[RD] The Obama Legacy

Commodore said:
Nah, because it would be percentage based, not based on total number of voters. For example: Let's say California has 1 million registered voters and Wyoming has 25,000 (I know those numbers aren't accurate, I'm just throwing random numbers out there to illustrate the point). If 250,000 of those registered voters in California actually vote and the rest stay home but in Wyoming 12,500 people get out and vote, then in the next election Wyoming would get more electoral votes than California because Wyoming was more politically active with a 50% voter turnout to California's 25% voter turnout.

In theory, Wyoming having a larger voice than California due to a higher percentage of voter turnout would piss Californians off and motivate more of them to get out and vote in the next election so they could get more electoral votes in the election after that. Go through a few elections under a system that rewards high voter turnout and I bet you'd see voter turnout numbers skyrocket in the US without having to implement compulsory voting as some people suggest we should.
Click to expand...
I don't buy that theory, and I don't like this proposal, because (like a pure popular vote) it ignores more people... Under the current system, everyone's vote counts whether you vote or not. In a pure popular vote, (or the system you are describing) you vote only counts if you have time to actually jump through the arbitrary hoops put in place by the state.

In the current system, your vote counts even if you stay home, because the winner of your state gets credit for you even though you didnt physically vote. So the people who don't vote are willingly giving their vote to the winner of the State, the people who vote third party are willingly giving their vote to the winner of the state under protest, and the people who vote for the opposing major party are unwillingly giving their vote to the winner... the point is that everyone's vote is "counted". In the system you describe the only people that count are the people who actually physically vote, and voters who live in low turnout states are harshly punished for their neighbor's ambivalence. So in that scenario,,, if I'm California, I move to a vote-by-smartphone app and relaxed voting rules so we can get 100% turnout and the Civ-bonuses that come with that... all the big states would I think...
 
Doesn't a pure popular vote follow the same willing/unwilling/submit/protest rubric, though? It just happens at a national level, rather than the state level. And if you live in California or Wyoming, your vote or decision not to vote actually carries that weight of decisiveness with it - whether you vote for president in California or not, your voting decision is ultimately for the Democrat electors to cast their votes for president. The decision has been made for you before you even step into the ballot box.
 
Note that I think there is a profound difference between "willingly" and "unwillingly", at least on an individual/community psyche level... But yes I see what you mean, except that to the extent it matters, not voting in the current system is saying "I'm fine with whoever my state picks" not "I'm fine with whoever wins"... So the California voter who wants Trump to win can give his proxy to the majority, without implicitly approving the ultimate result of the election... whereas in a post electoral-college, pure national-popular-vote, staying home has a very different implication... it is tantamount to saying you approve of whoever wins the election and willingly give your proxy to the nation as implicit approval of the winner. I think that is a little bit different kind of statement, one which far fewer people will be willing to make.
 
I agree, but that would likely have the effect of fostering higher voter turnout, would it not? If people are less willing to allow the nation as a whole to stand as their proxy and not vote, they will be more motivated to show up and vote themselves, if that is the alternative.

Also, one could clearly argue that the electoral college helps to foster political segregation, which ultimately is deleterious to our democracy. If I'm a Republican, living in California effectively robs me of my voice at the presidential level. It also robs me of any realistic chance at a Senator that represents my values. A Democrat in Wyoming faces the same situation. If you switch to a national popular vote, the Senate problem remains, but I still get my voice heard with regards to who the president is, which is more meaningful to most people I would bet. So in order to find a proxy that better represents my desires, I might contemplate moving to a red state so that my proxies will pick the candidate I want.
 
Sommerswerd said:
I don't buy that theory, and I don't like this proposal, because (like a pure popular vote) it ignores more people... Under the current system, everyone's vote counts whether you vote or not. In a pure popular vote, (or the system you are describing) you vote only counts if you have time to actually jump through the arbitrary hoops put in place by the state.

In the current system, your vote counts even if you stay home, because the winner of your state gets credit for you even though you didnt physically vote. So the people who don't vote are willingly giving their vote to the winner of the State, the people who vote third party are willingly giving their vote to the winner of the state under protest, and the people who vote for the opposing major party are unwillingly giving their vote to the winner... the point is that everyone's vote is "counted". In the system you describe the only people that count are the people who actually physically vote, and voters who live in low turnout states are harshly punished for their neighbor's ambivalence. So in that scenario,,, if I'm California, I move to a vote-by-smartphone app and relaxed voting rules so we can get 100% turnout and the Civ-bonuses that come with that... all the big states would I think..
Click to expand...

Of course. I am actually completely fine with the current system for many of the same reasons you state here. However, if people are going to insist we change our electoral system, I would prefer it be changed to one that rewards participation in the system rather than simply having more people.
 
Commodore said:
Of course. I am actually completely fine with the current system for many of the same reasons you state here. However, if people are going to insist we change our electoral system, I would prefer it be changed to one that rewards participation in the system rather than simply having more people.
Click to expand...
I get that, and frankly I lean towards caution in these types of situations as it is difficult to separate "the game/rules are broken" from "I'm mad I lost"... Everyone who gets caught with their pants down and pwned by a well run Espionage Economy in Civ 4 starts crying that its "broken" or "unbalanced" or some other such nonsense... If the Democrats thought that the electoral College was broken, they could have gotten rid of it right after President Obama was elected. The Republicans, having just lost the election, would have been more likely than at any other time to go along with it. Complaining about the electoral college now just comes off as sour grapes. You love it when you win but you hate it when you lose.
 
We should absolutely not "reward" turnout. Not voting is a choice, and ought to be validated the same as any other voting decision. Plenty of people are engaged with our system politically, who nevertheless choose not to vote for whatever reason. I'm in favor of measures that make it easier to vote, of course, for people that wish to participate, but the non-voter also needs to have their choice honored.
 
I also am in favor of making it easier to vote, rather than punishing low turnout. Consider this... Mississippi's electorate is nearly 40% black, and this segment of the electorate is obviously overwhelmingly Republican... but Mississippi consistently votes Red in the general election, because its roughly 60% white electorate is almost as Republican as the black voters are Democratic. It's probably the starkest example we have in the country of a state splitting down purely racial lines.

Anyway... let's say the "Turnout Model" that Commodore suggests was implemented, and the black voters in Mississippi decide... "You know what? We lose every election regardless, but we can basically make Mississippi irrelevant by boycotting the polls!"... Poof! Mississippi loses 40% of its electoral votes? Yeah I can hear FOX News now... That is going to fly like the famous lead balloon.

EDIT: Now that I think about it... this basically incentivizes everyone to strategically abstain in all but the most reliable Red or Blue states... because if for example, black people boycott everywhere except CA, IL, MA, NY etc... then the Red states and "battleground" states will essentially be strategically defanged, while the Blue states in turn claim larger shares of the electoral votes. Sound like a good system?
 
Sommerswerd said:
You love it when you win but you hate it when you lose.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why it's hard to take any criticism of the system seriously, since it's only the ones who lost that ever complain about it.

metalhead said:
We should absolutely not "reward" turnout. Not voting is a choice, and ought to be validated the same as any other voting decision. Plenty of people are engaged with our system politically, who nevertheless choose not to vote for whatever reason. I'm in favor of measures that make it easier to vote, of course, for people that wish to participate, but the non-voter also needs to have their choice honored.
Click to expand...

This post is extremely hilarious coming from you considering your opinion of those who don't vote a few months ago was almost the polar opposite of what you are expressing here now.
 
metalhead said:
I agree, but that would likely have the effect of fostering higher voter turnout, would it not? If people are less willing to allow the nation as a whole to stand as their proxy and not vote, they will be more motivated to show up and vote themselves, if that is the alternative.
Click to expand...
Well that's one of the most popular arguments in favor of moving to a popular vote... that it will increase participation and turnout. Although I suspect that simply making voting easier (like phone voting, or smartphone app voting, or ATM voting) would produce more gains in turnout than a popular vote would, and would be less of a Constitutional crisis.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to vote while waiting in line at the DMV or on your handsfree Bluetooth while stuck in traffic?
 
Commodore said:
This post is extremely hilarious coming from you considering your opinion of those who don't vote a few months ago was almost the polar opposite of what you are expressing here now.
Click to expand...

A person making an idiotic choice based on an extremely flawed premise is worth criticizing. Doesn't mean I think they ought to be forced to vote.
 
Sommerswerd said:
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to vote while waiting in line at the DMV or on your handsfree Bluetooth while stuck in traffic?
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. You'd finally kill off the ability of voters(by definition not experts or specialists) to control, themselves, the collection and recount processes and turn it over to the technical hacks. All while making epic fraud so much more possible. Plus, while we certainly make it super hard to vote(in some places) without a car already, why should you have an easier time voting because you have those things? I don't. My cell doesn't get reliable signal to begin with and I'm about an hour from Chicago when the traffic is light.

This is something I would suggest if I wanted to fundamentally weaken the democratic part of republic.
 
Farm Boy said:
No, it wouldn't. You'd finally kill off the ability of voters(by definition not experts or specialists) to control, themselves, the collection and recount processes and turn it over to the technical hacks. All while making epic fraud so much more possible. Plus, while we certainly make it super hard to vote(in some places) without a car already, why should you have an easier time voting because you have those things? I don't. My cell doesn't get reliable signal to begin with and I'm about an hour from Chicago when the traffic is light.

This is something I would suggest if I wanted to fundamentally weaken the democratic part of republic.
Click to expand...
Voter fraud is a non-issue. Simply asking for proper ID is too much.

J
 
Voter ID is a nonissue because of the format of our elections and the emphasis on in-person, paper ballots. Take that away and fraud becomes much more of a problem.

That being said I wish the US would make voting day a national holiday that everybody got off. I don't understand why that isn't the case already.
 
Or, you know, just vote on Saturday.

metalhead said:
Also, one could clearly argue that the electoral college helps to foster political segregation, which ultimately is deleterious to our democracy. If I'm a Republican, living in California effectively robs me of my voice at the presidential level. It also robs me of any realistic chance at a Senator that represents my values. A Democrat in Wyoming faces the same situation. If you switch to a national popular vote, the Senate problem remains, but I still get my voice heard with regards to who the president is, which is more meaningful to most people I would bet. So in order to find a proxy that better represents my desires, I might contemplate moving to a red state so that my proxies will pick the candidate I want.
Click to expand...

This is an issue that is intrinsic to single member electorates. That's obviously solvable in the legislature with party list or single transferable vote systems. It's less solvable in the executive which is winner takes all regardless of method used, unless you go for a Swiss style group executive council.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
SCOTUS news and opinions
35 36 37
Replies
729
Views
40K
Cutlass
C
I
Overview of Mechanics
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
16K
sTAPler27
sTAPler27
M
Decurn: The Chironian Ten-Day Week (Fanfic)
Replies
0
Views
626
MysticWind
M
C
The Donald Trump Friendship and Positivity Thread
6 7 8
Replies
151
Views
8K
Ferocitus
Ferocitus
The_J
30 years Civ - all the little things you didn't know
2
Replies
32
Views
12K
Horizons
Horizons
Back
Top Bottom