Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2017, 09:13:29 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  What happens if Trump/Republicans keep winning while losing the PV?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: What happens if Trump/Republicans keep winning while losing the PV?  (Read 7161 times)
Alabama_Indy10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1341
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2017, 11:26:45 am »
Ignore

They will continue to win the presidency.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13058


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2017, 02:26:56 pm »

An interesting twist on this came up during a luncheon in colonial Williamsburg last week. The program had some very well versed reenactors who field questions after their presentation. One question was whether the Constitution was flawed if it allowed a president to win without the support of the majority of the voters.

"George Washington" gave a lengthy answer. In short he argued that each branch of the government had a fundamentally different way to be selected. The legislature was selected popularly, either directly in the case of the House, or indirectly by the popularly elected members of the state legislatures. The judiciary was selected for life by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate to be as far removed from popular vote as possible. The executive was selected by the states through electors that could not be their elected representatives to Congress. He thought it important that the direct public not have sway over more than one branch so that checks on power be maintained.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 08:57:08 am by muon2 »Logged



Great American Eclipse seconds before totality showing Baily's Beads.
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16563
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2017, 03:26:50 pm »
Ignore

This is the very reason why PR needs to become a state, so that this doesn't occur. Only way to happen is to make Pelosi Speaker and a divided Senate allows PR into statehood. 

Logged

President:
S-NJ Cory Booker
P-OH Tim Ryan

Gubernatorial election
S-NJ Phil Murphy
P-VA Ralph Northam

Senatorial election
S-NV Rosen
L-MI Kid Rock😂
S-OH Sherrod Brown
TP-AZ Kelli Ward elected
President Johnson
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4943
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2017, 03:47:26 am »
Ignore

I don't think that's a likely scenario. Trump may win the 2020 election - and if he does, with a popular vote shortfall again - but in 2024 the Democrats will have enough support to bounce back. Keep in mind that the Democrats so far have won greater victories in the electoral college in the past 30 years. After 1988, they had four victories, and even the "smallest" win in the electoral college, Obama's 332 in 2012, outnumber Donald Trump's 306; so far the biggest Republican win.
Logged

Pragmatic Democrat. Socially liberal, economically/fiscally moderate. Member of Germany's SPD.

Favorite president: Lyndon B. Johnson
Best president we never had: Nelson Rockefeller

Read my TL: The liberal Republic



Steve Bullock/Kamala Harris 2020
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 669
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: July 30, 2017, 09:16:54 pm »
Ignore

Democrats become very cynical.
Logged
varesurgent
Rookie
*
Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: September 08, 2017, 03:46:14 pm »
Ignore

They will continue to win the presidency.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21684


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 08, 2017, 03:51:12 pm »
Ignore

I don't see why people keep bringing up splitting up California. What would that achieve? It would impact the Senate, but have no impact on the presidency. Besides, Republicans could just split up Nebraska. It's pretty silly as a solution.

In my view, an undemocratic system is illegitimate. You can have a PV/outcome split once in a while, as in the UK and Australia, but when there are systemic factors affecting this and it is chronic, the system is no longer supported by popular sovereignty. The best thing states like California could do in situations like that is to simply declare independence.
Logged

"Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed [to start a nuclear war]. I won't fail." - Donald J. Trump
Come grasp the mighty avatar of our admin
Kalwejt
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 48558
View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2017, 11:04:20 am »
Ignore

Democrats would have to learn to live with it, you know, like it or lump it.

A constitutional amendment in this matter would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

So good luck.

Yes, there's now way Republican legislatures touches this, provided it'll ever pass in Congress in the first place.
Logged

DTC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 310


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2017, 08:57:49 pm »
Ignore

Republicans don't always benefit from the electoral college. While they did win the presidency because of it in 2000 and 2016, remember that in 2012, some polls were showing Obama could lose the popular vote, but losing the electoral vote was never really in the realm of possibilities. This was because Obama won a lot of swing states by a low margin, but lost by a big margin in many of the midwestern + Texas states.

I would prefer the electoral college system be changed to a proportional electoral college system (e.g if you get 50% of the voters vs your opponent's 49% of voters in California, you get the 2 votes from the senate, +50% of the remaining votes.)
Logged

Endorsements:

VA-Senate: Steve Bannon
AL-Senate: Roy Moore
NJ-Gov: Kim Guadagno
UT-Senate: Mitt Romney
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9726
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2017, 01:51:33 pm »
Ignore

This is pretty possible, and the answer is it would work for a while until eventually the floodgates break open in a Queensland '89-style, large Democratic victory. At this point you would either see outright constitutional reform if the landslide is big enough, or, more likely, various fixes, such as breaking apart large Democratic states (especially California; 7.5 times the size of the median state, and 66 times the size of the smallest), and the drawing of new ones would not be covered by the VRA (and would only take bare majorities in the respective state legislature and Congress to enact) or shifting House elections to a national party-list system (states get to pick presidential election methods, but since Congress is the judge of its own elections, it de facto has the right to set standards, so it can mandate some form of NPV for the House).

Our last large-scale reform of the election process (the introduction of presidential primaries in the early 1970s) was done entirely not just extra-constitutionally but extra-legislatively. Once there is demand change of this type will come.
Logged

I will NOT be accepting any result other than a victory for America's next President, Governor Gary Earl Johnson Angry
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16356


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2017, 10:59:50 am »
Ignore

I don't see why people keep bringing up splitting up California. What would that achieve? It would impact the Senate, but have no impact on the presidency. Besides, Republicans could just split up Nebraska. It's pretty silly as a solution.


It would have an impact on the Presidency: CA currently has 55 EVs, 53 from House seats and 2 from Senators. A split CA would have 57 total EVs: 53 from House seats and 4 from Senators. This would also bring the total electoral college up from 538 to 540.
Logged



The Handsome Monkey King Son Wukong weighs in on politics.
Celes
PeteHam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 374
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: 0.78

View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2017, 08:46:35 am »
Ignore

Democratic-controlled legislatures could start passing this thing.
Logged

Endorsements
Pres. - Martin O'Malley
Vice Pres. - Kirsten Gillibrand
TX-Sen. - Beto O'Rourke
AL-Sen. - Doug Jones
WV-Sen. - Joe Manchin
UT-Sen. - Mitt Romney
MD-Gov. - Alec Ross
CA-Gov. - John Chiang
AL-Gov. - Walt Maddox
MA-Gov. - Setti Warren
OK-Gov. - Connie Johnson
NH-Gov. - Steve Marchand
MD-02 - Dutch Ruppersburger
PA-16 - Jess King
CA-48 - Kevin Kensinger
CA-49 - Mike Levin
VA-10 - Deep Sran
MN-07 - Collin Peterson
Kringla Heimsins
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 341
France


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2017, 03:52:15 pm »
Ignore

The Democrat's best bet is to win an election while losing the PV. The Republicans will collectively lose their sh!t and demand an immediate abolition of the EC.
Logged

Chris Murphy 2020
MAINEiac4434
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3775
France


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -8.78

P
View Profile
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2017, 09:33:53 pm »
Ignore

The Democrat's best bet is to win an election while losing the PV. The Republicans will collectively lose their sh!t and demand an immediate abolition of the EC.
Too bad we're too popular for that...
Logged

Ἅιδης
Hades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1348


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2017, 12:15:26 am »
Ignore

I don't see why people keep bringing up splitting up California. What would that achieve? It would impact the Senate, but have no impact on the presidency. Besides, Republicans could just split up Nebraska. It's pretty silly as a solution.

In my view, an undemocratic system is illegitimate. You can have a PV/outcome split once in a while, as in the UK and Australia, but when there are systemic factors affecting this and it is chronic, the system is no longer supported by popular sovereignty. The best thing states like California could do in situations like that is to simply declare independence.


I don't care about splitting up California or New York. As long as states with one or two congressional districts have to join each other or bigger states. The two extra senatorial votes keep messing up the whole Electoral College..
Logged

Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4659
United States


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2017, 09:33:44 am »
Ignore

Well, there's nothing that can be done by Democrats alone. An abolition of the EC would require a constitutional amendment, as would any other possibility to fix this problem. Awarding 50 or 100 EVs for the national PV for example.
Logged

United Arab Emirates Immigrant, naturalized US citizen, resident of the wonderful state of California, devoted liberal Democrat. Any questions?

Endorsements:
- President: Kamala Harris
- CA Governor: Gavin Newsom
- CA Senate: Kevin de León

- AL Senate: Doug Jones
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35001
United States


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2017, 11:18:01 pm »
Ignore

Well, there's nothing that can be done by Democrats alone. An abolition of the EC would require a constitutional amendment, as would any other possibility to fix this problem. Awarding 50 or 100 EVs for the national PV for example.

Are there enough states that could pass the NPVIC by referendum, even if the Dems can't pass it through the legislature?
Logged

My magnum opus is now complete.  Read the complete "The Adventures of Hobo Orgy Guy & Blondie" (now in paperback).

Watch Dave being briefed by the mods.

Being a moderator is basically like one giant party.  Except you're the one ruining the party and everyone hates you.
Chris Murphy 2020
MAINEiac4434
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3775
France


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -8.78

P
View Profile
« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2017, 03:56:37 pm »
Ignore

You would see a very real and very strong secessionist movement begin.
Logged

SamTilden2020
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 326


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2017, 08:56:29 pm »
Ignore

You would see a very real and very strong secessionist movement begin.

Which leads CA to secede, and Republicans win the PV again (without the mass CA Dem votes). Problem solves itself.
Logged

Political Genius from Somewhere

Long live the true 19th president, Mr. Samuel Jones Tilden!


My Manifesto:
Inside Job! The Shocking True Story of the 1876 Election
Figs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1352


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: October 19, 2017, 10:59:52 am »
Ignore

I don't see why people keep bringing up splitting up California. What would that achieve? It would impact the Senate, but have no impact on the presidency. Besides, Republicans could just split up Nebraska. It's pretty silly as a solution.


It would have an impact on the Presidency: CA currently has 55 EVs, 53 from House seats and 2 from Senators. A split CA would have 57 total EVs: 53 from House seats and 4 from Senators. This would also bring the total electoral college up from 538 to 540.

Yeah. If DC and PR were admitted and California split up into 5 states with almost equal population, and house seats were still apportioned at 435, then California would go from having 9.8% of the EV in 2020 to having 10.9%. If California split up into those 5 states but without DC and PR being admitted, then California would instead go to having 11.9% of the EVs (DC and PR would have 5 House votes, and by apportionment, those 5 states that used to be California would actually get all of the next 5 seats).
Logged
Michael Bloomberg
Blairite
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 526
United States


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: October 19, 2017, 07:18:11 pm »
Ignore

You would see a very real and very strong secessionist movement begin.

Which leads CA to secede, and Republicans win the PV again (without the mass CA Dem votes). Problem solves itself.
I agree. CA's problems will solve themselves, and everyone else will be screwed. Though I don't support this, CA will be hurt way less than the other 49 states.
Logged

I don't think there is a dumber poster on Atlas at the moment.
Nichlemn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1899


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: October 22, 2017, 07:33:13 pm »
Ignore

Does anything significant happen if the Democrats win the House PV in 2018 by a *lot* (5+ points and over 50%), yet still fail to take the House?

Obviously, there'd be an initial burst of complaints that don't lead to anything. But does it produce significant effects on grassroots support for electoral reform?
 
Logged

Virginia
Virginia C
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8355
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: October 22, 2017, 10:05:24 pm »
Ignore

Does anything significant happen if the Democrats win the House PV in 2018 by a *lot* (5+ points and over 50%), yet still fail to take the House?

Obviously, there'd be an initial burst of complaints that don't lead to anything. But does it produce significant effects on grassroots support for electoral reform?

It may add fuel to gerrymandering reform efforts in states with ballot initiatives. Michigan, Missouri and Arkansas could see one, although I think Michigan is going to get one either way. Florida also needs redistricting commission amendments for the 2020 ballot, as the 2010 FD amendments require a state judiciary that will actually enforce them, and Rick Scott is already claiming he has the power to replace the 3 retiring Democratic state supreme court justices (re: he doesn't, which is why the GOP tried to pass an amendment allowing it, but failed).
Logged

Nichlemn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1899


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2017, 11:11:26 pm »
Ignore

If it happened several times in a row, there is no doubt in my mind that the Dems would create several new states (requires only the majority consent of congress and of the relevant state legislature) when they finally got back in power after economic crash or an impeachment level scandal.  See also: Nebraska being admitted as a separate state from Kansas, Colorado being admitted while severely underpopulated and the splitting of the Dakotas.

I do wonder, are there any judicial limits that would prevent this being used indiscriminately? Like, could one party create 1,000 rotten borough "states" of 1 person each, who vote to guarantee one-party rule forever?

Obviously, it'd be seen widely as effectively a coup d'etat and protested against for the reason. But it there anything constitutionally prohibiting it?
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines