T Nation

2020 Presidential Race


#504

I don’t follow this at all and I realize we’re playing with fictional scenarios. You could have a few people in each state vote and the winner win by 1 giving them all the states electors. You could have millions of people in other states vote for someone else and that candidate wins that state. While highly unlikely I realize it would be possible for someone to win the electoral college and have a massive amount of people vote for the other person.

I don’t see what control of the real estate has with this. It comes down to number of people voting and for who.

Which is the same way as saying we don’t decide it by popular vote. If we did you’d have President Gore and Clinton.


#505

I don’t think it’s “bad” in terms of it’s the worst thing ever. I simply think better ways exist to pick a President and it doesn’t have anything to do with who wins Democrat or Republican (FWIW I voted for neither in 2016 and 2012).

It’s statistically small but we’re talking about our highest elected office. And we’re talking about a system that wouldn’t be off by 1.2%. It would represent exactly the number of how people voted on the whole.


#506

But it also wouldn’t make sense to argue that someone won our highest elected office if they won by getting 1.2% more of the total voting population right? 2.8 million sounds large because we wrote a million there, whereas 1.2% sounds really small because it’s a single digit %.

The issue here seems two-fold to me.

1-Enough people aren’t voting.
2-The margins for victory are far too narrow to deliver any real statement, regardless of whether it’s by popular vote or Electoral College. Many of the swing states hinge on a mere tens of thousands; occasionally a mere hundreds.


#507

I wouldn’t see why not. From class president to mayor to all star games those who get the most total votes are usually the winner. That would just be a close election yet still represent who the most people in the country who chose to vote want.

Definitely. Though I have no evidence to back it up I think the popular vote increases total amount of people voting at least in presidential elections. I think you’re going to see Dems in Mississippi and Republicans in California who might not have voted come out to vote with a popular vote.

And while we’re discussing majorities the public wants popular vote.


#508

This is what excites me the most about dumping the EC. Giving people in every state the same purpose and impact would have huge impact on voter turnout


#509

I think it would be hard to argue against.


#510

[quote=“H_factor, post:507, topic:252479, full:true”]
I wouldn’t see why not. From class president to mayor to all star games those who get the most total votes are usually the winner. That would just be a close election yet still represent who the most people in the country who chose to vote want. [/quote]

I think people will gripe regardless if the stake is sufficiently high- like electing the President.

I’m sure someone will think up a better method than popular vote- maybe the President and Vice President are elected separately?

My gut feeling agrees with you. And I think it’ll have unintended side effects!

Certainly will be exciting to see the first election post-moving to popular vote.


#511

Eh it wouldn’t be that hard. The GOP is in the voter suppression business these days. You don’t see much of them trying to increase turnout because they know what it means.

Plus a pop vote scenario would provide too much incentive to a 3rd party entering the ring. Neither side actually wants that at a DC level.


#512

No doubt. But the argument for me isn’t about reducing griping. It’s a flaw (imo) and moving towards a better way (imo).


#513

Hey now they are just trying to prevent Democrats from voting.


#514

I suppose so. With a national popular vote, you could have one person in each of 49 states vote, and then Gaffney, South Carolina could determine the election itself. While highly unlikely, I realize it would be possible for someone to only receive votes in one town and still win the presidential election with a popular vote.


#515

I think that’s the movie swing vote with Kevin Costner. Never saw it but yeah.

Fuck this shit let’s just have the t-nation peeps pick. Then we can blame each other.

I’m also becoming a fan of the pick someone out of a phone book idea. Because fuck Trump or Hilary damn! We may just get lucky.


#516

Never seen or heard of it until now. Watched the preview on Youtube. Looks like it’s about a vote that actually counts.

I’m pretty sure that’s the reason for elections. The heads of the powerful stay attached.

Can’t get behind this. There is a very non-zero number of people in an average phone book that will call the Police because their neighbor’s dog is barking(or is “tethered,” which seems to be a recent crisis).


#517

I can’t think of a better to get President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho than to let us just pick.


#518

Such an underrated movie.


#519

The greatest science fiction horror film ever made.


#520

I think that has merit on it’s face, but due to the way the responsibilities of each office are split in the present day I don’t think it would work well. You would have a decent chance of having two opposed politicians in the same administration. If you think the DC leak machine is bad now wait til you have opposing parties inside a single administration.

I like the thought but things would have to be redesigned to balance out again. As it is I currently like the idea of allowing the administration to at least attempt to bring their unified ideas forward. There’s already enough backbiting.


#521

What about a by county vote, as suggested by @usmccds423, I believe?

It gives weight to the locality, but also splits up the monolithic state elector bloc.


#522

Yeah, that’s happening…you have to remember the whole reason a change is desired: Bush and Trump won.


#523

Been done: http://constitutionus.com