Red Mosquito

Trump still thinks the electoral college needs to go. He won't do anything about it though.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

I don't think Republicans and smaller states will ever, ever agree to it. The trends that favor Democrats in the popular vote and Republicans in the Electoral College are likely to continue, so Republicans don't really have an incentive to go along.

I think the only chance if there is some type of discrepancy between the popular vote and Electoral College winner that is just untenable. Clinton's going to probably win by between 1 million and 2 million votes, so I don't know at what point the number is just too high.

digster wrote:I don't think Republicans and smaller states will ever, ever agree to it. The trends that favor Democrats in the popular vote and Republicans in the Electoral College are likely to continue, so Republicans don't really have an incentive to go along.

Agreed. This still needs to be a continuous Democratic Party plank until it goes away, though.

digster wrote:I think the only chance if there is some type of discrepancy between the popular vote and Electoral College winner that is just untenable. Clinton's going to probably win by between 1 million and 2 million votes, so I don't know at what point the number is just too high.

I can only think of one feasible way to get rid of it, and I split these posts off because I'm going to make a large post describing how to do it.

So anyway, that only way is through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact

In sum: if enough states summing up more that 270 EVs agree to it, all those states would agree to appoint electors that would vote for the popular vote winner, thus disarming the Electoral College without repealing it.

The first big obstacle to this is that Republicans are in no position to agree to this given how much the EC has helped them in the 21st century. And the GOP dominates state legislatures right now--Dems only have full control of three states--so efforts to do it legislatively are going to be doomed.

The only method I see left is via initiative ballots to bypass the legislature. I made a map to show where all the states stand on everything:



--The dark blue states are all states that have joined the Compact (and every single one of them went for Clinton)
--The medium blue states are states that Clinton won but have yet to join the Compact and whose citizens also have initiative power. Getting these states in the Compact should be a priority. (Especially Oregon, one of those rare states where Dems have full legislative power.)
--The light blue states are ones Clinton won but have not joined the Compact and have no initiative power. The path for Dems gets tougher if they lose these states in the future.
--The neutral states are ones that Trump won and have initiative power. These four states (Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Arizona) are the most key to the plan.
--The pink states are ones that went for Trump but also have given citizens initiative power. I deemed these states as not as likely to get them to join the Compact via initiative, as they are leaning pretty hard to the right and are also all small to smallish states with little ammunition for the math. But none of them should be completely counted out if a group can organize enough to get the initiative on the ballot.
--The red states are ones that went for Trump and whose citizens don't have the power of initiative. Nothing you can do here.

If you add up the dark blue, light blue, and neutral states (including that one EV in Maine that went Trump), it comes out to 269 on the dot--just one short. That means you have to flip just one of those pink states, or somehow convince the legislatures of one of the light blue states to join the Compact. However, the most aggressive work needs to be done in those four key states of FL, MI, OH and AZ in order to even get that close to begin with.

The Dems also need to work on this quickly--because there's a nonzero chance that SCOTUS could one day find this unconstitutional. In a recent case called Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the court voted 5-4 that independent redistricting commissions were constitutional. However, the four dissenters were very adamant that "Legislature" meant only state legislatures in the Constitution, and the relevant clause here says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors". I would definitively expect Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Trump's Scalia replacement to say the Compact is unconstitutional, stare decisis from the Arizona case being damned, and if Trump gets to replace Kennedy or someone to his left, then even this plan, maybe the only one to do it, is doomed too.

Nick, why do you ruin fun debates with long posts full of knowledge and reason?

There was a telling moment on Meet the Press this weekend with Kellyanne Conway, speaking for Trump. Todd talked about the issues with the higher popular vote totals overtaking Trump, in contrast to the Electoral College. Conway said, and I'm paraphrasing, "yeah, but those are city voters." Republicans can see the writing on the wall, and know that their chances would be diminished in a popular vote contest. If it hurt both parties, I could envision a way out, but I really feel the only thing that will change it is a popular vote discrepancy so extreme that politicians don't really have a choice.

B wrote:Nick, why do you ruin fun debates with long posts full of knowledge and reason?

I split this off from the main election thread to keep the fun debates going in there!

digster wrote:There was a telling moment on Meet the Press this weekend with Kellyanne Conway, speaking for Trump. Todd talked about the issues with the higher popular vote totals overtaking Trump, in contrast to the Electoral College. Conway said, and I'm paraphrasing, "yeah, but those are city voters." Republicans can see the writing on the wall, and know that their chances would be diminished in a popular vote contest. If it hurt both parties, I could envision a way out, but I really feel the only thing that will change it is a popular vote discrepancy so extreme that politicians don't really have a choice.

I think that's a dangerous bet. There was a lot of discussion about Texas, Georgia, and Arizona being in play.

Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Nashville, Memphis, and Phoenix are going to keep growing until southern states start flipping to blue. It's not like people ONLY move to New York and LA.

B wrote:

digster wrote:There was a telling moment on Meet the Press this weekend with Kellyanne Conway, speaking for Trump. Todd talked about the issues with the higher popular vote totals overtaking Trump, in contrast to the Electoral College. Conway said, and I'm paraphrasing, "yeah, but those are city voters." Republicans can see the writing on the wall, and know that their chances would be diminished in a popular vote contest. If it hurt both parties, I could envision a way out, but I really feel the only thing that will change it is a popular vote discrepancy so extreme that politicians don't really have a choice.

I think that's a dangerous bet. There was a lot of discussion about Texas, Georgia, and Arizona being in play.

Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Nashville, Memphis, and Phoenix are going to keep growing until southern states start flipping to blue. It's not like people ONLY move to New York and LA.

Unless state legislatures keep inventing chickenshit ways to keep those cities down...

Also (and on somewhat a similar note), the growth of each metro as a whole is also important to watch. Cities proper may be solidly Democratic but it doesn't matter if they can't also get some suburbs within the metro to flip as well.

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:

digster wrote:There was a telling moment on Meet the Press this weekend with Kellyanne Conway, speaking for Trump. Todd talked about the issues with the higher popular vote totals overtaking Trump, in contrast to the Electoral College. Conway said, and I'm paraphrasing, "yeah, but those are city voters." Republicans can see the writing on the wall, and know that their chances would be diminished in a popular vote contest. If it hurt both parties, I could envision a way out, but I really feel the only thing that will change it is a popular vote discrepancy so extreme that politicians don't really have a choice.

I think that's a dangerous bet. There was a lot of discussion about Texas, Georgia, and Arizona being in play.

Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Nashville, Memphis, and Phoenix are going to keep growing until southern states start flipping to blue. It's not like people ONLY move to New York and LA.

Unless state legislatures keep inventing chickenshit ways to keep those cities down...

Also (and on somewhat a similar note), the growth of each metro as a whole is also important to watch. Cities proper may be solidly Democratic but it doesn't matter if they can't also get some suburbs within the metro to flip as well.

Well, it won't just be Texans moving to Houson. Liberals are going to move from other parts of the country. Conversatives are going to move in from rural areas and become more liberal because they're exposed to the diversity of cities. State legislatures can't do anything to stop either of those trends.

B wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:

digster wrote:There was a telling moment on Meet the Press this weekend with Kellyanne Conway, speaking for Trump. Todd talked about the issues with the higher popular vote totals overtaking Trump, in contrast to the Electoral College. Conway said, and I'm paraphrasing, "yeah, but those are city voters." Republicans can see the writing on the wall, and know that their chances would be diminished in a popular vote contest. If it hurt both parties, I could envision a way out, but I really feel the only thing that will change it is a popular vote discrepancy so extreme that politicians don't really have a choice.

I think that's a dangerous bet. There was a lot of discussion about Texas, Georgia, and Arizona being in play.

Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Nashville, Memphis, and Phoenix are going to keep growing until southern states start flipping to blue. It's not like people ONLY move to New York and LA.

Unless state legislatures keep inventing chickenshit ways to keep those cities down...

Also (and on somewhat a similar note), the growth of each metro as a whole is also important to watch. Cities proper may be solidly Democratic but it doesn't matter if they can't also get some suburbs within the metro to flip as well.

Well, it won't just be Texans moving to Houson. Liberals are going to move from other parts of the country. Conversatives are going to move in from rural areas and become more liberal because they're exposed to the diversity of cities. State legislatures can't do anything to stop either of those trends.

Dear God let's hope so.

Seems like a gamble for the Dems. What if latinos end up being more conservative than they assume?

500,000 new york or califormia residents move to florida and this problem ends

96583UP wrote:500,000 new york or califormia residents move to florida and this problem ends

The New York to Florida exodus has been happening for 60+ years.

Electromatic wrote:

96583UP wrote:500,000 new york or califormia residents move to florida and this problem ends

The New York to Florida exodus has been happening for 60+ years.

correct, which might be partly why it has been shifted from solid red to swing state over that timeframe.

maybe the baby boomers can speed up the transition to solid blue (there are more of them than past generations!)

bada wrote:Seems like a gamble for the Dems. What if latinos end up being more conservative than they assume?

I don't really know why it's assumed they wouldn't be conservative. Liberal race condescension, I guess?

tragabigzanda wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

bada wrote:Seems like a gamble for the Dems. What if latinos end up being more conservative than they assume?

I don't really know why it's assumed they wouldn't be conservative. Liberal race condescension, I guess?

My own mistake was assuming that immigration policy would be their primary motivator for voting.

So...liberal race condescension?