Interesting electoral math . . .

[tumorboy]

This should help:

View embedded media

Zona, Nevada, and Georgia are going to be a shitshow. Post election legal manipulations.

 

[BioHawk]

Maybe not abandoned, but tweaked.

Given how demographics in this country have changed, it should be more weighted.

I am OK with giving smaller population rural states SOME extra advantage - even as a progressive, I do not want the entire country to be governed based on the needs of only people in NYC, LA and Chicago.

Nah. President is the President of the people. The people should elect the President directly. Rural states still have the Senate to be over represented in. Candidates only campaign in about 5 locations now so it's not going to change anything really.

 

[hexumhawk]

It serves absolutely no purpose and disenfranchises huge chunks of the electorate. Today Republicans in California and Democrats in Tennessee and Missouri have zero reason to even vote in the general elections. It's a completely antiquated system that only continues to exist because the Republican party knows that they cannot get elected without it.

I think you are suffering from recency bias.

The framers had the entirety of the American project not just what happened in the last few cycles. Politics and peoples drive for what they vote for is cyclical. What if I were to tell you that Republicans won the popular vote just 20 years ago. Since 1968 it is 8-6 Democrats in popular vote.

Electoral college works just fine and I wouldn't be so sure about the certainty of one party or the other dominating the popular vote.

 

[torbee]

Nah. President is the President of the people. The people should elect the President directly. Rural states still have the Senate to be over represented in. Candidates only campaign in about 5 locations now so it's not going to change anything really.

Ok, get rid of it 🙂

 

[hexumhawk]

Nah. President is the President of the people. The people should elect the President directly. Rural states still have the Senate to be over represented in. Candidates only campaign in about 5 locations now so it's not going to change anything really.

What you are looking for is a Democracy. We aren't that. You might want to look into moving to Canada or Scandinavia.

 

[BioHawk]

What you are looking for is a Democracy. We aren't that. You might want to look into moving to Canada or Scandinavia.

No, just a system that is actually fair for Americans.

 

[Colonoscopy]

Didn't know that about Bulwark. They had seemed quality in my limited reading.

Have to love the sources that are critical of their own team. They know all their flaws and aren't coming at it from the angle of the opposition so you don't usually have to wade through as much BS

 

[ThorneStockton]

I think you are suffering from recency bias.

The framers had the entirety of the American project not just what happened in the last few cycles. Politics and peoples drive for what they vote for is cyclical. What if I were to tell you that Republicans won the popular vote just 20 years ago. Since 1968 it is 8-6 Democrats in popular vote.

Electoral college works just fine and I wouldn't be so sure about the certainty of one party or the other dominating the popular vote.

Ah yes, the entirety of the American project, all 13 states of them. They weren't considering what happened in the last few cycles in the 2000's. It's no wonder that you knew that Hillary was operating a pedo ring out of a pizza parlor and that Hunter and Joe Biden have been pulling in billions from China, Russia and Iran. Absolutely nothing gets past you.

 

[Colonoscopy]

I think you are suffering from recency bias.

The framers had the entirety of the American project not just what happened in the last few cycles. Politics and peoples drive for what they vote for is cyclical. What if I were to tell you that Republicans won the popular vote just 20 years ago. Since 1968 it is 8-6 Democrats in popular vote.

Electoral college works just fine and I wouldn't be so sure about the certainty of one party or the other dominating the popular vote.

I say it depends what you vote on. If the questions apply naturally to the individual and not the state, then it's a federal issue and the states shouldn't factor in.

 

[jonesy5960]

I think you are suffering from recency bias.

The framers had the entirety of the American project not just what happened in the last few cycles. Politics and peoples drive for what they vote for is cyclical. What if I were to tell you that Republicans won the popular vote just 20 years ago. Since 1968 it is 8-6 Democrats in popular vote.

Electoral college works just fine and I wouldn't be so sure about the certainty of one party or the other dominating the popular vote.

Nonsense. It's been over 30 years since a Republican won the popular vote and this year is no different. Trump will lose the popular vote by millions. The only question is whether a few thousand votes in a half dozen states will subvert the will of the people and make him President anyway.

 

[AuroraHawk]

I'm not a fan of "winner takes all" in the US' electoral scheme (someone want to remind me why the folks in the southern rural states didn't want folks in northern urban states to have a majority say in how . . . say . . . a certain class of people were treated?) but, FWIW, I personally feel as if implementation of ranked-choice voting would go a long ways to provide the electorate with better choices.

 

[hexumhawk]

Nonsense. It's been over 30 years since a Republican won the popular vote and this year is no different. Trump will lose the popular vote by millions. The only question is whether a few thousand votes in a half dozen states will subvert the will of the people and make him President anyway.

Well, you are wrong but you do you bro.

 

[jonesy5960]

Well, you are wrong but you do you bro.

Whatever. 20 years ago and he was running as an incumbent after losing the popular vote in the previous election.

 

[bagdropper]

no regular dudes are voting for the Democratic ticket.

This might be the single funniest thing I've read on this board this year.

 

[artradley]

Whatever. 20 years ago and he was running as an incumbent after losing the popular vote in the previous election.

Since 1988 the GOP candidate has received the most votes (check notes) once.

 

[HawkNester]

The Dems have a great strategy ...hang on to WI/MI/PA and they win.

Spend just enough time and $$$ in the other battlegrounds to cause Trump to spend his limited funds.
Throw in NC and Florida and the Radical Right runs out of time.
The Dems do need to keep AZ and NV Senate seats, tho.

This

 

[HawkNester]

Five states are the most interesting to me. Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona It’s all going to be about turnout. Wouldn’t waste much time in Texas with the AG with his finger on the scale . Both sides seem eager to vote.

Abortion being on the ballot is why the GQP is toast. Trump knows it, the GQP knows it, we all know it.

 

[Tom Paris]

Well, you are wrong but you do you bro.

So Bush won the popular vote in 2004 but other than that? His point still stands. Democrats dominate the popular vote.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The Republican strategy

View embedded media

That’ll play well with “regular dudes”. 🤣

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Well, you are wrong but you do you bro.

More accurately the GOP has won the popular vote one time since I was 6 years old.

I'm 42 now and all my kids are older than I was in 1988.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Really excellent piece in The Bulwark today (the Bulwark, btw, was started by actual conservative Republicans who can't stomach Trump, so it tends to be less "rah-rah, GO DEMS!" than most left-leaning outlets)

Anyway, they basically lay out the two different strategies the GOP and the Democrats have, based on math. And how each side is trying a different gambit to win.

Good read:

Donald Trump’s ceiling is somewhere in the neighborhood of 46.5 percent of the national vote. His only path to victory is a narrow band in which he’s able to turn out just enough of his low-propensity voters in three to five states to draw a slim Electoral College victory.

The Harris campaign served notice last night that it is not interested in fighting trench warfare in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. This campaign is comfortable enough with its base that it sees the opportunity to take from Trump and blow the map wide open. This is a ticket that wants to compete in North Carolina, Nevada, Georgia, and maybe even Texas.

---

The contrast with the Republican convention is kind of shocking when you think about it.

In Milwaukee the Republicans trotted out Hulk Hogan and Dana White, Kid Rock and JD Vance. There was no play for the center: The entire theory of the campaign put forward by that convention was that Trump will win by cranking up the animating spirits of the online right. By energizing the people who voted for him in 2016 and 2020. By giving his voters more people who looked, and sounded, and thought like them. By portraying Democratic voters as a bunch of terrorists hellbent on destroying the country.

---

These are two very different theories of the election. Trump is running to get to 47 percent. Harris is running to get to 52 percent.

But there’s something deeper going on here.

The reason Trump is aiming for 47 percent is because the Electoral College makes minority rule possible for the rural party. Which incentivizes the rural party to be insular and to focus on energizing—not expanding—its coalition.

By disadvantaging the urban party, the Electoral College incentivizes it to broaden its coalition. Which means that the Democratic party of this moment must be constantly seeking to expand its reach and bring in new constituencies if it is to have a chance at holding executive power.

In other words: The Electoral College distorts the character of our parties, nudging one of them to be a majority-seeking organism and the other to be a base-pleasing organism. The character of our two parties today flows from the system architecture used to allocate power.

This is a high, abstract concept. But it explains—perfectly—what we have seen at the two conventions.


Here is the full Bulward article - highly recommend you give them a follow if you like astute political reporting: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/democr...&isFreemail=false&r=12sbjk&triedRedirect=true

I like their writing. Thanks.

 

[artradley]

Really excellent piece in The Bulwark today (the Bulwark, btw, was started by actual conservative Republicans who can't stomach Trump, so it tends to be less "rah-rah, GO DEMS!" than most left-leaning outlets)

Anyway, they basically lay out the two different strategies the GOP and the Democrats have, based on math. And how each side is trying a different gambit to win.

Good read:

Donald Trump’s ceiling is somewhere in the neighborhood of 46.5 percent of the national vote. His only path to victory is a narrow band in which he’s able to turn out just enough of his low-propensity voters in three to five states to draw a slim Electoral College victory.

The Harris campaign served notice last night that it is not interested in fighting trench warfare in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. This campaign is comfortable enough with its base that it sees the opportunity to take from Trump and blow the map wide open. This is a ticket that wants to compete in North Carolina, Nevada, Georgia, and maybe even Texas.

---

The contrast with the Republican convention is kind of shocking when you think about it.

In Milwaukee the Republicans trotted out Hulk Hogan and Dana White, Kid Rock and JD Vance. There was no play for the center: The entire theory of the campaign put forward by that convention was that Trump will win by cranking up the animating spirits of the online right. By energizing the people who voted for him in 2016 and 2020. By giving his voters more people who looked, and sounded, and thought like them. By portraying Democratic voters as a bunch of terrorists hellbent on destroying the country.

---

These are two very different theories of the election. Trump is running to get to 47 percent. Harris is running to get to 52 percent.

But there’s something deeper going on here.

The reason Trump is aiming for 47 percent is because the Electoral College makes minority rule possible for the rural party. Which incentivizes the rural party to be insular and to focus on energizing—not expanding—its coalition.

By disadvantaging the urban party, the Electoral College incentivizes it to broaden its coalition. Which means that the Democratic party of this moment must be constantly seeking to expand its reach and bring in new constituencies if it is to have a chance at holding executive power.

In other words: The Electoral College distorts the character of our parties, nudging one of them to be a majority-seeking organism and the other to be a base-pleasing organism. The character of our two parties today flows from the system architecture used to allocate power.

This is a high, abstract concept. But it explains—perfectly—what we have seen at the two conventions.


Here is the full Bulward article - highly recommend you give them a follow if you like astute political reporting: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/democr...&isFreemail=false&r=12sbjk&triedRedirect=true

Back to the OP, it is an interesting observation that the nature of the EC has different natural effects on the two parties due to the electoral advantages of rural Americans. It makes sense.

 

[torbee]

Nonsense. It's been over 30 years since a Republican won the popular vote and this year is no different. Trump will lose the popular vote by millions. The only question is whether a few thousand votes in a half dozen states will subvert the will of the people and make him President anyway.

I mean, this IS accurate.

 

[praguehawk]

Should this work the same way for Governors? Should rural voters get more votes for governor and Senator?

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but could see where a state may want to do that. Consider if Iowa City tripled in size. Would there be a push to "protect" the votes of rural folks including farmers across the state? It could have merit.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but could see where a state may want to do that. Consider if Iowa City tripled in size. Would there be a push to "protect" the votes of rural folks including farmers across the state? It could have merit.

Why do farmers deserve a stronger share of the vote than the people working in Iowa City?

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

How about guaranteeing a minimum of a state’s electoral vote to the loser? Say 25%.

GOP would love to get votes out of CA and NY; Dems from TX and FL.

Would push both parties to the middle …

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

How about guaranteeing a minimum of a state’s electoral vote to the loser? Say 25%.

GOP would love to get votes out of CA and NY; Dems from TX and FL.

Would push both parties to the middle …

I believe that would be less effective at reflecting the will of the popular vote.

 

[praguehawk]

Why do farmers deserve a stronger share of the vote than the people working in Iowa City?

Farmers are just representative of a minority. The system should have protections built in for the minority. As someone mentioned earlier the 4 largest metro areas shouldn't get to make all of the decisions for the U.S.

 

[artradley]

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but could see where a state may want to do that. Consider if Iowa City tripled in size. Would there be a push to "protect" the votes of rural folks including farmers across the state? It could have merit.

What about protecting the rights of citizens in Iowa City?

It just blows my mind that people would advocate some individuals to have more voting power than others.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

I believe that would be less effective at reflecting the will of the popular vote.

How so? If the complaint is the the electoral college as is doesn’t track will of popular vote how would cutting the loser in for at least share make the system worse? Thanks.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Farmers are just representative of a minority. The system should have protections built in for the minority. As someone mentioned earlier the 4 largest metro areas shouldn't get to make all of the decisions for the U.S.

Protecting the minority means setting down clear lines saying "the government can't cross here"

For example free speech is a big minority protection. You can say the most unpopular shit thing out there and the government can't touch you. Our bill of rights is mostly about protecting the minority.

Protecting on a minority DOES NOT mean the minority gets to rule. Letting the minority select the leader, letting the minority set policy is minority rule not minority protections.

The problem with the EC and the senate is they are minority rule. They allow the minority to set policies and make laws that the majority has to live with.

 

[MitchLL]

Farmers are just representative of a

Protecting the minority means setting down clear lines saying "the government can't cross here"

For example free speech is a big minority protection. You can say the most unpopular shit thing out there and the government can't touch you. Our bill of rights is mostly about protecting the minority.

Protecting on a minority DOES NOT mean the minority gets to rule. Letting the minority select the leader, letting the minority set policy is minority rule not minority protections.

The problem with the EC and the senate is they are minority rule. They allow the minority to set policies and make laws that the majority has to live with.

Your last paragraph is also my view.

Wyoming should not have the same political clout as California in the US Senate.

 

[praguehawk]

Protecting the minority means setting down clear lines saying "the government can't cross here"

For example free speech is a big minority protection. You can say the most unpopular shit thing out there and the government can't touch you. Our bill of rights is mostly about protecting the minority.

Protecting on a minority DOES NOT mean the minority gets to rule. Letting the minority select the leader, letting the minority set policy is minority rule not minority protections.

The problem with the EC and the senate is they are minority rule. They allow the minority to set policies and make laws that the majority has to live with.

Should constitutional amendments also be done by strict majority vote?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

How so? If the complaint is the the electoral college as is doesn’t track will of popular vote how would cutting the loser in for at least share make the system worse? Thanks.

View embedded media

Simple the small states can't proportion out their votes like the larger states can.

Put simply the right wins more of the bottom 25 states in terms of population and less of the top 25 states in terms of population and the reverse it true for Dems.

So in the bigger states the Republicans are pulling a lot of EC votes out of states they lost while in Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc the Dems are pulling 1 vote if that.

A system like that guarantees Republican presidents for the forseeable future while they continue to lose the popular vote.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Should constitutional amendments also be done by strict majority vote?

I would argue a 55% or 60% national referendum.

I don't think the constitution should turn on a 50.1% popular vote since it's a more permanent change that affects how we govern or establishes (or takes away) a universal right into law.

But it should require almost completely unanimous vote either like we do now. Ask yourself what can really pass in this day and age requiring 75% of the states to ratify.

And lets be honest you arn't gonna have that many people voting to get rid of free speech protections if that's what you are worried about. Because ultimately everyone is in the minority on some topic or another.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Simple the small states can't proportion out their votes like the larger states can.

Put simply the right wins more of the bottom 25 states in terms of population and less of the top 25 states in terms of population and the reverse it true for Dems.

So in the bigger states the Republicans are pulling a lot of EC votes out of states they lost while in Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc the Dems are pulling 1 vote if that.

A system like that guarantees Republican presidents for the forseeable future while they continue to lose the popular vote.

Interesting. I read an article on the 25% floor recently. I need to find it and read again clearly. Thanks.

 

[artradley]

I mean, this IS accurate.

It's actually only been 20 years since the GOP won the most votes. Then you have to go back another 16. The GOP Candidate has received the most votes once since 1988. And I don't think they're going to break the streak this year.

 

[B1GDeal]

So once in like 40ish years and likely counting come November.

 

[artradley]

So once in like 40ish years and likely counting come November.

If Harris wins the popular vote this year, by 2028 there will be people with Master Degrees who have not seen a GOP candidate receive the most votes in their lifetime. There will be 40 year olds who will only have experienced it once: before they were old enough to drive.

 

[Gimmered]

The Dems have a great strategy ...hang on to WI/MI/PA and they win.

Spend just enough time and $$$ in the other battlegrounds to cause Trump to spend his limited funds.
Throw in NC and Florida and the Radical Right runs out of time.
The Dems do need to keep AZ and NV Senate seats, tho.

I'm hoping that the Obamas join in for a late push in the battle ground states. They have a great positive message.