2020 US Election (Part Two)

[innonimatu]

Like, in Russia, many believe Zhirinovsky speaks loudly and flamboyantly what's on Putin's mind, but Putin never says it outright...

That guy is still alive and in politics? One of the benefits of Putin taking over Russia, too attached to power or not, was withering all the weeds like Zhirinovsky, I had thought.

 

[Patine]

That guy is still alive and in politics? One of the benefits of Putin taking over Russia, too attached to power or not, was withering all the weeds like Zhirinovsky, I had thought.

He is. Though, even though he was Yeltsin's archnemesis from the far-right ,like Zyuganov was from the far-left (and in Russia, the far-left were the socio-political reactionaries, unlike most countries, where it's the far-right) back in the '90's, since Putin took power, Zhirinovsky and his horribly inappropriately named Liberal Democratic Party of Russia have never voted against a United Russia bill, campaigned strongly against United Russia (more attacking parties like A Just Russia, Yabloko, or the Communists, or just foreigners and foreign elements, or internal cultural trends he likes to rant against), and he was been accused of saying what Putin thinking, and quite flamboyantly so, like the old ventriloquist and dummy routine of that sort.

 

[Zardnaar]

If I had lived in the United States in 2016, I would have voted for Rocky De La Fuante of the Reform/Delta Fusion ticket (who?). I had made this clear at the time. That I would not, or could not, in all good conscience, put my stamp of approval on Trump or Clinton - or Johnson, or Stein, or Castle, or McMullen, or De La Riva, If I had been able to vote there at the time. I had a friend I played an MMO with at the time of the elections who lived in NYC (where both major party candidates were from, in fact) who voted for "Statue of Liberty," as a cheeky write-in. I just tongue-in-cheek joked to her it might be invalid because the Statue of Liberty was "born," in France.

And that's basically voting for Trump.
They want people not voting or voting for no hopers.

 

[Zardnaar]

Big difference with Biden us they can get him out of office a lot easier if he's a turkey like Trump.

 

[Patine]

And that's basically voting for Trump.
They want people not voting or voting for no hopers.

That's not exactly how the math works. It's just a dumbed down, oversimplified, and purely rhetorical catch statement to enforce the two-party system, or to say a vote AGAINST one major party candidate is AUTOMATICALLY FOR the other. The actual math, when it comes down to the actual counting is much more nuanced and, sometimes, quite surprising, in how it turns out. In 1948, two schisms off the Democratic Party running their own separate campaigns, tickets, and ballot nominations, and one of those even gaining EV's, and the other respectable vote tallies, was thought to hand Republican candidate Dewey victory for sure. In fact, the Chicago Tribune even printed their papers for the day after election night declaring Dewey's victory without waiting for the election results. Truman, the Democratic incumbent, won that election. Case-and-point against the rhetoric I'm quoting in your post.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's not exactly how the math works. It's just a dumbed down, oversimplified, and purely rhetorical catch statement to enforce the two-party system, or to say a vote AGAINST one major party candidate is AUTOMATICALLY FOR the other. The actual math, when it comes down to the actual counting is much more nuanced and, sometimes, quite surprising, in how it turns out. In 1948, two schisms off the Democratic Party running their own separate campaigns, tickets, and ballot nominations, and one of those even gaining EV's, and the other respectable vote tallies, was thought to hand Republican candidate Dewey victory for sure. In fact, the Chicago Tribune even printed their papers for the day after election night declaring Dewey's victory without waiting for the election results. Truman, the Democratic incumbent, won that election. Case-and-point against the rhetoric I'm quoting in your post.

Votes like that won't matter in deep blue and red States.

If you're in a swing state though that's what votes like that effectively are.

Hilary was a bad candidate, I suspect a lot of people assumed she would win and stayed at home.

Oops.

Reality is to change the system you need power. With Gerrymandering, voter suppression and SCOTUS stacking the GoP isn't gonna do it.

So you either vote blue and hope for the best or enable Trump.

Blue might not do much, red definitely won't.

 

[Patine]

Votes like that won't matter in deep blue and red States.

And that's another problem with the Electoral College. If they had any grasp of the situation of how thoroughly it screwed them over and irrelevated them and their meaningful input and say, EVERY Deep Red AND Deep Blue State (far more than enough to ratify an amendment) SHOULD, if they valued their own Electoral self-interests, want to abolish, or seriously reform the Electoral College, that is currently set up so only Purple States matter in the GE, are campaigned in seriously in the GE, and DECIDE the GE, the Deep Red and Deep Blue just get taken for granted. Interesting perspective, eh?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The EC actually gives all states more electoral heft than they would otherwise have. When all the votes go to the winner in the state regardless of how close it is, that is a powerful incentive to get the candidates to campaign in the states. This is only blunted by the fact that they all do it. Before the current rules for winner-take-all-by-state were in place, states tried a bunch of different systems for how EC votes would be apportioned. Very quickly, the ones that were winner-take-all came to dominate the campaigns because of that extra heft. Then they all fell in line which does blunt this effect a bit. But overall, the EC actually enhances every state's voice in the process.

Interestingly, the constitution outlines how many votes states get but is completely silent on how those votes are assigned in the process. We don't actually have to amend the constitution to make the EC irrelevant; all the states have to do is all pledge to give all their votes to the popular vote winner and the EC basically goes away. There is an effort called the interstate compact that aims to do just that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's not exactly how the math works. It's just a dumbed down, oversimplified, and purely rhetorical catch statement to enforce the two-party system, or to say a vote AGAINST one major party candidate is AUTOMATICALLY FOR the other. The actual math, when it comes down to the actual counting is much more nuanced and, sometimes, quite surprising, in how it turns out. In 1948, two schisms off the Democratic Party running their own separate campaigns, tickets, and ballot nominations, and one of those even gaining EV's, and the other respectable vote tallies, was thought to hand Republican candidate Dewey victory for sure. In fact, the Chicago Tribune even printed their papers for the day after election night declaring Dewey's victory without waiting for the election results. Truman, the Democratic incumbent, won that election. Case-and-point against the rhetoric I'm quoting in your post.

Couple things...

A whole lot has changed since 1948. From a practical standpoint the two party system is unbreakable now, barring rewrite of campaign finance law at a very fundamental level and that's extremely unlikely.

Even without that, the 1948 scenario could only happen is an environment of massive imbalance between the two parties. Yes, the Democrats could split three ways and still beat the Republicans, but only because the Republicans were running on "remember us, we brought you the great depression. Democrats outnumbered the GOP by two to one or better, so they could afford the schism. That doesn't mean that they could today.

 

[Samson]

The EC actually gives all states more electoral heft than they would otherwise have. When all the votes go to the winner in the state regardless of how close it is, that is a powerful incentive to get the candidates to campaign in the states. This is only blunted by the fact that they all do it. Before the current rules for winner-take-all-by-state were in place, states tried a bunch of different systems for how EC votes would be apportioned. Very quickly, the ones that were winner-take-all came to dominate the campaigns because of that extra heft. Then they all fell in line which does blunt this effect a bit. But overall, the EC actually enhances every state's voice in the process.

Interestingly, the constitution outlines how many votes states get but is completely silent on how those votes are assigned in the process. We don't actually have to amend the constitution to make the EC irrelevant; all the states have to do is all pledge to give all their votes to the popular vote winner and the EC basically goes away. There is an effort called the interstate compact that aims to do just that.

It was explained to me a bit different (on this site, a bit before your last general IIRC). While the electoral college encourages winner take all allocation of delegates in swing states, red or blue states would get more "heft" if they allocated proportionally. It is because of "party before people" in those states that the local politicians choose winner take all, as it makes their party more likely to win the general, while making their electorate basically have no voice.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Generally fretting about the electoral college and red, blue, and purple states can be resolved by recognizing the simple truth that blue states won't always be blue states, and red states won't always be red states. Politics breeds this desire for instantaneous change, but it never provides it. Movement is glacial, but never fear, it does happen.

 

[duckstab]

And that's another problem with the Electoral College. If they had any grasp of the situation of how thoroughly it screwed them over and irrelevated them and their meaningful input and say, EVERY Deep Red AND Deep Blue State (far more than enough to ratify an amendment) SHOULD, if they valued their own Electoral self-interests, want to abolish, or seriously reform the Electoral College, that is currently set up so only Purple States matter in the GE, are campaigned in seriously in the GE, and DECIDE the GE, the Deep Red and Deep Blue just get taken for granted. Interesting perspective, eh?

There's no such thing as the "Electoral self-interests" of a state. The electoral self interests of the parties in control of individual states are served very well by the current system, which is why the prospects of reforming that system seem so dim today.

 

[duckstab]

Interestingly, the constitution outlines how many votes states get but is completely silent on how those votes are assigned in the process. We don't actually have to amend the constitution to make the EC irrelevant; all the states have to do is all pledge to give all their votes to the popular vote winner and the EC basically goes away. There is an effort called the interstate compact that aims to do just that.

The Constitution is silent on the topic but the Federal courts have generally interpreted this as meaning each state is in charge of how its electoral votes are allocated. OTOH, the Constitution does say that interstate compacts require the consent of the Federal government so if the national popular vote compact ever comes together it will still likely face some opposition. In the current political climate the EC clearly works towards the advantage of the GOP, so if they can block it in the Senate or mount a successful challenge in an increasingly stacked Federal court system, you'd better believe they'll do it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The Constitution is silent on the topic but the Federal courts have generally interpreted this as meaning each state is in charge of how its electoral votes are allocated. OTOH, the Constitution does say that interstate compacts require the consent of the Federal government so if the national popular vote compact ever comes together it will still likely face some opposition. In the current political climate the EC clearly works towards the advantage of the GOP, so if they can block it in the Senate or mount a successful challenge in an increasingly stacked Federal court system, you'd better believe they'll do it.

While it is promoted as an "interstate compact," in practice it is just individual states passing their own laws about how to assign their electoral votes. The approval requirements only come into play if in some way states are subjected to interstate pressure to comply.

That said, the current red states, as you noted, are very happy with the built in GOP advantage and are certainly not going to institute any such rules for themselves.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The Constitution is silent on the topic but the Federal courts have generally interpreted this as meaning each state is in charge of how its electoral votes are allocated.

This is what I said.

Edit:
No, I don't even think this is something the courts have to actively litigate at the federal level. The constitution clearly leaves it up to the states and it's always been run by them. We wound up with winner-takes-all-by-states by convergent evolution, not court coercion. There was an EC arms race for the first few elections before everyone settled on the current setup.

TOH, the Constitution does say that interstate compacts require the consent of the Federal government so if the national popular vote compact ever comes together it will still likely face some opposition.

This is not true, see @Timsup2nothin's post.

That said, the current red states, as you noted, are very happy with the built in GOP advantage and are certainly not going to institute any such rules for themselves.

They actually got some red states to sign on after 2016, then they saw the 2018 GOP wipeout in the House and walked away.

 

[Birdjaguar]

While it is promoted as an "interstate compact," in practice it is just individual states passing their own laws about how to assign their electoral votes. The approval requirements only come into play if in some way states are subjected to interstate pressure to comply.

That said, the current red states, as you noted, are very happy with the built in GOP advantage and are certainly not going to institute any such rules for themselves.

If that agreement had been in effect in 2016 among all states, what would the EC count have been?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They actually got some red states to sign on after 2016, then they saw the 2018 GOP wipeout in the House and walked away.

By "sign on" do you mean actually passed legislation? I know there was a lot of "we'll look into that" commentary, but in most places it didn't get any further, I don't think.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If that agreement had been in effect in 2016 among all states, what would the EC count have been?

If it were actually passed into law in every state that their electors would be tasked with voting for the popular vote winner then the electoral college vote would have been 538 to zero for Clinton.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I wish I could remember the details but @Lexicus and I once had a debate about why the EC was set up. The podcast guy I just listened on it said it was basically 90% about slavery, which was I believe what I told Lex at the time, but I honestly don't remember much so I don

By "sign on" do you mean actually passed legislation? I know there was a lot of "we'll look into that" commentary, but in most places it didn't get any further, I don't think.

Yes it got through several red state government committees and houses but none managed to completely pass before 2018. Then they all backed off. I don't have the list, sorry.

edit:
There seems to be a general understanding within the GOP party cadre that the EC as constituted is grossly unfair and violates the 'one person, one vote' ethos of modern Democracy. Unfortunately that sense is completely overridden by the desire to win at all costs.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wish I could remember the details but @Lexicus and I once had a debate about why the EC was set up. The podcast guy I just listened on it said it was basically 90% about slavery.

Wasn't everything?