Refuting Liberal Talking Points: The Electoral College is Flawed

[TXKafir]

All those states that have passed this crap sandwich traditionally vote Democrat. The first time a Republican wins the NPV and California has to give all its electors to the GOP will be the end of this nonsense. It will probably happen in 2012, Øbama doesn't have time to repair the train wreck before the election. I was hoping Palin would run so the victory would be that much sweeter and the look on Dem faces as blue states cast their votes for her would have been priceless.

[UTubekookdetector]

TXK: That is correct (although I'm not a big fan of Palin). It was kind of amusing watching the Dems go bonkers when the GOP in PA & CA tried to divvy up electoral votes there by congressional district. That's perfectly legal & requires no amendment to the U.S. Const. I wouldn't mind if every state went to that system, then every state would get visited because no matter what, there are "blue" districts in "red" states and vice versa.

[TXKafir]

@UTubekookdetector I too believe that electors should be divvied up by Congressional District. Let the two Senatorial electors go to the NPV winner. That way, the guy gets 100 electoral votes just by winning the NPV. However, a better plan would be to increase the size of the US House to a ratio of 1:50000. You would have so many electors that we would not ever see a someone win the presidency who had not won the NPV and we would get better representation in Congress to boot.

[oldgulph707]

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

In total, the National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

[UTubekookdetector]

OLD: Thanks for being my echo-chamber. If you paid attented to the vid (and you didn't) I had a screenshot of what you just said. 2:03. "Americans believe the candidate" Ad populum appeal (which you used several times). If all Americans believed rape should be legalized, would you continue using that argument? "now elections ignore" Going back to previous elections, as some point any state was competitive. G.H.W Bush carried CA in '88. Reagan won NY easily on 2 occasions. Carter won TX.

[TXKafir]

@UTubekookdetector We don't live in a democracy. This is a republic. For the best 10 min political lesson you'll ever get (including the difference between a democracy and a republic), go here: watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

[UTubekookdetector]

@TXK:I concur, this is a Republic, thanks for the vid link. As far as increasing the size of the House, I think James Madison warned us about having too many pols or pols representing too many people. I had never heard of that plan to give 100 electoral votes to the NPV winner. That's certainly a constitutional amendment that could be considered. I've written my state reps & Senator, telling them to go to the system practiced in ME & NE.

[oldgulph707]

Now elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states that are not competitive. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC).

Support by Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed . AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, WY- 69%.

[oldgulph707]

The actual probability of a close national election would be far less than the current system, because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

[UTubekookdetector]

OLD: "actual probability of a close national election" Recounts might be "less" likely, but considering there were 2 elections where the gap between 1st and 2nd was <0.5% that undermines your cut-and-paste. National recount? Good luck with that. Your comparison of statewide recounts with national recounts doesn't jive. Extrapolate that out for all 50 states. There are always a few "outliers" as well, just because recounts don't yield much diff. results doesn't keep them from occurring.

[oldgulph707]

Recounts are far more likely in the current system.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

[UTubekookdetector]

OLD: "recounts are far more likely" Correction, statewide recounts are far more likely in the current system. Not quite apples-to-apples, but good try. In a NPV system where the gap is <0.5% a national recount would be required, think 1880 and 1960. Of course each state would manage its own recount, but all 50 would have to do it. "most voters don't care" As I pointed out in the vid (you should pay attention), the NPV guarantees that candidates will avoid a # of states, never to visit them again

[oldgulph707]

Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones).

Congressional consent is not required for the compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Virginia v. Tennessee

McPherson v. Blacker

U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission

However, NPV is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

[UTubekookdetector]

OLD: I see why you're pointing out SCOTUS rulings in favor of NPV, but it doesn't work. 1) If the SCOTUS said 2+2=5, would you endorse that? 2) In the Kelo v. New London decision, the SCOTUS interpreted the 5th Amend incorrectly. Article I Section X (see 4:02) doesn't say what you're saying it says. "No state shall, without the consent of Congress... enter into any agreement or compact with another state." "NPV...introduce a bill." Good for them. Get permission from Congress or amend the Const.

[oldgulph707]

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is stated in the Constitution as action by state legislatures. This is how the current system was created. This is the method the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors .." The Supreme Court says the authority is "plenary" and "exclusive."

[oldgulph707]

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote 338–70. It was endorsed by Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole.

In a new Gallup poll, support for a national popular vote is now:

53% among Republicans, 61% among Independents, and 71% among Democrats.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls

[UTubekookdetector]

OLD: "New Gallup poll... endorsed by Nixon, Ford..." More ad populum appeal. Good. Then get permission from Congress or amend the Const. "Support for a NPV is strong." So strong in fact, it's failed legislatively about 700 times. "flyover... battleground" Remember when CA was GOP country? Remember when TX (especially on the state level & most of the South) was a Dumocrat stronghold? Remember when MO was a bellwether? States that were "flyover" become battleground. Moot point, but good try.

[oldgulph707]

Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

[oldgulph707]

Since World War II, a shift of only a few thousand votes in 1 or 2 states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.

[UTubekookdetector]

OLD: "6 consecutive non-landslide elections" This is dubious. You seem upset that it's competitive. If I may quote Clinton, "depends on what your definition of 'landslide' is." The 08 election really wasn't that close. Neither was 96. In 80, 84 and 88 the GOP cleaned up at the ballot box. You indeed engage in some dubious reasoning.

[oldgulph707]

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

[oldgulph707]

9 of the original 13 states are considered “flyover” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored --19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like GA and TX.

More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been spectators to elections.

[UTubekookdetector]

OLD" "76% of the country will be ignored" The reason many states are "flyover" is because one party or another (forget whether that party's policies are good or bad) has done a good job getting its message out and convincing people to vote for that party. If you want less states to be "flyover" start educating voters in that state, try to win-over people and convince them that they should vote another way. If you did really good, it would still be "flyover" but pulling the lever for someone else

[oldgulph707]

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not care about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

[58robbo]

i prefer the narated videos. i can do stuff while i listen

[UTubekookdetector]

ROBBO: I was going to ask that question at some point. I'm going to go back to narration soon.