Non-partisan Redistricting

[Thumb]

What president ever got the most votes nationally and lost the election?

I think he means presidential candidate.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think he means presidential candidate.

I did name one...Andrew Jackson...in my edit...he became president the next election...he didn't have a majority when he lost to JQ Adams, but he did have a plurality...

 

[Thumb]

I did name one...Andrew Jackson...in my edit...he became president the next election...he didn't have a majority when he lost to JQ Adams, but he did have a plurality...

Okay, but I'm pretty sure he is talking about popular vote. A presidential candidate losing the election but receiving more total votes then his opponent(s) because of the electoral college. And It's happened a few times I believe, Gore being the latest.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Okay, but I'm pretty sure he is talking about popular vote. A presidential candidate losing the election but receiving more total votes then his opponent(s) because of the electoral college. And It's happened a few times I believe, Gore being the latest.

Yes, Quincy Adams v Andrew Jackson (there were a couple other candidates in that election, and as we all know, the electoral process was very different then), Gore v Bush, and then maybe one other time...

...what he (he being sbee) doesn't understand that under constitutional proscription, terminating the electoral college is and always will be functionally impossible...people who live in lesser populated states feel it protects them from having no voice in presidential elections...and giving people in lesser populated states a voice is exactly what the electoral college was designed to do...

 

[Thumb]

...what he (he being sbee) doesn't understand that under constitutional proscription, terminating the electoral college is and always will be functionally impossible...people who live in lesser populated states feel it protects them from having no voice in presidential elections...and giving people in lesser populated states a voice is exactly what the electoral college was designed to do...

And how does it do that? It's the same as the congressional representation, small population states get less, big population states get more.

Sorry, I don't see how people living in small states feel protected from having no voice in presidential elections in the electoral college system vs. a popular vote.

Honestly, I see it the other way around.

 

[grandy]

I can sort of understand the reasoning behind it, take for example the figures for the 2012 election.

New Hampshire is worth 4 electoral votes
710,972 votes were cast in NH
369,561 votes were cast for Obama in NH
1 NH electoral vote = 177,743 votes
1 NH electoral vote = 92,390 votes for Obama

New York is worth 29 electoral votes
7,081,159 votes were cast in NY
4,485,741 votes were cast for Obama in NY
1 NY electoral vote = 244,177 votes
1 NY electoral vote = 154,680 votes for Obama

1 vote in NH was worth about 1.37 times a vote in NY
1 vote for Obama in NH was worth about 1.67 times a vote for Obama in NY

While the electoral gain may seem small, the combination of the smaller states add up
8 states have 3 EVs = 24 EVs (4.5% of Total)
13 states have 4 EVs or less = 44 EVs (8.2% of Total)
16 states have 5 EVs or less = 59 EVs (11% of Total)
22 states have 6 EVs or less = 95 EVs (17.7% of Total)
30 states have less than 10 EVs = 159 EVs (29.6% of Total)

8 states accounted for 4.5% of the total EVs. 2,727,021 votes were cast in those states which only accounted for 2.1% of the popular vote.

 

[tinselwolverine]

And how does it do that? It's the same as the congressional representation, small population states get less, big population states get more.

Sorry, I don't see how people living in small states feel protected from having no voice in presidential elections in the electoral college system vs. a popular vote.

Honestly, I see it the other way around.

Gulo answered this in post #47:

As to why small states get more voting power per person, it's so big states can't run over little states. Otherwise the politicians from the biggest 8 or 9 states could all collaborate and push policy that benefits them by taking advantage of the other 41 states.

This is what/how people in small states think/feel.

 

[Sbee]

Yes, Quincy Adams v Andrew Jackson (there were a couple other candidates in that election, and as we all know, the electoral process was very different then), Gore v Bush, and then maybe one other time...

...what he (he being sbee) doesn't understand that under constitutional proscription, terminating the electoral college is and always will be functionally impossible...people who live in lesser populated states feel it protects them from having no voice in presidential elections...and giving people in lesser populated states a voice is exactly what the electoral college was designed to do...

Jefferson said that the constitution should be revised or rewritten every 20 years as well.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Jefferson said that the constitution should be revised or rewritten every 20 years as well.

Ya know, byco has made that point about Jefferson on this board, too...

 

[Thumb]

Gulo answered this in post #47:

As to why small states get more voting power per person, it's so big states can't run over little states. Otherwise the politicians from the biggest 8 or 9 states could all collaborate and push policy that benefits them by taking advantage of the other 41 states.

This is what/how people in small states think/feel.

I saw Red's post.

That's his view on it, I just don't necessarily agree with it. As far as that's how people in little states think/feel about it, that's opinion as well. I don't know that many understand they get an extra 33% voting power, or that it makes that much difference in the avalanche.

I think at the very least the electoral college needs to be revised. I have never really cared for the idea that the people don't elect the POTUS or VP, but the electors do, who are not bound by law to cast their votes along with the majority, only by tradition.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I saw Red's post.

That's his view on it, I just don't necessarily agree with it.

Well, granted, he always has been a little bit of a right wing extremist nut job.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm thinking more from a presidential election standpoint, I don't see a problem with one person one vote.

It applies to the president too. "Hi, vote for me for President. I'm going to pump money into cities because distributed infrastructure is really expensive. Screw farmers. Who needs food?" Bam! Elected.

 

[Gulo Blue]

???

One vote for president in Vermont counts as much as one in Texas.

A policy stance that benefits New York City means you don't have to cater to New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, either Dakota, Alaska, Vermont or Wyoming.

So screw N. Dakota. We're going to frack the hell out of the place and then we're going to tax the snot out of fracking. Hell, all N. Dakota mineral rights now belong to the government. Eminent domain, fools! Get out tha' way! Here comes Haliburton on a no-bid contract, bringing cheap gas to the cities. Everybody wins!

 

[Michchamp]

calm down, Red.

 

[tinselwolverine]

calm down, Red.

Every time someone accuses him of being a liberal, this is the shit that happens...

 

[Gulo Blue]

calm down, Red.

I'm pre-coffee sleepy. Wait 'til I get going.

 

[Sbee]

A policy stance that benefits New York City means you don't have to cater to New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, either Dakota, Alaska, Vermont or Wyoming.

So screw N. Dakota. We're going to frack the hell out of the place and then we're going to tax the snot out of fracking. Hell, all N. Dakota mineral rights now belong to the government. Eminent domain, fools! Get out tha' way! Here comes Haliburton on a no-bid contract, bringing cheap gas to the cities. Everybody wins!

not a likely situation but we have a congress has to pass laws. You'd still have 2 senators in N Dakota that have as much power as California in that chamber. that policy that you mentioned would require 60 votes to pass.

that also works in reverse, a first term president may have good reasons to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba but that would kill them because it would cost them Florida and their electoral votes when running for reelection

what he have now is an electoral process where candidates essentially write off 40 of the states because those are essentially pre-determined. losing the popular vote but winning the election has happened 4 times in 56 elections, that's a pretty significant #.

 

[Michchamp]

It applies to the president too. "Hi, vote for me for President. I'm going to pump money into cities because distributed infrastructure is really expensive. Screw farmers. Who needs food?" Bam! Elected.

"farmers?" you mean Monsanto, ADM, and other big fertilizer and seed conglomerates? I think that industry is, if anything, over-represented on K Street.

 

[Gulo Blue]

"farmers?" you mean Monsanto, ADM, and other big fertilizer and seed conglomerates? I think that industry is, if anything, over-represented on K Street.

Yeah, that was a pretty outdated thing to say. I went to Farm Aid recently. I'll blame that. It's actually a pretty great mix of rednecks and hippies.

Doesn't change the point of the EC biasing. The rural/urban split is a big political deal and it's cheaper per voter to cater to people that live in a small area than a big area.

 

[Gulo Blue]

not a likely situation but we have a congress has to pass laws. You'd still have 2 senators in N Dakota that have as much power as California in that chamber. that policy that you mentioned would require 60 votes to pass.

that also works in reverse, a first term president may have good reasons to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba but that would kill them because it would cost them Florida and their electoral votes when running for reelection

what he have now is an electoral process where candidates essentially write off 40 of the states because those are essentially pre-determined. losing the popular vote but winning the election has happened 4 times in 56 elections, that's a pretty significant #.

Well, you might not like it or think it works, but you asked why we do it. This isn't some political opinion I'm arguing that I just made up. I'm pretty sure I got the explanation from grade school civics. The reason we do it this way is to protect the interests of smaller states.