I think it would be proportional. Larger states have more workers to draw on. The question is, how are the 'get out the vote' drives funded? By the parties? The state?
It has an appeal though. You have to exercise your right to vote in order to be represented. Is that impacting your liberty to not vote if you don't want to?
With all due respect to all involved I read his comment as geographic population density.
I've lived in voting districts where the election was in the basement of my dorm, in the suburban subdivision's elementary school, and in a rural area where voting was a good 10 minute highway drive. Obviously theres a big difference in "get out the vote" when one voter is pound on the dorm door and tell them to press the "B" button in the elevator, than some rural district where each voter represents like a quart of gasoline burned.
Even in the UK, where the concept originates, a lot of people view it as a bad idea. The issue right now is that nobody can agree what to change it to, since people gravitate towards the voting system that helps them in the next election cycle (and the big two want it to remain a two-party system).
Yeah: It forces parties to be broad-based and adaptable if they're going to compete nationally.
It also avoids bizarre situations like France's 2002 election, wherein the Left had to choose between Chirac and Le Pen (something similar is not improbable in 2017, as well!)
Why is making voting mandatory* a less desirable outcome?
*Or as I prefer to say, "equal cost voting choice", ie. that it takes just as much time and effort to not vote (go to polling place, accept ballot and void it) as it does to vote.
Wouldn't this lead to a TON of games? Now if you're a Democrat in Nebraska, or a Republican in California, it's in your best interest NOT to vote. That way the winner-takes-all majority in your state would get less of an impact. On the other hand, all of the Democrats in California and Republicans in Nebraska would definitely want to show up to the polls.
Basically if you think your party will win, you want to show up. If your party will lose, you want to skip. There are basically 3 equilibria: 100% of either party votes and 0% of the other one, or exactly 50/50 with the outcome unknown to anyone.
Which is why the votes ought to be pooled across states, so all the Republican votes in California don't get lost, just because the state majority ended up voting Democratic.
If you're pooling votes across the states then you don't exactly have an eloctoral college any more, and you get the turnout-proportional results anyway.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it
Will never happen. The Republican Party has almost made it its official platform to make it very hard for voters to vote. They are opposed to a holiday for elections; they come up with all sorts of excuses to take people off electoral rolls; they raise the bogey of "voter fraud" each and every election, when there's not much evidence of any.
The Democrat Party has almost made it its official platform to make it very easy for non-citizens to vote; since they're most likely to vote Democrat. They support a holiday for elections; only because it would make it easier for a part of their base to vote, not because of any benefit to voters in general. They come up with all sorts of excuses to keep people on electoral rolls; whether they should be or not. They raise the bogey (boogeyman?) of Republicans raising the bogey of "voter fraud" each and every election; even though there has been voter fraud throughout the country's history and used to be part of the platform of Progressives of the past. Edit: meaning Progressives of the past were fighting voter fraud, which many Progressives of today claim doesn't exist.
Give us some more. It's easy to provide the cynical but plausible reverse when demonizing people according to group identity/accusations thrown out there for polarizing political drama.
And before anyone jumps the gun, as often happens in these cases because people can be silly, these comments may or may not reflect my personal political views.
EDIT: you forgot the Social Security scare the Democrats accuse the Republicans from time-to-time to get old people to vote Democrat. Or is that one played out?
There's the teensiest difference between cynically encouraging people to vote, because nonvoters tend to be more Democratic than voters, and cynically trying to prevent black people from voting, because black voters tend to be more Democratic than nonblacks.
Sure there is. But are we really going to say that it is the official stance of the entire Republican party to actively prevent black people from voting? Despite the fact that one of the leading Republican candidates right now is a black man? That is absolutely ridiculous and can only be the product of a childish and overactive imagination of a conspiracy theorist partisan nutjob that produces nothing of value whatsoever in a modern society. Maybe, just maybe, the problem you describe exists mostly on the local level and it's completely unfair to paint half the country as racists or bigots because of political differences?
Are there people who actively scheme to prevent people from voting and/or get their candidate to win in nefarious ways? Sure. Are some of them Republicans? Yep. But some of them are Democrats too, they just target different people in different ways. All in all, this is the voter fraud of the modern age; using laws to give your candidate the advantage.
There's not a single policy or position that could be described as "the official stance of the entire Republican party," so you're demanding an unrealistic bar be met.
The voter suppression schemes are transparent, and they are officially endorsed in the most recent Republican platform. If you want to deny their intent--decreasing Democratic votes--and effect--disproportionately removing black people's ability to vote--you might as well go back and claim that Southern literacy tests were a wholly benign attempt at improving good government.
I'm not even sure how much we disagree, aside from equivocation about Republicans taking that position to increase odds of winning and Democrats taking the opposite to increase their odds. But the USA has a long and storied history of screwing over black people and their civil rights, so we should be especially sensitive about policies that target them to undermine their civil and political rights.
That's exactly my point. I'm not the one suggesting it, I'm responding to it.
>> The voter suppression schemes are transparent...
Yes, I even stated that. My point is that I'm not willing to label half the country as to be a part of it. In fact, I'm willing to blame people among the Democrat party of doing much the same. I just don't say it's official Democrat policy so that I'm not blaming the entire group.
>> literacy tests
Which tests? Those run by Republican or Democrat members?
>> I'm not even sure how much we disagree...
On the face of it, I don't think we do.
>> But the USA has a long and storied history of screwing over black people and their civil rights...
Which I said, US history is rife with voter fraud or disenfranchisement, whichever term you prefer. I'm not sure where you're going with all this, since it seems you are agreeing with me. Am I misunderstanding?
Wow, I had no idea that some people viewed that term as negative. I had to look it up. I guess I picked it up while reading history from when the term wasn't considered negative.
I always thought Democrat Party and the Democratic Party went together depending on usage plus the preference of the person speaking. I mean, after all, they are called Democrats so it would seem to me that Democrat Party would be used. Methinks people are just complaining to be complaining.
Interesting. Today, I learned something. Anyway, I don't think I'll shall stop using the term. Thanks for the input.
> Anyway, I don't think I'll shall stop using the term.
Given the pervasive way Republicans have aggressively and consistently used the term for longer than most people have been alive, I can understand its use in ignorance by people whose information sources have skewed to a Republican bias. But, if after your ignorance is cured, you are knowingly and deliberately using a term for a party that has been pretty much exclusively used as a hostile epithet by political opponents of that party for more than half a century, that's kind of telling.
Think what you want. I learned the term from a non-negative source and have used it in a non-negative meaning. It's not my responsibility to bear the burden of you taking offense to my innocent usage of the term. You are the one refusing to even attempt to see the context of my statement. I refuse to apologize for you taking offense when I did not give it.
Just because some people use an innocent term as a slur doesn't mean that everyone on Earth is suddenly required to avoid using the term. Most people are not out to personally hurt your feelings just because they use perfectly fine words in a correct context, words that you happen to not like. Get over yourself.
As for your perceived insult, I'll let it slide since you are clearly going by emotions instead of thinking. Besides, it's not an insult really since you have no idea what my political leanings are. Despite your supposed insight.
Meh, why is turnout something one should encourage? Put another way, why should the voices of those who could barely be bothered to show up be amplified over those of those who really care?
I don't want 100% turnout; I do want the people who don't care to stay home. I'd also like to only allow people who can pass the citizenship test given to prospective naturalised citizens to be able to vote, but that's an entirely different discussion…
"Disillusioned" is a catch-all for so many different things though.
One might be upset at hearing about corrupt practices or "it's not what you know it's who you know" politics, because that's all we hear about in the news and on TV shows (because that's the salacious part of politics).
One might be upset at having no effective voice because of the two-party system and the sheer size of the electorate in each state: If I'm a libertarian or a national socialist or a communist, I have no real representation in government.
One might be disillusioned that the above points don't actually reflect how democracy works, and that the real hard work of legislation comes from things the public doesn't get to see: Cultivating relationships; the give and take of favors and votes; saying yes to something that's slightly against your principles so that you can get a reciprocal yes for something important to you later on.
Disillusionment is too big a thing to make me stop voting. The best way to change the system is to use it, and that means I need to vote, despite each of the above points. The next best way to change the system is to bring about revolution that replaces it, and that is a singularity that nobody can see beyond, and that recent history has not shown to work.
Your lack of representation argument can be extended to "captured" demographics. Lets say 99% of teachers vote for party X, which is actually pretty accurate. Then party X has no need whatsoever to represent the needs of teachers because they're guaranteed all the votes no matter what they do in office. Likewise no teachers vote for party Y by the definition of being a captured demographic. That means party Y has no need to represent teachers because there is no reward. Or rephrased, a captured demographic will not be represented because one party has no negative consequences, and the other has no positive consequences.
Its not so much an effect of voting as it is primary nomination effect. Also voting isn't necessarily the most important support, the PACs providing election funding are the most important form of support.
Many people are members of captive demographics, meaning they are un-represented. Teachers, blacks, anti-abortion, feminists, more or less every orientation other than straight... When you cross off all of them, there's not much actual representing going on, for something calling itself a representative government.
One reason I often don't vote is the only minimal impact I can make due to extreme gerrymandering is to protest the system. Here's one non-vote proclaiming I'm not represented. I think the stats showing 4/5 of the population feel UN-represented are if anything an understatement of the facts. Probably less than 5% of the population are represented at this time, the rest of the voters are just ill informed.
Another reason not to vote that you missed, voting is kind of an opiate of the masses to let them think they can provide input, which of course they cannot. Once you understand that, its pointless. Participating in voting is like people looking for religious enlightenment in opiates, you can delude yourself but it doesn't really accomplish anything. Whats in it for me to knowingly delude myself?
The final reason not to vote is rebellion. Blind irrational faith in the election system is as close to an established state secular religion we have. Not voting is as rebellious as being the only guy without tattoos or the only guy without body piercings. Not voting is religious apostasy. I'm about as likely to start voting as I am to throw stones at known adulterers or own a Canadian as a biblical slave.
There are other reasons like pragmatically the results of voting are bad governments, but thats a long debate.
People moving doesn't affect turnout calculations by more than a percent, right? We get 20% turnout because, really, four out of five folks aren't voting. Not because we didn't calculate it right.
And I object to 'rational reasons' and 'do care' in the same sentence. Either they mean to vote or they don't. Pretending to care and making excuses equals 'don't care'.
Sounds like you disagree with the core concept underlying one man, one vote. Why should a person who squeaks by with correctly answering 6/10 of the test questions be given the exact same voice as someone who gets 10/10, and someone with 5/10 gets no voice at all?
I convince people to not vote. If I can convince you not to vote with a single argument, then your input is something our country doesn't need. I do not at any time stop them from voting; I only tell them it doesn't matter and they shouldn't waste their time.
Everyone gets a vote, but I'm not losing any sleep when those who don't care enough to vote don't get their say recorded.
(Of course there is a problem where people who want to vote are prevented from voting. This is an issue that needs to be fixed so that everyone who wants to vote can vote.)
You should be convincing people to care, not to avoid voting.
Besides, voting isn't supposed to be the place where you disenfranchise yourself. People who really care should run for office. ("Representative government" and all that.)
So you draw the line at "desires to vote" rather than "is capable of answering a few trivia questions". But say passing the test was a requirement to vote, wouldn't the people who want to vote naturally proceed with studying for and taking the test, while those who don't want to won't be bothered since overcoming the obstacle is even greater than overcoming the resistance of mailing in a form or going to an actual booth? (Or perhaps using an app?) Thus the test would serve as a proxy for desire, with even more potential upsides according to GP. What would the distribution look like given no filter, filtering by test passers, and filtering by people who want to vote?
>But say passing the test was a requirement to vote, wouldn't the people who want to vote naturally proceed with studying for and taking the test, while those who don't want to won't be bothered since overcoming the obstacle is even greater than overcoming the resistance of mailing in a form or going to an actual booth?
The problem is that any such test with answers could be inherently biased against some groups. 'Do I feel like going to vote today' is not biased in such a way as the person taking the test is the creator of the test itself.
Imagine if there was a test to vote, but every person created their own test, answered their own test, and then scored their own test (and the test didn't have to make sense to anyone, including the person who created/took/graded it).
I don't want 100% turnout either, but for an entirely different reason. It would be a big waste of time! Why get 100% of the US's 300+ million people to take an afternoon out of their lives when we could get nearly the same accuracy if we only had 1% of that turn out to vote (keeping the demographics the same, ideally). The margin for error is miniscule with 3 million voters for 4-5 candidates, just as it is miniscule with 300 million. And the productivity gains (including increased leisure time as productive) would be huge.
This a fun little data project. No one is passing a constitutional amendment to change the EC to seats based on turnout. Even the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which does not require a constitutional amendment unfortunately seems to be stalled indefinitely.
And if we also split those electoral votes as close as possible to the way the people of the state voted we can get even closer to a direct election. And that's what the author seems to want - he's still got butt-hurt that Al Gore lost even with the popular vote. Why not just say what you want instead of proposing something that sounds kinda interesting but will never happen?
This was something that I was just kicking around in my head and wondering "what would these results actually look like?" And then I realized that all the necessary data was publicly available, so I grabbed a coffee and went to town. I'm not actually proposing this change and had no idea what the results would be until I started writing.
I'm surprised voter turnout isn't lower. Unless you live in a swing state, or Maine or Nebraska, voting for president is a waste of time. If you are in a swing state, it still might not matter unless you are in a swing district. It's a terribly broken voting system.
Voting for president is essentially always be a waste of time.[0] Many people have convinced themselves that this isn't the case, and we still have 'competitive' elections.
I find the psychology of voting fascinating. Most people are unwilling to vote for a third-party/longshot candidate, as their vote would be "wasted", despite the fact that their single vote is guaranteed not to matter. I think the driving motivation for most is the desire to be on the winning team, or if you're in the wrong county/state, to be able to say you fought the good fight for your side. In other words, despite the secret ballot, people vote more for reasons of in-group signaling than attempting to influence policy.
As you say, the 50ish percent we do get is impressive. If we really care about turnout (and disincentivizing some of the shadier techniques campaigns use to manipulate turnout), we should turn Voting Day into a national holiday and a mandatory duty (perhaps with an opt-out "I choose to abstain" for true protest votes, but the point is that you still have to show up or mail your ballot, period.)
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President
In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.
Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election
With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded months in advance 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.
The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it
Green states received a larger proportion of Electoral votes compared to their actual turnout. Red states received less.
Wish I could read these maps, but I'm red-green color blind (like 8% of men). Please consider using different colors or some additional indicator to show this information.
While I am not colour blind, I sympathise with those that are. All programming languages should have a library along the lines of Colors.jl [1] that allows you to simulate and, more importantly, provides functionality to give you a good set of colours and colour scales to use for your graphics.
Wow, sorry for this! I just used default colors that were in the Google Sheets chart tool. For my own education, is there a different spectrum that would do better?
>Wyoming voters made up 0.193% of the total popular vote in 2012. That would earn them a total of one electoral vote. In reality Wyoming gets 3.
and they get the same amount of senators as California or NY. This is why US politics will always lean conservative. There are just too many "fly over states" with tiny conservative populations that have an undue influence on national elections.
All too often "money in politics" are blamed for the lack of liberal or progressive changes in the nation. That's a red herring for the most part, or at least, problem #2. With a system like this its very difficult to put in liberal reforms. Hell, Obamacare, which is pretty much a Reagan-era proposal, barely got passed with a Democratic majority in almost all branches of government. Even after passing, its been endlessly disputed with at least two major losses to the law via SCOTUS. Those courts? Packed with conservative leaning judges by POTUS, who has a major advantage to winning if he's a conservative. This stuff comes full circle and starts with the over-representation of lowly populated conservative areas.
I count 13-16 low population states. Pretty much all of them are red states. Vermont and Rhode Island don't remotely make up for it. The reality is that if you live in a highly populated state, your voting influence is greatly diluted compared to the people in these states.
Hell, the city I live in has TWICE the population of North and South Dakota combined.
Count again. Of the 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes),
6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and
6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.
Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were 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.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
60 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadIt has an appeal though. You have to exercise your right to vote in order to be represented. Is that impacting your liberty to not vote if you don't want to?
Yes.
I've lived in voting districts where the election was in the basement of my dorm, in the suburban subdivision's elementary school, and in a rural area where voting was a good 10 minute highway drive. Obviously theres a big difference in "get out the vote" when one voter is pound on the dorm door and tell them to press the "B" button in the elevator, than some rural district where each voter represents like a quart of gasoline burned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
Even in the UK, where the concept originates, a lot of people view it as a bad idea. The issue right now is that nobody can agree what to change it to, since people gravitate towards the voting system that helps them in the next election cycle (and the big two want it to remain a two-party system).
It also avoids bizarre situations like France's 2002 election, wherein the Left had to choose between Chirac and Le Pen (something similar is not improbable in 2017, as well!)
*Or as I prefer to say, "equal cost voting choice", ie. that it takes just as much time and effort to not vote (go to polling place, accept ballot and void it) as it does to vote.
Basically if you think your party will win, you want to show up. If your party will lose, you want to skip. There are basically 3 equilibria: 100% of either party votes and 0% of the other one, or exactly 50/50 with the outcome unknown to anyone.
The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
edit: no, because of winner-takes-all nonsense. seems like a bad idea.
The Democrat Party has almost made it its official platform to make it very easy for non-citizens to vote; since they're most likely to vote Democrat. They support a holiday for elections; only because it would make it easier for a part of their base to vote, not because of any benefit to voters in general. They come up with all sorts of excuses to keep people on electoral rolls; whether they should be or not. They raise the bogey (boogeyman?) of Republicans raising the bogey of "voter fraud" each and every election; even though there has been voter fraud throughout the country's history and used to be part of the platform of Progressives of the past. Edit: meaning Progressives of the past were fighting voter fraud, which many Progressives of today claim doesn't exist.
Give us some more. It's easy to provide the cynical but plausible reverse when demonizing people according to group identity/accusations thrown out there for polarizing political drama.
And before anyone jumps the gun, as often happens in these cases because people can be silly, these comments may or may not reflect my personal political views.
EDIT: you forgot the Social Security scare the Democrats accuse the Republicans from time-to-time to get old people to vote Democrat. Or is that one played out?
Are there people who actively scheme to prevent people from voting and/or get their candidate to win in nefarious ways? Sure. Are some of them Republicans? Yep. But some of them are Democrats too, they just target different people in different ways. All in all, this is the voter fraud of the modern age; using laws to give your candidate the advantage.
The voter suppression schemes are transparent, and they are officially endorsed in the most recent Republican platform. If you want to deny their intent--decreasing Democratic votes--and effect--disproportionately removing black people's ability to vote--you might as well go back and claim that Southern literacy tests were a wholly benign attempt at improving good government.
I'm not even sure how much we disagree, aside from equivocation about Republicans taking that position to increase odds of winning and Democrats taking the opposite to increase their odds. But the USA has a long and storied history of screwing over black people and their civil rights, so we should be especially sensitive about policies that target them to undermine their civil and political rights.
That's exactly my point. I'm not the one suggesting it, I'm responding to it.
>> The voter suppression schemes are transparent...
Yes, I even stated that. My point is that I'm not willing to label half the country as to be a part of it. In fact, I'm willing to blame people among the Democrat party of doing much the same. I just don't say it's official Democrat policy so that I'm not blaming the entire group.
>> literacy tests
Which tests? Those run by Republican or Democrat members?
>> I'm not even sure how much we disagree...
On the face of it, I don't think we do.
>> But the USA has a long and storied history of screwing over black people and their civil rights...
Which I said, US history is rife with voter fraud or disenfranchisement, whichever term you prefer. I'm not sure where you're going with all this, since it seems you are agreeing with me. Am I misunderstanding?
No such party exists.
I always thought Democrat Party and the Democratic Party went together depending on usage plus the preference of the person speaking. I mean, after all, they are called Democrats so it would seem to me that Democrat Party would be used. Methinks people are just complaining to be complaining.
Interesting. Today, I learned something. Anyway, I don't think I'll shall stop using the term. Thanks for the input.
Given the pervasive way Republicans have aggressively and consistently used the term for longer than most people have been alive, I can understand its use in ignorance by people whose information sources have skewed to a Republican bias. But, if after your ignorance is cured, you are knowingly and deliberately using a term for a party that has been pretty much exclusively used as a hostile epithet by political opponents of that party for more than half a century, that's kind of telling.
Just because some people use an innocent term as a slur doesn't mean that everyone on Earth is suddenly required to avoid using the term. Most people are not out to personally hurt your feelings just because they use perfectly fine words in a correct context, words that you happen to not like. Get over yourself.
As for your perceived insult, I'll let it slide since you are clearly going by emotions instead of thinking. Besides, it's not an insult really since you have no idea what my political leanings are. Despite your supposed insight.
I don't want 100% turnout; I do want the people who don't care to stay home. I'd also like to only allow people who can pass the citizenship test given to prospective naturalised citizens to be able to vote, but that's an entirely different discussion…
One might be upset at hearing about corrupt practices or "it's not what you know it's who you know" politics, because that's all we hear about in the news and on TV shows (because that's the salacious part of politics).
One might be upset at having no effective voice because of the two-party system and the sheer size of the electorate in each state: If I'm a libertarian or a national socialist or a communist, I have no real representation in government.
One might be disillusioned that the above points don't actually reflect how democracy works, and that the real hard work of legislation comes from things the public doesn't get to see: Cultivating relationships; the give and take of favors and votes; saying yes to something that's slightly against your principles so that you can get a reciprocal yes for something important to you later on.
Disillusionment is too big a thing to make me stop voting. The best way to change the system is to use it, and that means I need to vote, despite each of the above points. The next best way to change the system is to bring about revolution that replaces it, and that is a singularity that nobody can see beyond, and that recent history has not shown to work.
http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
Your lack of representation argument can be extended to "captured" demographics. Lets say 99% of teachers vote for party X, which is actually pretty accurate. Then party X has no need whatsoever to represent the needs of teachers because they're guaranteed all the votes no matter what they do in office. Likewise no teachers vote for party Y by the definition of being a captured demographic. That means party Y has no need to represent teachers because there is no reward. Or rephrased, a captured demographic will not be represented because one party has no negative consequences, and the other has no positive consequences.
Its not so much an effect of voting as it is primary nomination effect. Also voting isn't necessarily the most important support, the PACs providing election funding are the most important form of support.
Many people are members of captive demographics, meaning they are un-represented. Teachers, blacks, anti-abortion, feminists, more or less every orientation other than straight... When you cross off all of them, there's not much actual representing going on, for something calling itself a representative government.
One reason I often don't vote is the only minimal impact I can make due to extreme gerrymandering is to protest the system. Here's one non-vote proclaiming I'm not represented. I think the stats showing 4/5 of the population feel UN-represented are if anything an understatement of the facts. Probably less than 5% of the population are represented at this time, the rest of the voters are just ill informed.
Another reason not to vote that you missed, voting is kind of an opiate of the masses to let them think they can provide input, which of course they cannot. Once you understand that, its pointless. Participating in voting is like people looking for religious enlightenment in opiates, you can delude yourself but it doesn't really accomplish anything. Whats in it for me to knowingly delude myself?
The final reason not to vote is rebellion. Blind irrational faith in the election system is as close to an established state secular religion we have. Not voting is as rebellious as being the only guy without tattoos or the only guy without body piercings. Not voting is religious apostasy. I'm about as likely to start voting as I am to throw stones at known adulterers or own a Canadian as a biblical slave.
There are other reasons like pragmatically the results of voting are bad governments, but thats a long debate.
And I object to 'rational reasons' and 'do care' in the same sentence. Either they mean to vote or they don't. Pretending to care and making excuses equals 'don't care'.
Everyone gets a vote, but I'm not losing any sleep when those who don't care enough to vote don't get their say recorded.
(Of course there is a problem where people who want to vote are prevented from voting. This is an issue that needs to be fixed so that everyone who wants to vote can vote.)
Besides, voting isn't supposed to be the place where you disenfranchise yourself. People who really care should run for office. ("Representative government" and all that.)
The problem is that any such test with answers could be inherently biased against some groups. 'Do I feel like going to vote today' is not biased in such a way as the person taking the test is the creator of the test itself.
Imagine if there was a test to vote, but every person created their own test, answered their own test, and then scored their own test (and the test didn't have to make sense to anyone, including the person who created/took/graded it).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting
As you say, the 50ish percent we do get is impressive. If we really care about turnout (and disincentivizing some of the shadier techniques campaigns use to manipulate turnout), we should turn Voting Day into a national holiday and a mandatory duty (perhaps with an opt-out "I choose to abstain" for true protest votes, but the point is that you still have to show up or mail your ballot, period.)
The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored. 77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President
In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant. In 2012, the whole state was ignored. 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.
Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election
With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded months in advance 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.
The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Wish I could read these maps, but I'm red-green color blind (like 8% of men). Please consider using different colors or some additional indicator to show this information.
[1]: https://github.com/JuliaGraphics/Colors.jl#simulation-of-col...
and they get the same amount of senators as California or NY. This is why US politics will always lean conservative. There are just too many "fly over states" with tiny conservative populations that have an undue influence on national elections.
All too often "money in politics" are blamed for the lack of liberal or progressive changes in the nation. That's a red herring for the most part, or at least, problem #2. With a system like this its very difficult to put in liberal reforms. Hell, Obamacare, which is pretty much a Reagan-era proposal, barely got passed with a Democratic majority in almost all branches of government. Even after passing, its been endlessly disputed with at least two major losses to the law via SCOTUS. Those courts? Packed with conservative leaning judges by POTUS, who has a major advantage to winning if he's a conservative. This stuff comes full circle and starts with the over-representation of lowly populated conservative areas.
Hell, the city I live in has TWICE the population of North and South Dakota combined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were 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.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.