Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I took the top 12 states - the ones I mentioned earlier that see 95% of all campaign visits (FL NC PA OH VA MI NH IA CO NV WI NM) - their turnout collectively is 65.5%
I took the bottom 12 states, in terms of win margin (bigger the win margin, less likely a candidate will spend time there) - those states are: WY WV ND UT ID OK SD KY HI VT CA AK and their turnout collectively is 56.8%
US national turnout was about 60.2%
So, that's 8.6% less turnout in states that for "some reason" presidential candidates don't campaign at all..
I think it is safe to say that there is a correlation.
Note: I pulled all data from the same data set, so whatever set of assumption used for turn-out was equal across the board.
Fun fact: my list of "most disenfranchised states" is mostly populated by what we generally consider "red states."
You do realize that senators, governors, house representatives, etc are all voted by popular vote... wait no sorry...ahem... mob rule; as per your own definition. It is fine to make the argument that the election of the president should be done differently and the reason why is.... <insert your reason here>? But it is something else to say we simply cannot elect a president by popular vote even though nearly every other elected office in the country is by elected by popular vote.
The offices you refer to are all STATE offices. The election of the President is not the same. You would not have gotten the states to enter into the republic without a guarantee that they would not be ruled by other more populous states. This among other things is the reason for the electoral college.
You do realize that senators, governors, house representatives, etc are all voted by popular vote... wait no sorry...ahem... mob rule; as per your own definition. It is fine to make the argument that the election of the president should be done differently and the reason why is.... <insert your reason here>? But it is something else to say we simply cannot elect a president by popular vote even though nearly every other elected office in the country is by elected by popular vote.
You do realize that the direct election of Senators was not written into the original Constitution, don't you? The 17th Amendment changed the way that Senators were appointed.
Under the original Constitution, Representatives were elected and Senators were appointed. This was an effort to balance the "mob rule" mentality of an elected House with having state representation in the Senate that was appointed.
Read up on the reasons behind the Electoral College, then argue with me about it.
Oh I see. Correct, if the EV was rewarded proportionally in 2016, I think it would have been 269-269 or 270-268 in favor of Trump.
I think all these questions of "would they follow through" are moot anyway. All these states listed in the compact are disenfranchised states that don't see any "presidential action" in form of campaigning anyway. In my opinion, when then signed onto this bill they agreed to do it knowing that their EV right now has no value anyway. So what is there to lose? However, I think common Americans, like you and I and our C-D colleagues would likely say to ourselves "Yeah, if we agreed to this NPV, we'd send the agreed upon electors even if it went against how our state voted." That's how normal people think. Politicians though... you never know when they might hold an emergency session and back out of the NPV.
I can guarantee that would happen in Maryland. Good God, the Democratic Congressional candidates who are in the primary are all campaigning against Trump. Very little about why they should be nominated. The Democratic candidates for Governor are doing the same. Nothing about the Republican incumbent, Larry Hogan, but talking about Trump. Which worked for O'Malley when he ran against Bob Ehrlich when he ran for a second term. O'Malley did nothing except talk about Bush.
Operative word re the challenged, is yet, “Has it been challenged, yet. It will be.The EC is fundamental to a republican form of government. I believe a change from a republican form to a Democratic is challengeable as to the constitutionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
Why?
As per the article ten other states already do this.
I took the top 12 states - the ones I mentioned earlier that see 95% of all campaign visits (FL NC PA OH VA MI NH IA CO NV WI NM) - their turnout collectively is 65.5%
I took the bottom 12 states, in terms of win margin (bigger the win margin, less likely a candidate will spend time there) - those states are: WY WV ND UT ID OK SD KY HI VT CA AK and their turnout collectively is 56.8%
US national turnout was about 60.2%
So, that's 8.6% less turnout in states that for "some reason" presidential candidates don't campaign at all..
I think it is safe to say that there is a correlation.
Note: I pulled all data from the same data set, so whatever set of assumption used for turn-out was equal across the board.
Fun fact: my list of "most disenfranchised states" is mostly populated by what we generally consider "red states."
Another way to look at it is that the voters in the state already know it's going to swing R or D so they don't vote. It's the same logic as to why they aren't campaigning in such states.
I live in KS, I'm acutely aware of how my presidential vote is meaningless.
Several other states already do this (detailed in the article.)
Connecticut is the eleventh.
I would like to see more states get onboard with this though I can certainly see how/why some states wouldn’t.
It will be interesting to see if this really does gain any more momentum going into 2020.
“Connecticut is poised to commit its electoral votes to whichever U.S. presidential candidate wins the nation's popular vote — regardless of who wins the state.
By embracing the plan, Connecticut's General Assembly gave new momentum to a push to change the way Americans elect their president.“
But, of course, it's simply part of the Liberal plan to destroy the federal republic.
The offices you refer to are all STATE offices. The election of the President is not the same. You would not have gotten the states to enter into the republic without a guarantee that they would not be ruled by other more populous states. This among other things is the reason for the electoral college.
/sigh
My point is, you used the term mob rule as the sole reason the popular vote is a bad thing. Yet we elect everyone else with a popular vote. Yours is a weak argument. There are many better ways to support the electoral college than calling the alternative "mob rule."
You are saying a governor is elected by mob rule within his state. How is that any different exactly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
