dagblog - Comments for "Who is more electable Bernie or Hillary?"

Although the whole-number

oldgulph — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 17:59:32 +0000

In reply to Proportional electoral votes

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

With current state-by-state

oldgulph — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 17:58:35 +0000

In reply to Uh, yeah and no. It works

With current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, and Hawaii are among the 24 of the 27 smallest states that have been "skipped" by presidential general election campaigns.

38 states,of all sizes, have been "skipped"

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Colorado (9) ,Nevada (6), Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

The predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensured that the candidates in 2012, after the conventions, did not reach out to 38+ states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.

10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.

80%+ of states are conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. 1.3 million voters in the 10 states decided the election.

NOW Idaho, Montana, Nebraksa,

oldgulph — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 17:53:36 +0000

In reply to Uh, yeah and no. It works

NOW Idaho, Montana, Nebraksa, and Hawaii are among the 24 of the 27 smallest states that have been "skipped" by presidential general election campaigns.

38 states,of all sizes, have been "skipped"

The only states that received any attention in the 2012 general election campaign for President were states within 3% of the national outcome.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

The predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.

80%+ of states are conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

Proportional electoral votes

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 09:01:01 +0000

In reply to Are you pointing out that

Proportional electoral votes instead of winner-take-all? Then the minimum is 3 votes per state, but the larger states are still in play? Still has its flaws, but the small states are only 1/20th the large states in power.

Or maybe we don't care about smaller states anymore?

I support wholeheartedly the

HSG — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 00:26:17 +0000

In reply to The National Popular Vote

I support wholeheartedly the National Popular Vote bill.

Uh, yeah and no. It works

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:20:00 +0000

In reply to Are you pointing out that

Uh, yeah and no. It works that way now, but in a straight popular vote there simply is no reason to visit the 6 least populous states, as together they make up ~1% of the US population and are a distraction. Then skipping Idaho, Montana, Nebraska and Hawaii for another 1 1/2% saves a lot of travel time and cost for not much. So 1/10th of the country gone. From there you play the same kind of bingo as currently goes on, though hedging bets more thanks to marginal losses that count.

Perversely, many of the people complaining about lack of popular vote are fine with the caucuses, where from Iowa with 3.1 million, 190K voted Republican and 170K voted Democrat (an improvement over 2004's dismal 120K Dem). And Nevada with 2.9 million, 84K voted Republican, 84K voted Democrat. Feel the democracy, the sprit of 1/3 of a percent participation.

A solution? Probably not that hard.

Are you pointing out that

oldgulph — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 20:45:30 +0000

In reply to So NY, CA, TX, FL, IL. 1/3 of

Are you pointing out that with the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

So NY, CA, TX, FL, IL. 1/3 of

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 18:15:28 +0000

In reply to The National Popular Vote

So NY, CA, TX, FL, IL. 1/3 of population

Add Pa, MI, Ohio, NJ, GA, North Carolina you're well over half. 11 states'll do it -why worry about anything else?

The National Popular Vote

oldgulph — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:48:50 +0000

In reply to Who is more electable Bernie or Hillary?

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

Because of state-by-state

oldgulph — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:47:16 +0000

In reply to Who is more electable Bernie or Hillary?

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all awarding of electoral votes, state-by-state polling, especially of the remaining 7 swing states, would not make it impossible to state with any degree of confidence, which Democrat has a better chance of winning the general election.

Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia said on October 31, 2015, unless the 2016 presidential election is a landslide, it will come down to 86 electoral votes spread across seven states — Florida with 29, Ohio with 19, Virginia with 13, Colorado with 9, Nevada and Iowa with 6 and New Hampshire with 4.

The Boston Globe noted on Dec. 8, 2015: "The Electoral College math doesn’t give the Republican nominee any room for error. In fact, Karl Rove reminded Republicans this month that they must win Florida to even have a shot at taking the White House."

Paul Ryan said, "If there's a thing I learned from being involved in the 2012 election, it's that we can't have this Electoral College strategy with the margin of error of one state." (August 21, 2014)

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.

· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012

· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012

· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012

· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012

· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988

· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988