Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[Franzl]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

[Franzl]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.

Ahh..sorry then.

[Franzl]

This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme.  People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days.  They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they?  How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election.  Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population.  But I guess that that makes sense to you.  It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states."  It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance.  Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period.  Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states.  They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state.  Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state. 

And if we went to a popular vote system the candidates would never get away from the coasts at all.  How would that be better?

The problem is....that isn't true. Votes could be gained everywhere in a popular vote system. How about visiting Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix...and sure, the coasts would also be popular to visit (rightly so, as they have more residents)...but the point is that votes could be gained everywhere, and at places that are currently out of play to the Electoral College.

[Franzl]

There's a reason this system is here. We can get it wrong sometimes.

Yes indeed, although you probably mean it a little differently than I do

[Franzl]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

[Franzl]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

The Congress, of course, is also not Democratic. Look at the unequal representation in the Senate. (Not to mention gerrymandered districts.)

In addition to that....why shouldn't the executive branch be democratic....other than that being the "Founders'" intention?

[Franzl]

As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

[Franzl]

As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

Apparently the house of reps doesn't exist.

But it can't do anything by itself, it's worthless because everything has to be approved by a body that has very unequal representation.

Granted, the minority can't push its agenda through against the will of the majority.....but it's impossible for the majority to push anything through against the will of the minority.

It creates a deadlock that is extremely unfair, as people in small states have MUCH MUCH more power than people from moderately sized or large states.


As said, it's just a question of who actually holds power. Under the present system, it's clearly not the supposed "majority".

[Franzl]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

[Franzl]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

Look, that's all fine in theory. Think about, though. The odds that all 50 Senators from small states would oppose something is absurd. Some are Dem, some are Rep, and some are split.

If the Senate was perfectly representative, the Republicans would have 45 seats, so it works both ways.

Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that a person in Wyoming has ten times the influence that I do.

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, practically as well. Unless you believe every state has equal population?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true enough, but take the House of Representatives....where a public option was able to pass.
Sure, there were senators from big states that opposed healthcare, but if people in every state had roughly equal representation, then the partisan distribution would be different. Small states tend to have more conservatives. (Note that this assumes that the FPTP voting system is maintained. A proportional system of electing senators would actually benefit the Republicans currently....but that's only because they were destroyed in the last two elections.)

Of course, this isn't even mentioning Democrats that don't vote like Democrats simply because they represent states that Democrats shouldn't be really representing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

State governments don't deserve any representation. I don't care what the founders intended. State lines are artificial, why should I believe that precisely the lines that were drawn for states should determine the composition of the federal legislature? Why can't I divide New York into two parts and then demand that they get two senators each?

I only care about the people being represented equally.

[Franzl]

Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Let me ask you a different question.

Illinois used to distribute seats in the Illinois Senate seat equally to every county, although that was eventually declared unconstitutional.

How is that different than granting equal representation to each state at federal level?

[Franzl]

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions

[Franzl]

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?

[Franzl]

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions

Cause otherwise I'd totally agree with you

The only argument is that everybody should be perfectly represented. This is a fallacy, as equal representation =/= the best governance. One house of congress and (for the most part) the Presidency are elected by an equal vote. It was Xahar himself who has said voters are idiots on multiple occasions.

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?

That's the Democrats' fault, not the Senate. Republicans never had trouble.

It doesn't matter how equal representation is for the Presidency or the House of Representatives. The unequal Senate can block anything it pleases. What's so terribly difficult to understand about that?

[Franzl]

Then we have no reason to continue debating here.

I disagree that states deserve any representation whatsoever on principle.

[Franzl]

I think one thing you're confusing is federalism and federal elections.

It's completely possible to have equal representation at federal level and still allocate significant power to the states. One thing doesn't really have much to do with the other.

[Franzl]

I think one thing you're confusing is federalism and federal elections.

It's completely possible to have equal representation at federal level and still allocate significant power to the states. One thing doesn't really have much to do with the other.

I'm not. I realize they're not mutually exclusive. The equ representation contributes to the overall cohesiveness. The Senate brings a sense of equality and cohesion to the people of the various states. We already have significant region divides, NAFTA, for example, which the border stats like but industrial Midwest states don't. It legitimizes the federal government, and creates national unity.

I don't feel unified, to be honest. In fact, it offends me greatly that a voter in North Dakota has the same representation in the Senate as I do.

[Franzl]

With all due respect....the fact that most Americans approve of the system is hardly an argument in favor of said system

[Franzl]

Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.

Very few people support the popular vote determining who wins the election? I doubt that. Now granted, this is just a way to achieve that goal.....but the principle behind the idea is the same.

[Franzl]

Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.

Very few people support the popular vote determining who wins the election? I doubt that. Now granted, this is just a way to achieve that goal.....but the principle behind the idea is the same.

But again, some latte liberal in Massachusetts will support this until his state's electoral votes go to Sarah Palin.

The electoral votes are irrelevant under this system....they don't count for anything.

[Franzl]

OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

It passed 47-13-2.

Really ? So it has a strong chance to pass with a democratic House and Governor.

I suppose New York Republicans have nothing to lose by doing this....it's not like they're going to win New York in the near future.

[Franzl]

What is their rationale for opposing this ? "Democrats support it, so it sucks" ? Or "Electoral college will always help us in close elections" ?

More the default conservative position, IMO. Don't fix it if it ain't broke or something.

[Franzl]

This continues to be one of these uniquely American debates, creating problems that don't exist and not looking at any other countries and learning from them.

There is no possible, legitimate argument in favor of the Electoral College. I'm aware of the difficulty associated with changing the Constitution, but that doesn't make this issue any less absurd.

[Franzl]

Well, why would you want to end Electoral College. The United States of America is a federalist state, so this current electoral college is a good compromise.

I don't see a connection between the two. Nothing about federalism would change under a fair electoral system.