Politics 2020 Field - DNC

[crandc]

It only became common knowledge to Democrats in 2016 apparently. They didn’t seem to mind the electoral college when it worked in their favor all the times before that.

When was that?

Last seven presidential election Republican won popular vote once but presidency three times.

Electoral college was set up to be undemocratic.

 

[barfo]

It only became common knowledge to Democrats in 2016 apparently. They didn’t seem to mind the electoral college when it worked in their favor all the times before that.

It has never worked in the Democrats favor.

Five times in history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the presidency:

2016: Trump vs Clinton
2000: Bush vs Gore
1888: Harrison vs Cleveland
1876: Hayes vs Tilden

In each of those 4 cases, the electoral college victor (listed first) was the Republican, the popular vote winner was the Democrat.

1824: Adams vs Jackson

In this last case, both were members of the same party, the Democratic-Republican party.

barfo

 

[calvin natt]

It has never worked in the Democrats favor.

Five times in history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the presidency:

2016: Trump vs Clinton
2000: Bush vs Gore
1888: Harrison vs Cleveland
1876: Hayes vs Tilden

In each of those 4 cases, the electoral college victor (listed first) was the Republican, the popular vote winner was the Democrat.

1824: Adams vs Jackson

In this last case, both were members of the same party, the Democratic-Republican party.

barfo

Mic drop

 

[Hoopguru]

When will people quit whining about outcomes. Man there have been numerous times over the years I didn't like the elected President including the one we have now.
Gees Louise, if Bernie wins I won't be pleased but I will try not to whine and complain to much, unless he takes my insurance away and my Silver Sneakers membership!

 

[Hoopguru]

When will people quit whining about outcomes. Man there have been numerous times over the years I didn't like the elected President including the one we have now.
Gees Louise, if Bernie wins I won't be pleased but I will try not to whine and complain to much, unless he takes my insurance away and my Silver Sneakers membership!

Actually I am kind of a hypocrite because I did whine about the Clintons.

 

[calvin natt]

When will people quit whining about outcomes. Man there have been numerous times over the years I didn't like the elected President including the one we have now.
Gees Louise, if Bernie wins I won't be pleased but I will try not to whine and complain to much, unless he takes my insurance away and my Silver Sneakers membership!

Ya this time is a little different. We’ve got a legitimate imbecile farting around on a golf cart during a hurricane after canceling a trip overseas to tend to said hurricane.

 

[barfo]

When will people quit whining about outcomes.

My money is on never.

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

Ya this time is a little different. We’ve got a legitimate imbecile farting around on a golf cart during a hurricane after canceling a trip overseas to tend to said hurricane.

If congress would just do their job it would offset Trumps inadequacies. The congress has been lagging for years, imo.
Term limits would take the monetary incentive mostly away from becoming a highly paid politician that becomes worth millions while on the job.

 

[e_blazer]

It has never worked in the Democrats favor.

Five times in history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the presidency:

2016: Trump vs Clinton
2000: Bush vs Gore
1888: Harrison vs Cleveland
1876: Hayes vs Tilden

In each of those 4 cases, the electoral college victor (listed first) was the Republican, the popular vote winner was the Democrat.

1824: Adams vs Jackson

In this last case, both were members of the same party, the Democratic-Republican party.

barfo

The thing that’s kind of odd to me is that there’s all of this popular vote discussion when the Constitution makes no provision for a presidential election at all. It just calls for the EC, with each state getting a number of electors based on its total number of representatives and senators. It leaves the method of selecting the electors to the states and they have chosen to do it through an election process. They could choose to throw darts at a dartboard. Maybe it’s time to change the method to a national election where majority vote wins, but that requires a constitutional amendment. Until then, bitching about the total vote outcome of 50 individual elections is pretty nonsensical.

 

[Lanny]

It only became common knowledge to Democrats in 2016 apparently. They didn’t seem to mind the electoral college when it worked in their favor all the times before that.

Not true. Pretty much everybody has objected to the Electoral College at one time or another. Only now, the Trump cult sees the advantage in it and will never let go. So now, Democrats will have to swamp Republicans.

 

[barfo]

Maybe it’s time to change the method to a national election where majority vote wins, but that requires a constitutional amendment.

It doesn't, actually. There is a movement afoot to have states pledge their electors to the national popular vote winner. If enough states agree to that (which, as you point out, they are free to do), then it is accomplished without an amendment. It's not likely to succeed, but it is theoretically possible. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

barfo

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I actually like the idea behind the electoral college. Gives a voice to smaller states their citizens. If they had no voice whatsoever and it was just up to Texas, Cali, and New York to decide the issues that those smaller states may have would never be talked about because all the politicians would focus solely on population centers.

I get that it sucks when it leads to guys like Trump or when we feel like the “wrong” guy won, but the idea itself has merit in my opinion.

 

[e_blazer]

It doesn't, actually. There is a movement afoot to have states pledge their electors to the national popular vote winner. If enough states agree to that (which, as you point out, they are free to do), then it is accomplished without an amendment. It's not likely to succeed, but it is theoretically possible. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

barfo

I’m aware of that ploy that Oregon just jumped into (pending getting enough states to join in to get to the magic 270 number) . If blue states are free to ignore the election in their jurisdictions in allocating their electors, I’d halfway expect a retaliatory move by red states to allocate all of the votes in their elections to the candidate with the most votes. What a farce.

 

[barfo]

I actually like the idea behind the electoral college. Gives a voice to smaller states their citizens. If they had no voice whatsoever and it was just up to Texas, Cali, and New York to decide the issues that those states may have would never be talked about because all the politicians would focus solely on population centers.

I get that it sucks when it leads to guys like Trump or when we feel like the “wrong” guy won, but the idea itself has merit in my opinion.

Why? What's so special about the people who happen to live in sparsely populated areas that their vote should count for more than your vote?

And you really think rural people are more deserving of a vote than you, why is it that a farmer from Pierre South Dakota is more special than a farmer from Burns Oregon?

If we give special vote preference to rural people (but only some rural people) so that they have 'voice', shouldn't we give extra vote preference to other minority groups for the same reason?
Gays should get extra votes. Hispanics need a voice. Truck drivers. Stay-at-home dads. Meth addicts.

barfo

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Why? What's so special about the people who happen to live in sparsely populated areas that their vote should count for more than your vote?

And you really think rural people are more deserving of a vote than you, why is it that a farmer from Pierre South Dakota is more special than a farmer from Burns Oregon?

If we give special vote preference to rural people (but only some rural people) so that they have 'voice', shouldn't we give extra vote preference to other minority groups for the same reason?
Gays should get extra votes. Hispanics need a voice. Truck drivers. Stay-at-home dads. Meth addicts.

barfo

I said smaller states not sparsely populated areas, keep up.

Whats “special” is that entire states have needs that should be addressed that go much further than “minority groups”, that effect EVERYONE in there state, if they’re completely devalued, the places politicians care about would get all the money, all the attention while entire states sink and all their people because the union they’re a part of doesnt see them as valuable to the leaders looking to get votes.

 

[barfo]

I said smaller states not sparsely populated areas, keep up.

There's no difference, you meant sparsely populated states, not geographically small states.

Whats “special” is that entire states have needs that should be addressed that go much further than “minority groups”, that effect EVERYONE in there state, if they’re completely devalued, the places politicians care about would get all the money, all the attention while entire states sink and all their people because the union they’re a part of doesnt see them as valuable to the leaders looking to get votes.

What are those 'needs', and in what way do they 'go much further' than than the needs of any other group of citizens?

If politicians are going to ignore entire states because the population is so small, wouldn't they be just as likely to also ignore the needs of other (possibly smaller) groups of citizens?

So, again: what's so special about people who reside in a particular geographical area, as opposed to any other possible grouping of citizens?

barfo

 

[barfo]

I’m aware of that ploy that Oregon just jumped into (pending getting enough states to join in to get to the magic 270 number) . If blue states are free to ignore the election in their jurisdictions in allocating their electors, I’d halfway expect a retaliatory move by red states to allocate all of the votes in their elections to the candidate with the most votes. What a farce.

Not quite sure what the retaliatory move you are proposing would be, or why it would matter if the popular vote campaign actually succeeded?

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

hope in the debates and all that, they refrain from trying to make it sound like he’s just a senile old man...

Me too, because he's so much more than that.

His family took billions from China in exchange for his treason, for instance.

Threatening to withhold billions in aid from US taxpayers, he forced Ukraine to fire the Prosecutor that was prosecuting his son's company.

And don't forget he's the man who imprisoned a million blacks.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

There's no difference, you meant sparsely populated states, not geographically small states.



What are those 'needs', and in what way do they 'go much further' than than the needs of any other group of citizens?

If politicians are going to ignore entire states because the population is so small, wouldn't they be just as likely to also ignore the needs of other (possibly smaller) groups of citizens?

So, again: what's so special about people who reside in a particular geographical area, as opposed to any other possible grouping of citizens?

barfo

There is a difference. States joined a union thats all about representation towards the federal government they joined into. This isn’t “minorities”.
The electoral college gives smaller states a voice, it keeps politicians at least somewhat honest from plundering those states, from taking their jobs, healthcare, etc. It says that hey we better at least pretend to care what people in Oregon think.

Without that they just go to California, Texas, NY campaign there and thats all that matters, the small states have no representation, can be utterly screwed over by the union they joined into and have no recourse but to leave. They’ll Have their businesses coerced to move to the bigger states, to take their jobs, healthcare stripped away (because who cares they arent in Houston).

I get that smaller places get screwed on occasion now, but my fear is that without some sort of balance that politicians could so easily just pander to big population states, pillage the smaller ones for anything sort of valuable give it to the bigger places.

 

[Lanny]

I actually like the idea behind the electoral college. Gives a voice to smaller states their citizens. If they had no voice whatsoever and it was just up to Texas, Cali, and New York to decide the issues that those smaller states may have would never be talked about because all the politicians would focus solely on population centers.

I get that it sucks when it leads to guys like Trump or when we feel like the “wrong” guy won, but the idea itself has merit in my opinion.

It means that in some states voters have more significance than in other states. Shouldn't it be one man one vote? Shouldn't every vote count the same? Why is it that we elect someone that most of the people do not want?

 

[e_blazer]

It means that in some states voters have more significance than in other states. Shouldn't it be one man one vote? Shouldn't every vote count the same? Why is it that we elect someone that most of the people do not want?

That’s a fine model to propose; it’s just not consistent with the constitution. This whole notion that the candidate that gets the most votes nationwide should be president is just bad civics that continues to be foisted off on the public by media that should know better. There is no such thing as a national presidential election. There are 50 state elections to select electors who pick the president. If we want to change that then have a proper national debate on the subject and amend the constitution.

 

[e_blazer]

Not quite sure what the retaliatory move you are proposing would be, or why it would matter if the popular vote campaign actually succeeded?

barfo

Just theorizing that Republican states could come up with a winner take all election where the candidate that wins gets all of the votes cast and that’s what gets recorded as the official vote tally for that state. The result would be an inflated nationwide vote total for the Republican candidate.

 

[Hoopguru]

That’s a fine model to propose; it’s just not consistent with the constitution. This whole notion that the candidate that gets the most votes nationwide should be president is just bad civics that continues to be foisted off on the public by media that should know better. There is no such thing as a national presidential election. There are 50 state elections to select electors who pick the president. If we want to change that then have a proper national debate on the subject and amend the constitution.

I couldn't imagine the 30 million plus now, people in So Cal & other densely populated areas determining the government of the USA. Thats exactly what the forefathers wanted to prevent.
Sure, it could be a definite political advantage to based everything on regional dense populations, thankfully its not.
Cities like LA, NY, Chicago have not earned the right to represent the majority, imo.

 

[e_blazer]

I couldn't imagine the 30 million plus now, people in So Cal & other densely populated areas determining the government of the USA. Thats exactly what the forefathers wanted to prevent.
Sure, it could be a definite political advantage to based everything on regional dense populations, thankfully its not.
Cities like LA, NY, Chicago have not earned the right to represent the majority, imo.

And that’s the equally valid opposing argument. It also happens to be the one that the constitution employs. I’m not married to one or the other, but I’m for darned sure not in favor of this back door effort that blue states are trying to use to game the system by making use of the popular vote total in a nonexistent election as a means of allocating 270 electoral votes. Party of transparency my ass.

 

[barfo]

Just theorizing that Republican states could come up with a winner take all election where the candidate that wins gets all of the votes cast and that’s what gets recorded as the official vote tally for that state. The result would be an inflated nationwide vote total for the Republican candidate.

Ah, ok, I get what you are saying now, thanks.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

It doesn't, actually. There is a movement afoot to have states pledge their electors to the national popular vote winner. If enough states agree to that (which, as you point out, they are free to do), then it is accomplished without an amendment. It's not likely to succeed, but it is theoretically possible. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

barfo

I just read this Harvard Law Review blog discussing problems with the NPVR. You might want to give it a look:

https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/the-danger-of-the-national-popular-vote-compact/

 

[barfo]

There is a difference. States joined a union thats all about representation towards the federal government they joined into. This isn’t “minorities”.

Yes. I agree with you that that is the actual justification. Not that small states have 'needs', but that the constitution was a compromise which involved giving more power to less populated states. The question before us is, is a political compromise that was made 200+ years ago still a good way to run things today, or should we change it?

The electoral college gives smaller states a voice, it keeps politicians at least somewhat honest from plundering those states, from taking their jobs, healthcare, etc. It says that hey we better at least pretend to care what people in Oregon think.

Have you seen a lot of pandering to Oregon in presidential elections? I haven't. It's pretty rare that a nominee even comes here once.

Without that they just go to California, Texas, NY campaign there and thats all that matters, the small states have no representation, can be utterly screwed over by the union they joined into and have no recourse but to leave. They’ll Have their businesses coerced to move to the bigger states, to take their jobs, healthcare stripped away (because who cares they arent in Houston).

What exactly have prior presidents done for Oregon that you think would have been lost if we had one-person, one-vote?

I get that smaller places get screwed on occasion now,

On occasion perhaps, but overall it is not the case. Small states pay less in taxes than the federal government spends on them; large states pay more than they receive back. It's large states that are getting screwed, they are subsidizing the rural states.

but my fear is that without some sort of balance that politicians could so easily just pander to big population states, pillage the smaller ones for anything sort of valuable give it to the bigger places.

Currently we pillage large states to give to the small ones. Why is that a system that must be preserved?

barfo

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Yes. I agree with you that that is the actual justification. Not that small states have 'needs', but that the constitution was a compromise which involved giving more power to less populated states. The question before us is, is a political compromise that was made 200+ years ago still a good way to run things today, or should we change it?



Have you seen a lot of pandering to Oregon in presidential elections? I haven't. It's pretty rare that a nominee even comes here once.



What exactly have prior presidents done for Oregon that you think would have been lost if we had one-person, one-vote?



On occasion perhaps, but overall it is not the case. Small states pay less in taxes than the federal government spends on them; large states pay more than they receive back. It's large states that are getting screwed, they are subsidizing the rural states.



Currently we pillage large states to give to the small ones. Why is that a system that must be preserved?

barfo

Its not, I am just saying I dont “mind” the electoral college and I see why it was put in place. If we want to go with a national popular vote, well ok we can argue its merit. I am just saying theres an discussion to be had.

There are issues with both systems and as with everything it wont be perfect for everyone.

Also in terms of Oregon, look at how active some of representatives are, Wyden and others are in committee’s that make laws for everyone. If we devalue states, Im saying the danger is smaller states will not get proper representation and wont really be allowed at the table, or it at least could play out that way.

 

[e_blazer]

Yes. I agree with you that that is the actual justification. Not that small states have 'needs', but that the constitution was a compromise which involved giving more power to less populated states. The question before us is, is a political compromise that was made 200+ years ago still a good way to run things today, or should we change it?



Have you seen a lot of pandering to Oregon in presidential elections? I haven't. It's pretty rare that a nominee even comes here once.



What exactly have prior presidents done for Oregon that you think would have been lost if we had one-person, one-vote?



On occasion perhaps, but overall it is not the case. Small states pay less in taxes than the federal government spends on them; large states pay more than they receive back. It's large states that are getting screwed, they are subsidizing the rural states.



Currently we pillage large states to give to the small ones. Why is that a system that must be preserved?

barfo

I'd say the solution is obvious: Scrap the entire system. This nation needs a pirate to lead us in these dark times. With the requisite supply of rum and supermodels, of course.

 

[barfo]

I just read this Harvard Law Review blog discussing problems with the NPVR. You might want to give it a look:

https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/the-danger-of-the-national-popular-vote-compact/

Thanks. I tend to agree with his conclusions. The NPVC in my view is just a way to start the discussion, not the solution itself.

barfo