US is not a Democracy.....never was and never will be unless the constitution is changed

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-united-states-of-america-is-a-democracy/


Just curious if TX had the same population as CA, and Texans instead of Californians  got to decide the outcome of the Presidential Election how would the Democrats feel about the Electoral College?

Imagine a bunch of pro life, Beer swilling, climate change denying, bible thumpers holding both parties to ranson......it'd be great!

[Eamonnca1]

But sane people are in the majority, as evidenced by the whopping 2 million more who voted for Hillary than Trump.  The idea that you have to give the minority a veto in case the majority gets it wrong is tripe. We're talking about the USA, not Northern Ireland.

[stew]

But sane people are in the majority, as evidenced by the whopping 2 million more who voted for Hillary than Trump.  The idea that you have to give the minority a veto in case the majority gets it wrong is tripe. We're talking about the USA, not Northern Ireland.

This was never set up to be republican friendly, it was devised so that people in rural areas would feel like their vote counted even if a bunch of morons in LA and New York voted a different way than they did, their vote mattered and it is a brilliant piece of legislation no matter who benefits politically.

[J70]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/electoral-college-national-popular-vote-compact-215541

Interesting article from Politico discussing a long term project, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which seeks to allow states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of having to go with the winner of that state.

The obvious advantage is that every vote would carry equal weight, unlike now, when the likes of Whitey casts a futile, pointless vote for president in Massachusetts or where my vote in NY is worth less than my in-laws' votes in one of the rural western states.

Would it not make more sense for each state to appoint their ELecorate College delegates proportionate to how their own state voted? Eg. If you get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the delegates for your state.

Nope. This way the popular vote is what gets to decide. Democracy will be restored.

Hold off on the auld restoring!!!

I take it you know the US is not a Democracy.....never was and never will be unless the constitution is changed

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-united-states-of-america-is-a-democracy/


Just curious if TX had the same population as CA, and Texans instead of Californians  got to decide the outcome of the Presidential Election how would the Democrats feel about the Electoral College?

Imagine a bunch of pro life, Beer swilling, climate change denying, bible thumpers holding both parties to ranson......it'd be great!

Why would that be "great"??

And is it not the case already given that the rural vote carries more weight?

[whitey]

But sane people are in the majority, as evidenced by the whopping 2 million more who voted for Hillary than Trump.  The idea that you have to give the minority a veto in case the majority gets it wrong is tripe. We're talking about the USA, not Northern Ireland.

So following that logic,  the unionist majority in the North should be allowed to lord it over their Nationalist brethren given their numerical superiority? 

[J70]

But sane people are in the majority, as evidenced by the whopping 2 million more who voted for Hillary than Trump.  The idea that you have to give the minority a veto in case the majority gets it wrong is tripe. We're talking about the USA, not Northern Ireland.

This was never set up to be republican friendly, it was devised so that people in rural areas would feel like their vote counted even if a bunch of morons in LA and New York voted a different way than they did, their vote mattered and it is a brilliant piece of legislation no matter who benefits politically.

Its just that the votes of the morons in rural areas carry more weight under this system.

Under a popular vote, everyone's vote would count equally, no matter what their political leaning.

[J70]

But sane people are in the majority, as evidenced by the whopping 2 million more who voted for Hillary than Trump.  The idea that you have to give the minority a veto in case the majority gets it wrong is tripe. We're talking about the USA, not Northern Ireland.

So following that logic,  the unionist majority in the North should be allowed to lord it over their Nationalist brethren given their numerical superiority?

Was it the issue in the north not that catholics were second class citizens, discriminated against by the state and under represented due to gerrymandering?

That kind of dominance is hardly what Eamon is proposing, is it?

[whitey]

All kidding aside, if we had an election based on a simple majority, would the progressives on here agree to voters having to present a valid state or national id in order to vote?

[J70]

All kidding aside, if we had an election based on a simple majority, would the progressives on here agree to voters having to present a valid state or national id in order to vote?

I wouldn't have a problem with it now if the ids and necessary documents were made available for free or on the cheap for the poor people who usually are the ones who lack them.

That said, it's all still a solution in search of a problem, despite Trump's ludicrous lies.

(He's not uttered a word either about the Obama admin being confirmed as NOT having bugged Trump Tower. Shocking, I know!  )