US inches closer to change in how presidential elections are counted

[T. A. Gardner]

it is unlikely

Being one of 3,000 is not the same value as 1 of 435

axiomatic

It is a state by state thing. If some state with say, under that 3,000 has 40 House representatives and the split is 23 to 17, pumping money into four races to flip that is where big money in that state would go. "Safe" seats would not be heavily funded. They're likely be more 'flippable' ones so those would get the big bucks. In fact, because there would likely be more volatility in each state, I'd say far more money would get pushed into races for just that reason.

 

[Hume]

stupid.

troll

 

[Hume]

IMHO the better route would be to portion the vote. No state is truly red or blue, that are all some shade of purple. If the state goes 60/40 then portion out the delegates 60/40

Yes, but proportional voting has been out of favor.

 

[Hume]

Afraid not

As usual, your inane comments require no thoughtful reply.

 

[Hume]

But that would not change how the Constitution says how elections are counted.

Elections for President only count number of electors. Only the number.

 

[Hume]

That doesn't mean it's the best system to use by a long shot.

It does. Not only because of that, but it does.

 

[Hume]

If you look at the actual history of this, the electoral college was a compromise between Congress appointing a President, and direct popular election of one.

Correct.

 

[zymurgy]

It is a state by state thing. If some state with say, under that 3,000 has 40 House representatives and the split is 23 to 17, pumping money into four races to flip that is where big money in that state would go. "Safe" seats would not be heavily funded. They're likely be more 'flippable' ones so those would get the big bucks. In fact, because there would likely be more volatility in each state, I'd say far more money would get pushed into races for just that reason.

That is not an argument against expansion. That is just an argument that money follows competition.

It already does.

The real question is whether you want money concentrated into a few giant must-win districts, or diluted across many smaller and more local ones.

In an 11-district state, four races can change everything.

In a 138-district state, four races are just four races.


That is a very different kind of political power.

 

[Hume]

The state is also a government in being. While it is elected by the people, Senators before the 17th amendment were appointed by the state's government in one way or another. That is, the senators from a state were beholden to that state's government first and foremost. That meant that the Senate answered to state governments and weren't elected at all. The states were represented at the federal level.

The 17th Amendment turned the Senate into a second House, and that's why nothing ever gets done there. It fucked everything up with relation to the Senate.

Senate is a bunch of wealthy oligarchs.

 

[Hume]

Put another way, it's representative government versus the mob--usually an angry mob.

Yes, like Trump's mob attacking the Capitol to prevent certification of the electoral vote. Funny how you always ignore this.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It does. Not only because of that, but it does.

No, it doesn't. Majority rule is often a bad thing. A simple popular vote often doesn't result in the best choice and often results in bad and unforseen consequences.

 

[Hume]

No, it doesn't. Majority rule is often a bad thing. A simple popular vote often doesn't result in the best choice and often results in bad and unforseen consequences.

Every public election in the US is by majority rule--except US President.

 

[martin]

A common belief not born out by the facts.

You don't say. And what facts are those? Enlighten us.

 

[Hume]

You don't say. And what facts are those? Enlighten us.

No empirical evidence shows large or small states receive any benefit or loss by electoral college.

 

[Into the Night]

Still CAN NOT show us were I ever did as we all can see.
Go FUCK yourself ASSHOLE.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS, TBALL!

 

[Into the Night]

Inversion fallacy. Of course. You’re basically a pull‑string doll at this point, yank the cord and out pops the same line, no thought required.

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Crepitus]

Yes, but proportional voting has been out of favor.

Because it would mean there will never be a republican president again.

 

[Into the Night]

so if we went from 435 to 3,000 districts - you believe each election would cost the same as it does now?

Irrelevance fallacy.

The value of being 1 of 435 isn't more than the value of being 1 of 3,000? The incentive doesn't change?

Attempted proof by contrivance.

 

[Hume]

Because it would mean there will never be a republican president again.

Not really. I think the EC is arbitrary.

 

[Grim Reaper]

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

Of course you did, you hit your limit and defaulted to the only sound your brain can still make. Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You’re not even pretending to think anymore. You’re just spitting out labels like a broken Pez dispenser that only ever had two candies to begin with.