Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
taestell

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Recommended Posts

It certainly is picking up steam in purple states now.  It all depends on how short-sighted Republicans in the state are.  Yes, the EC got them the 2016 election, and could get them the 2020.  But they are quickly running into huge swing states that are getting younger and more diverse.  If the unthinkable happens and Texas turns purple, and FL turns blue, they will be clamoring for the NPVIC as fast as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like this goes against the self-interest of purple state voters. Currently they enjoy an out-sized importance/voice, which evaporates with NPVIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

It certainly is picking up steam in purple states now.  It all depends on how short-sighted Republicans in the state are.  Yes, the EC got them the 2016 election, and could get them the 2020.  But they are quickly running into huge swing states that are getting younger and more diverse.  If the unthinkable happens and Texas turns purple, and FL turns blue, they will be clamoring for the NPVIC as fast as possible.

 

 

 I don't think that would really be the case. It would just shift the paradigm of what is a conservative issue and what is liberal in the country. No matter what, as proven in 2016. Whomever runs will get at least 47% of the vote. A ham sandwich will still get 47% of the vote because people have a choice. Vote for a candidate or vote against the candidate.  When given more than one option, a certain % will always vote option B no matter what.

 

If TX and FL go blue, the GOP will have to just morph to policies that will attract voters from those states. Parties are transforming all the time. You saw it with the Dems under Bush/Obama. You see it now with the GOP under Obama/Trump. Things will sort themselves out. no need to blow up the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Robuu said:

Seems like this goes against the self-interest of purple state voters. Currently they enjoy an out-sized importance/voice, which evaporates with NPVIC.

 

That's true, but I'd rather have a functioning Democracy than more power for myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ you can have a functioning democracy with the current system too. It is not like the popular vote is a cure all. It would create other unintended consequences too such as centralizing power in a few large states that care little about your local interests

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never understand the argument. Because you happen to live in a sparsely populated state, your vote should be worth 300% of a vote in a large state? If your vote is in the extreme minority of your state's makeup, your vote basically doesn't count? Seems like a bad system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, bind electoral college votes to candidate winning majority popular vote, no matter which party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ you can have a functioning democracy with the current system too. It is not like the popular vote is a cure all. It would create other unintended consequences too such as centralizing power in a few large states that care little about your local interests 

Technically you can't, because the EC isn't bound to any voters' votes. You could fix it so they are, but then you'd have the "problem" tklg is alluding to that the EC votes are "blind" (though following each state's popular vote rather than the national one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ you can have a functioning democracy with the current system too. It is not like the popular vote is a cure all. It would create other unintended consequences too such as centralizing power in a few large states that care little about your local interests

 

Please explain to me how my "local" interests are different than the national interest? Because I've lived in several different states and my own interests never changed. I support stricter environmental regulations so my family can have cleaner air and water. That was just as important to me when I lived in deep blue Delaware as it is when I live in Southern Ohio. Whether we're talking about the Delaware Bay or the Ohio River, the EPA policies that are necessary are the same. Where I lay my head at night doesn't matter in most cases.

 

And for truly local issues, we have people looking out for our interests already. They're called city council people, county commissioners, state legislators. Heck, even your local Congressperson is primarily concerned (or should be) with local interests. Why is the extra layer of "local" interest protection necessary? It's not. It never has been. It was a system devised to bring slaveholders to the table. That's it. It has no relevance in 21st Century America. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

I'll never understand the argument. Because you happen to live in a sparsely populated state, your vote should be worth 300% of a vote in a large state? If your vote is in the extreme minority of your state's makeup, your vote basically doesn't count? Seems like a bad system.

 

We are the "United States of America." The country is a collection of states, not a collection of people. States pick the president, and smaller states are given a minimum say, regardless of population, so as to prevent larger states from making smaller states vassals. It's a great system and it mirrors the representation given via the legislature. The country as we know it would not exist today if not for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

We are the "United States of America." The country is a collection of states, not a collection of people. 

 

You guys keep saying this as if no one else understands American history. It's exhausting. We all get how the electoral college works. We don't need a lesson. 

 

But we are also literally a collection of people, which is much more important in the 21st Century. When i lived in Delaware I could see Maryland from my house. The people on the other side of that line (literally across the street) were no different and had the exact same interests. We were a part of the same community. The same goes for when I lived in PA and could see NJ from my apartment. The same is true today as I sit in my office and look out my window across the Ohio River at Northern Kentucky. Those people are a part of the Cincinnati community. The state line is arbitrary and has no basis in how the world works today. It only serves as a convenient way for your side of the aisle to gain undemocratic influence over elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

We are the "United States of America." The country is a collection of states, not a collection of people. States pick the president, and smaller states are given a minimum say, regardless of population, so as to prevent larger states from making smaller states vassals. It's a great system and it mirrors the representation given via the legislature. The country as we know it would not exist today if not for it.

 

I think it’s also prudent to point out that the “small states vs big states” idea really is a false narrative and white washing of what the idea was really for.

 

The southern states, much of who’s population were slaves (and obviously couldn’t vote), did not want a direct election for the presidency because the northern states would have more voting power. So, James Madison proposed the electoral college and counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for electoral college population purposes. Low and behold Virgina then had the most electoral delegates.

 

Or as James Madison himself put it:

 

The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

 

I think it’s also prudent to point out that the “small states vs big states” idea really is a false narrative and white washing of what the idea was really for.

 

The southern states, much of who’s population were slaves (and obviously couldn’t vote), did not want a direct election for the presidency because the northern states would have more voting power. So, James Madison proposed the electoral college and counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for electoral college population purposes. Low and behold Virgina then had the most electoral delegates.

 

Or as James Madison himself put it:

 

The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” 

 

Exactly. An excellent point. And Virginia was actually the largest state in terms of population. It had almost one-fifth of the total US population. But about 40% of those residents were slaves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

I'll never understand the argument. Because you happen to live in a sparsely populated state, your vote should be worth 300% of a vote in a large state? If your vote is in the extreme minority of your state's makeup, your vote basically doesn't count? Seems like a bad system.

 

First, we have to dispel the notion that the US was a democracy. It never was. It was always intended to be a constitutional republic. There are differences. It is where our grade school civics classes mislead us.   Secondly, It is important to recognize the US operates more like the UAE form of government than most Western European or Canadian forms of government. In the US the dual sovereignty of the state and federal government is an important part baked into our constitution. Without that dual sovereignty, there is no United States. This is why the EC is important. Even at the time, it was known that states like VA and NY would have much more power than states like RI or ME. The EC and creation of the upper Senate chamber was meant to alleviate this. At certain points, the States were to stand on equal footing.  California or New York, could not be more important than Alaska or Alabama because more people resided in one over the other. They each brought things to the table and in front of the Federal legislature, they were treated equally. Think United Nations. 

 

The democracy that civics class cites is between the people and the states. That is their sovereign. The Federal government is designed to be weak because the true sovereign has always been the state. Think a lot of the Federal laws akin to trade agreements between the states for economic benefit of everyone. It is obviously more complex than that but that is the premise of how it was designed.

 

People get too caught up in the national elections because they garner the most press. But this is not America Junior (Just having some fun at Canada's expense) or Europe with strong centralized governments who give power to local governments but it all flows through one system. If you want to truly effect change, it is not the EC you should be focused on, focus on your local elections and then state elections.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

People get too caught up in the national elections because they garner the most press. But this is not America Junior (Just having some fun at Canada's expense) or Europe with strong centralized governments who give power to local governments but it all flows through one system. If you want to truly effect change, it is not the EC you should be focused on, focus on your local elections and then state elections.  

 

Here, here...

 

And, speaking to your point about grade school civics classes, if you want to effect change, get on local school district board of education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ absolutely right. Personally, I don't care to run for school board, but if anything can truly effect what our children are learning, that is a great place to start.

 

I don't mean to chastise our civics classes, however, given the amount of time spent on them and understanding our complex system, it is no wonder why the vast majority of people get frustrated as to the state of the republic, it is because they never truly understand how it works. To be honest, I really never completely understood it until I went to law school.

 

I am not saying that a legal education is required to truly understand the system, but certainly, a bit more than what we have now would be helpful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:


First, we have to dispel the notion that the US was a democracy. It never was. It was always intended to be a constitutional republic.

 

We all understand this. You're not telling us anything new. 

 

Quote

There are differences. It is where our grade school civics classes mislead us. 

 

No they don't. They covered it pretty well. And it was covered again in HS civics. And again in college if you took government 101. We all get it. 

 

Quote

  Secondly, It is important to recognize the US operates more like the UAE form of government than most Western European or Canadian forms of government.

 

No it doesn't. The UAE is a confederation of absolute monarchies. We are a constitutional republic, just like Germany or France.

 

Quote

In the US the dual sovereignty of the state and federal government is an important part baked into our constitution. Without that dual sovereignty, there is no United States. This is why the EC is important. Even at the time, it was known that states like VA and NY would have much more power than states like RI or ME. The EC and creation of the upper Senate chamber was meant to alleviate this.

 

No they weren't. The EC gave more power to Virginia, not less.

 

Quote

At certain points, the States were to stand on equal footing.  California or New York, could not be more important than Alaska or Alabama because more people resided in one over the other. They each brought things to the table and in front of the Federal legislature, they were treated equally.

 

California, Alaska, and Alabama did not exist.

 

Quote

Think United Nations. 

 

It is nothing like the United Nations.

 

Quote

The democracy that civics class cites is between the people and the states. That is their sovereign. The Federal government is designed to be weak because the true sovereign has always been the state. Think a lot of the Federal laws akin to trade agreements between the states for economic benefit of everyone. It is obviously more complex than that but that is the premise of how it was designed.

 

No, the founding fathers disagreed over whether the federal government should be weak or strong but there was never any notion that sovereignty did not belong to the federal government under our constitution. The whole point of the constitution was to give the federal government power because they saw how the Articles of Confederation failed.

 

Quote

If you want to truly effect change, it is not the EC you should be focused on, focus on your local elections and then state elections.  

 

People can walk and chew gum at the same time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

First, we have to dispel the notion that the US was a democracy. It never was. It was always intended to be a constitutional republic. There are differences. It is where our grade school civics classes mislead us.   Secondly, It is important to recognize the US operates more like the UAE form of government than most Western European or Canadian forms of government. In the US the dual sovereignty of the state and federal government is an important part baked into our constitution. Without that dual sovereignty, there is no United States. This is why the EC is important. Even at the time, it was known that states like VA and NY would have much more power than states like RI or ME. The EC and creation of the upper Senate chamber was meant to alleviate this. At certain points, the States were to stand on equal footing.  California or New York, could not be more important than Alaska or Alabama because more people resided in one over the other. They each brought things to the table and in front of the Federal legislature, they were treated equally. Think United Nations. 

 

The democracy that civics class cites is between the people and the states. That is their sovereign. The Federal government is designed to be weak because the true sovereign has always been the state. Think a lot of the Federal laws akin to trade agreements between the states for economic benefit of everyone. It is obviously more complex than that but that is the premise of how it was designed.

 

People get too caught up in the national elections because they garner the most press. But this is not America Junior (Just having some fun at Canada's expense) or Europe with strong centralized governments who give power to local governments but it all flows through one system. If you want to truly effect change, it is not the EC you should be focused on, focus on your local elections and then state elections.  

 

 A couple things:  we are a constitutional republic, but we are also a democracy.  You may be thinking in terms of direct democracy vs. representative democracy--we are certainly the latter, but since the earliest days of the Republic, there have been voters.  The suffrage has expanded (from wealthy property owning white males to everyone), but we've always been a representative democracy.  That voting aspect may not be clearly enshrined in the earliest parts of the Constitution, but as a practical matter, there has been a voting aspect to the American system of government--whether on the state or local level--since the founding.  

 

Second, your description of the Federal government as "designed to be "weak" because the true sovereign has always been the state"  may describe the Articles of Confederation, but not the Republic under the Constitution.  Look no further than an issue like gay marriage--no doubt many states still have constitutional bans on gay marriage on the books, but also no doubt that those are inoperative, because federal law overrules the states in that instance.  The Supremacy clause is clear that when there is a conflict, federal law prevails.  I don't see how you can characterize any entity as the "true sovereign" when its laws are subject to overrule by another sovereign.  

Edited by jdm00
Clarifying on voting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jdm00 said:

 

 A couple things:  we are a constitutional republic, but we are also a democracy.  You may be thinking in terms of direct democracy vs. representative democracy--we are certainly the latter, but since the earliest days of the Republic, there have been voters.  The suffrage has expanded (from wealthy property owning white males to everyone), but we've always been a representative democracy.  That voting aspect may not be clearly enshrined in the earliest parts of the Constitution, but as a practical matter, there has been a voting aspect to the American system of government--whether on the state or local level--since the founding.  

 

Second, your description of the Federal government as "designed to be "weak" because the true sovereign has always been the state"  may describe the Articles of Confederation, but not the Republic under the Constitution.  Look no further than an issue like gay marriage--no doubt many states still have constitutional bans on gay marriage on the books, but also no doubt that those are inoperative, because federal law overrules the states in that instance.  The Supremacy clause is clear that when there is a conflict, federal law prevails.  I don't see how you can characterize any entity as the "true sovereign" when its laws are subject to overrule by another sovereign.  

We are a nation of dual sovereignty. The articles of Confederation were a loosely regulated set of rules, the Constitution helped codify those rules. Now, certainly, the Federal government has gained a lot more power in the 20th century than it took on initially and maybe what the founders intended, but that is fine. It is how the law works and designed to be changed and modified as time marches on.

 

That does not change the fact that the system bakes in a strong "brake" if you want to call it that of states rights to prevent the federal government from getting too much power. Personally, I think the gay marriage decision was a bad decision in this case, not because I have an issue with gay marriage, I am personally for gay marriage if anyone cares, but because this was a right specifically reserved to the states that the federal government tried to exert authority. You cite the strong fed government approach, I counter with another approach in law enforcement. Look back to the Kavanaugh investigation. There were those who insisted on a full FBI investigation into the matter (not just a background check), but the thing about it was that this was an alleged incident that occurred in MD and under MD law and therefore, the FBI could never had exercised jurisdiction in the matter. This is where the US is different than Canada and/or most European Countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A vote in Wyoming is worth 3.92 votes in Texas. A vote in Hawaii is worth 2.03 votes in California. That's not a good system. It's a broken electoral system that could easily be fixed by instituting a popular vote for whoever runs the country as a whole. No individual should get a stronger voice for president than anyone else. Our Constitution is flawed. This is an easy fix for a 21st Century nation.

 

Also, I don't really care what the founders intended. They could never have predicted what challenges the country would face. The best thing they did was allow us to change how the system is set up so we can adapt. Some here don't think that's the right thing to do when we face a growing problem with the Electoral College. The Constitution is a living document, and we need to update it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

We are a nation of dual sovereignty. The articles of Confederation were a loosely regulated set of rules, the Constitution helped codify those rules. Now, certainly, the Federal government has gained a lot more power in the 20th century than it took on initially and maybe what the founders intended, but that is fine. It is how the law works and designed to be changed and modified as time marches on.

 

That does not change the fact that the system bakes in a strong "brake" if you want to call it that of states rights to prevent the federal government from getting too much power. Personally, I think the gay marriage decision was a bad decision in this case, not because I have an issue with gay marriage, I am personally for gay marriage if anyone cares, but because this was a right specifically reserved to the states that the federal government tried to exert authority. You cite the strong fed government approach, I counter with another approach in law enforcement. Look back to the Kavanaugh investigation. There were those who insisted on a full FBI investigation into the matter (not just a background check), but the thing about it was that this was an alleged incident that occurred in MD and under MD law and therefore, the FBI could never had exercised jurisdiction in the matter. This is where the US is different than Canada and/or most European Countries.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the constitution "codifying" the Articles of Incorporation.  There was no doubt that the states had the power under the Articles, but there's a pretty seismic shift from the states to the federal government--in things like taxation, standing armies, borrowing, etc.--in the Constitution, and certainly the developments since then (the Nullification Crisis, the Civil War) have really made it clear that, while they are "dual" sovereigns, federal sovereignty outranks the states when there is any kind of conflict.  But of course, disagreeing is fine.  

 

Law enforcement is an interesting point--certainly the states have the police power (along with general health and welfare powers), but when there are conflicts between state and federal authorities where both claim jurisdiction, I feel like the feds tend to prevail.  

 

Finally, I think I learned far more about the structure of American government as an undergrad from history and political science classes than I did in law school.  I feel like the focus on cases in law school meant there was much less of a discussion of the context of things.  Or, practically speaking, I read a ton of the Federalist Papers as an undergrad, and I'm not sure if I saw anything more than excerpts of one or two essays in law school.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The consequences of a lax, or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen Sovereignties pulling against each other and all tugging the federal head, will soon bring ruin on the whole.”

 

-George Washington (Nov. 5, 1786)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I I do not dispute the nature of the Supremacy Clause and how that allows the Fed Government to usurp power left to the states. I admit my example was a bit basic yesterday, but given how complex the issue is, it really is difficult to fully explain in a 2-3 paragraph blog post.

 

I tend to think we are in agreement on the vast majority of the issue vs the nuances that we actually disagree on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ I I do not dispute the nature of the Supremacy Clause and how that allows the Fed Government to usurp power left to the states. I admit my example was a bit basic yesterday, but given how complex the issue is, it really is difficult to fully explain in a 2-3 paragraph blog post.

 

I tend to think we are in agreement on the vast majority of the issue vs the nuances that we actually disagree on.

 

I think that's fair.  There is definitely a lot of nuance in the American system.  

 

And I'm just happy to have rational discussions on these issues, even on the internet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

A vote in Wyoming is worth 3.92 votes in Texas. A vote in Hawaii is worth 2.03 votes in California. That's not a good system. It's a broken electoral system that could easily be fixed by instituting a popular vote for whoever runs the country as a whole. No individual should get a stronger voice for president than anyone else. Our Constitution is flawed. This is an easy fix for a 21st Century nation.

 

Also, I don't really care what the founders intended. They could never have predicted what challenges the country would face. The best thing they did was allow us to change how the system is set up so we can adapt. Some here don't think that's the right thing to do when we face a growing problem with the Electoral College. The Constitution is a living document, and we need to update it.

 

You underestimate our Founders. Alexander Hamilton:

 

image.png.68ee04b04531ee3464d07ca1ddbf831e.png

.

Edited by YABO713

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jdm00 said:

 

I think that's fair.  There is definitely a lot of nuance in the American system.  

 

And I'm just happy to have rational discussions on these issues, even on the internet.  

I would give you a like but that button is disabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And from James Madison again; in 1823 he didn’t like the direction the electoral college was heading. He proposed an amendment to prevent states from using the “winner take all” method. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 10:28 AM, DEPACincy said:

 

That's true, but I'd rather have a functioning Democracy than more power for myself. 

 

I'm the opposite.   The current system is a check on the excesses of "democracy", which can be just as arbitrary and intrusive as any other form of government.

 

Checks and balances work, and the elcectorate certainly seems to agree.   They consistently vote for "gridlock".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand I believe states are increasingly obsolete, due to the increasingly interstate nature of business.  Federal power has expanded greatly under the commerce clause for just this reason.  So long as the commerce cause holds up, it alone might be enough to mitigate that problem. 

 

On the other hand, disparate regions of a country this large are going to have different needs.  The electoral college prevents any region from being completely shafted by the others.  This last election turned on midwestern states whose issues have been ignored by a government dominated by coastal interests.  I'm not sure Ohio or any other state should give up its individual voice.  If we do, we could find ourselves effectively shut out of national policy.  Great Lakes water is one big example.  If this region's presidential votes are handed over to the sun belt, we risk handing over our resources as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So instead we should just ignore all of the problems in New York, California, Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, Rhode Island, New Jersey, North Dakota, etc?

No one currently needs to consider them outside of the primaries. Your time there is largely wasted. The interesting part of this conversation, is that the biggest cities in the country get almost no representation in the federal executive because everyone is trying to win suburban purple states. Our cities are the economic powerhouses of the country, and our policymakers ignore them.

 

This is a big reason we have no interstate rail, no increased funding for public transit, a complete disregard for federal housing policies in cities, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've never understood about the argument for doing away with the electoral college is that it would lead to more power in more populous states and cities. Doesn't the electoral college already do this to some extent? Winning California or Pennsylvania is more important than winning South Dakota and Oklahoma. Also, the electoral college creates a system of 'safe' states that reliably go one way or another, which causes candidates to not have to work hard for votes in those states, and instead focus on the handful of swing states that can go either way. The system we have literally has created the scenario that electoral college defenders site as a warning when discussing shifting to a popular vote system. 

 

We also already have a check in place to make sure the small states don't get rolled over by the larger ones. It's called the Senate, where little Rhode Island and huge California are given the same number of senators. So in my view, the electoral college doesn't do all that much to help small state voters, we already DO give small states outsized influence in our political system, and the EC renders minority party voters voiceless. I just don't see how this system can be defended. 

 

If switching to a simple popular vote isn't palatable, how about merely changing how electoral votes are cast to make it proportional to how the state voted? That would force candidates to campaign in red areas of blue states, and blue areas of red states, and would seemingly be a much fairer way of doing things. It would still give more power to small states, but I think this simple change would still be vastly superior to what we have now. Plus, don't some states already do this? I seem to remember Maine splitting their electoral votes last election.

Edited by edale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, edale said:

One thing I've never understood about the argument that doing away with the electoral college would lead to more power in more populous states and cities. Doesn't the electoral college already do this to some extent? Winning California or Pennsylvania is more important than winning South Dakota and Oklahoma. Also, the electoral college creates a system of 'safe' states that reliably go one way or another, which causes candidates to not have to work hard for votes in those states, and instead focus on the handful of swing states that can go either way. The system we have literally has created the scenario that electoral college defenders site as a warning when discussing shifting to a popular vote system. 

 

We also already have a check in place to make sure the small states don't get rolled over by the larger ones. It's called the Senate, where little Rhode Island and huge California are given the same number of senators. So in my view, the electoral college doesn't do all that much to help small state voters, we already DO give small states outsized influence in our political system, and the EC renders minority party voters voiceless. I just don't see how this system can be defended. 

 

If switching to a simple popular vote isn't palatable, how about merely changing how electoral votes are cast to make it proportional to how the state voted? That would force candidates to campaign in red areas of blue states, and blue areas of red states, and would seemingly be a much fairer way of doing things. It would still give more power to small states, but I think this simple change would still be vastly superior to what we have now. Plus, don't some states already do this? I seem to remember Maine splitting their electoral votes last election.

 

Totally agree. Candidates only need to focus on a handful (maybe 6-8?) states in today’s election landscape. The rest, including the small, are essentially  ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes by congressional district.  Doing that here could make Ohio far less of a swing state. 

 

11 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

So instead we should just ignore all of the problems in New York, California, Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, Rhode Island, New Jersey, North Dakota, etc?

 

That's not on the table.  Frankly I think we have bigger problems than they do and we deserve more federal attention.  I'm not sure what you mean with the whole city vs suburb issue.  States don't break down that way.  Theoretically, consolidations could give cities more power.  So would getting more people into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 327 said:

Great Lakes water is one big example.  If this region's presidential votes are handed over to the sun belt, we risk handing over our resources as well.

 

Obama is from the Midwest. Trump is from the coast.

 

It's funny you use the Great Lakes as an example. The Obama Administration worked hard to clean up the Great Lakes. Now those efforts have been reversed by the current administration. So the electoral college literally gave us the thing you fear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Obama is from the Midwest. Trump is from the coast.

 

It's funny you use the Great Lakes as an example. The Obama Administration worked hard to clean up the Great Lakes. Now those efforts have been reversed by the current administration. So the electoral college literally gave us the thing you fear. 

 

Clinton failing to campaign here is what gave us that thing.  The problem is not Great Lakes states having power, and giving up that power is not the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only one of the top ten cities in the United States (going by city population) is in a swing state if you count Pennsylvania as a swing state - Philadelphia (#6). Only two more are in the top 15 - Jacksonville, FL and Columbus, OH. If you count North Carolina as a swing state, one more is in the top 20 - Charlotte (#17).

 

Why would a presidential candidate care much about big city problems when the votes they need are in the suburbs of swing states? The issues of big cities get ignored on the national stage because no one needs their votes.

 

In the house, Democrats dominate big cities, but not the makeup of the House. In the Senate, big cities are overpowered by small states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Rhode Island having equal representation to their states. The President doesn't have to campaign on big city issues because 12/15 top cities aren't in competitive states - including the top 5 cities in the country. Cities get ignored. Yes, they host rallies in the cities because the suburban areas around the city can all reach the city. But they aren't pushing to make cities significantly better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...