2020 US General Election Thread V: Pandemic Postpones Polls

[Diopolis]

As would abolishing the EC.

And your point is? We both want something that will not happen. Your idea of farms getting more votes is nuts too

I don't pretend to be mainstream.

[Farnhamia]

I think they'd rather have the cash. I propose that people who can't spell "amendment" get no say in how the Constitution is amended.

Why would you need subsidies when you have highly disproportionate political control?

[San Lumen]

And your point is? We both want something that will not happen. Your idea of farms getting more votes is nuts too

I don't pretend to be mainstream.

Im also not understanding why you think land area should matter more than votes? It would be a rigged election.

[Telconi]

I don't pretend to be mainstream.

Im also not understanding why you think land area should matter more than votes? It would be a rigged election.

No more rigged than your method.

[Necroghastia]

Im also not understanding why you think land area should matter more than votes? It would be a rigged election.

No more rigged than your method.

How so?

[San Lumen]

Im also not understanding why you think land area should matter more than votes? It would be a rigged election.

No more rigged than your method.

How is that rigged?

[Telconi]

No more rigged than your method.

How is that rigged?

It's not.

[San Lumen]

How is that rigged?

It's not.

Then why did you just say it was?

[Telconi]

It's not.

Then why did you just say it was?

I didn't...

[Saturna1ia]

The silly thing about your back and forths Telconi, Diopolis, and San Lumen is that the compromise to this disagreement is so simple a child could figure out what you all cannot. The Electoral College does not have to be abolished, farmers can keep their overrepresentation, and the President can win only if he/she wins the popular vote as well. An Amendment to the Constitution requiring delegates be allocated proportionally by each state's popular vote. A less radical electoral reform than the 17th Amendment, and a reform increasingly feasible as demographic changes in certain states hurt the future electoral prospects of both parties.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

A page and a half of teasing San Lumen. You can't just tell them they're wrong?

Someone should just tell SL that it's the population of states which distorts the Electoral College away from one person one vote.
Not ANYTHING TO DO WITH LAND AREA. Neither ownership or proximity to land gives anyone any more or less votes than another.

Small population states can be tiny (Delaware) or enormous (Alaska), their physical size makes zero difference.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The silly thing about your back and forths Telconi, Diopolis, and San Lumen is that the compromise to this disagreement is so simple a child could figure out what you all cannot. The Electoral College does not have to be abolished, farmers can keep their overrepresentation, and the President can win only if he/she wins the popular vote as well. An Amendment to the Constitution requiring delegates be allocated proportionally by each state's popular vote. A less radical electoral reform than the 17th Amendment, and a reform increasingly feasible as demographic changes in certain states hurt the future electoral prospects of both parties.

Firstly I doubt "farmers are over-represented" and in all the years I've been here I've never seen a strong argument for that.

I did however look at what happens if EC delegates are distributed to candidates according to the popular vote. It does produce a proportional result if you cross state boundaries (ie it's national popular vote) but also produces non-results if an absolute majority is still required (third parties take the balance quite often) ... and bear in mind that despite winning the popular vote Clinton did not in fact win a majority. That's going to happen quite often and I cannot endorse any system which makes it common for the US House to pick a President.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I don't pretend to be mainstream.

Im also not understanding why you think land area should matter more than votes? It would be a rigged election.

In fact, 28% of the votes would be cast by the federal government itself. "On behalf of" the citizens who supposedly own Federal Land.

I can't say for sure how that goes but I suspect it would be a near-unbeatable incumbency advantage.

[Diopolis]

Im also not understanding why you think land area should matter more than votes? It would be a rigged election.

In fact, 28% of the votes would be cast by the federal government itself. "On behalf of" the citizens who supposedly own Federal Land.

I can't say for sure how that goes but I suspect it would be a near-unbeatable incumbency advantage.

More than likely that would be regulated as having to be cast proportionately with other landowners.

[Saturna1ia]

The silly thing about your back and forths Telconi, Diopolis, and San Lumen is that the compromise to this disagreement is so simple a child could figure out what you all cannot. The Electoral College does not have to be abolished, farmers can keep their overrepresentation, and the President can win only if he/she wins the popular vote as well. An Amendment to the Constitution requiring delegates be allocated proportionally by each state's popular vote. A less radical electoral reform than the 17th Amendment, and a reform increasingly feasible as demographic changes in certain states hurt the future electoral prospects of both parties.

Firstly I doubt "farmers are over-represented" and in all the years I've been here I've never seen a strong argument for that.

I did however look at what happens if EC delegates are distributed to candidates according to the popular vote. It does produce a proportional result if you cross state boundaries (ie it's national popular vote) but also produces non-results if an absolute majority is still required (third parties take the balance quite often) ... and bear in mind that despite winning the popular vote Clinton did not in fact win a majority. That's going to happen quite often and I cannot endorse any system which makes it common for the US House to pick a President.

You looked at what happens with the current playbook. If the idea were to be adopted by Amendment then both parties and presidential campaigns in the future would revise their electoral strategies. This does not require critical thought to figure out.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Firstly I doubt "farmers are over-represented" and in all the years I've been here I've never seen a strong argument for that.

I did however look at what happens if EC delegates are distributed to candidates according to the popular vote. It does produce a proportional result if you cross state boundaries (ie it's national popular vote) but also produces non-results if an absolute majority is still required (third parties take the balance quite often) ... and bear in mind that despite winning the popular vote Clinton did not in fact win a majority. That's going to happen quite often and I cannot endorse any system which makes it common for the US House to pick a President.

You looked at what happens with the current playbook. If the idea were to be adopted by Amendment then both parties and presidential campaigns in the future would revise their electoral strategies. This does not require critical thought to figure out.

The strategy to win an outright majority is precisely the same as the strategy to win the plurality. It's just "win as many as we can" and I can't put it more simply than that. If your proposal requires absolute majorities of the popular vote to avoid contingent elections then your plan isn't worth shit.

However unrepresentative the current system is, it's far better than the US House voting by contingent.

[Saturna1ia]

You looked at what happens with the current playbook. If the idea were to be adopted by Amendment then both parties and presidential campaigns in the future would revise their electoral strategies. This does not require critical thought to figure out.

The strategy to win an outright majority is precisely the same as the strategy to win the plurality. It's just "win as many as we can" and I can't put it more simply than that. If your proposal requires absolute majorities of the popular vote to avoid contingent elections then your plan isn't worth shit.

However unrepresentative the current system is, it's far better than the US House voting by contingent.

You are wrong. The current electoral strategy is to focus on winning just enough votes in a handful of key states while the rest are either in the bag or unobtainable. That electoral mentality isn't worth a shit, and even damaging to America's political stability. The possibility of the House being called upon to decide the President-Elect is more than enough to light a fire under the asses of party electoral strategists, and change party outreach as well as decisions on presidential nominees to those with wider appeal in all parts of the Union.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The strategy to win an outright majority is precisely the same as the strategy to win the plurality. It's just "win as many as we can" and I can't put it more simply than that. If your proposal requires absolute majorities of the popular vote to avoid contingent elections then your plan isn't worth shit.

However unrepresentative the current system is, it's far better than the US House voting by contingent.

You are wrong. The current electoral strategy is to focus on winning just enough votes in a handful of key states while the rest are either in the bag or unobtainable. That electoral mentality isn't worth a shit, and even damaging to America's political stability. The possibility of the House being called upon to decide the President-Elect is more than enough to light a fire under the asses of party electoral strategists, and change party outreach as well as decisions on presidential nominees to those with wider appeal in all parts of the Union.

Winning a majority or plurality of the popular vote does require a different strategy than winning a majority in the electoral college. Sorry I misunderstood, but still "lighting a fire under the asses" of both parties isn't any more likely to produce a majority every time than the current situation where a majority of the vote is a meaningless trophy. Republicans and Democrats would be trying for the same thing and TOO often neither would get it.

Why not just amend the requirement for a majority, make it a plurality, or better yet distribute the third party vote using STV so one of the majors always gets a technical majority.

Contingent election is very bad I hope you agree.

[Cisairse]

... and bear in mind that despite winning the popular vote Clinton did not in fact win a majority.

It's worth noting that this is not only true for Hillary, it's also true for Bill in both '92 and '96.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

... and bear in mind that despite winning the popular vote Clinton did not in fact win a majority.

It's worth noting that this is not only true for Hillary, it's also true for Bill in both '92 and '96.

Saturna1ia's point is relevant though, neither Hillary nor Donald were trying to win the popular vote. Both gave up large numbers of votes in the red or blue states because those were just not necessary to win by the rules.

I do think that with a popular vote based contest it would be a lot less common for the leading contender to get in the 45-49% range. But it would still happen occasionally (for instance it happens in 1 or 2 {of about 33} Senate races, the nearest equivalent) and unless there's some alternative implemented against the House contingent election, I must oppose.

Senate of course is decided first past the post. I'm not a big fan of that either.

[San Lumen]

You are wrong. The current electoral strategy is to focus on winning just enough votes in a handful of key states while the rest are either in the bag or unobtainable. That electoral mentality isn't worth a shit, and even damaging to America's political stability. The possibility of the House being called upon to decide the President-Elect is more than enough to light a fire under the asses of party electoral strategists, and change party outreach as well as decisions on presidential nominees to those with wider appeal in all parts of the Union.

Winning a majority or plurality of the popular vote does require a different strategy than winning a majority in the electoral college. Sorry I misunderstood, but still "lighting a fire under the asses" of both parties isn't any more likely to produce a majority every time than the current situation where a majority of the vote is a meaningless trophy. Republicans and Democrats would be trying for the same thing and TOO often neither would get it.

Why not just amend the requirement for a majority, make it a plurality, or better yet distribute the third party vote using STV so one of the majors always gets a technical majority.

Contingent election is very bad I hope you agree.

or would could just have the person with the most votes win. Amazing concept I know.

[Cisairse]

Winning a majority or plurality of the popular vote does require a different strategy than winning a majority in the electoral college. Sorry I misunderstood, but still "lighting a fire under the asses" of both parties isn't any more likely to produce a majority every time than the current situation where a majority of the vote is a meaningless trophy. Republicans and Democrats would be trying for the same thing and TOO often neither would get it.

Why not just amend the requirement for a majority, make it a plurality, or better yet distribute the third party vote using STV so one of the majors always gets a technical majority.

Contingent election is very bad I hope you agree.

or would could just have the person with the most votes win. Amazing concept I know.

And have a genocidal maniac get elected with 41.4% of the vote? Pass.

[Post War America]

or would could just have the person with the most votes win. Amazing concept I know.

And have a genocidal maniac get elected with 41.4% of the vote? Pass.

I mean, to be fair most of our presidents have engaged in activites that aren't exactly copacetic with human rights, or upstanding moral behavior.

[Cisairse]

And have a genocidal maniac get elected with 41.4% of the vote? Pass.

I mean, to be fair most of our presidents have engaged in activites that aren't exactly copacetic with human rights, or upstanding moral behavior.

I don't think that justifies a president being "elected" despite a supermajority of voters voting against them.

[San Lumen]

I mean, to be fair most of our presidents have engaged in activites that aren't exactly copacetic with human rights, or upstanding moral behavior.

I don't think that justifies a president being "elected" despite a supermajority of voters voting against them.

The person with the most votes should be elected. simple as that.