You gotta be FFFFFucking with me.
Which again is counteracted by the fact that individual citizens, of more populous states, have greater representation in the House.
In terms of the electoral college, sure, small states have greater representation in terms of how much their EC vote counts (I guess, their EC voted might be weighted, but they get less), but all that means is candidates have to engage the populations of smaller states. I don’t see that as a bad thing in general.
In terms of the Senate, the only real argument I can see is when it comes to confirmations, but, as far as I know, all Senate races are won via a state popular vote (could be wrong) so if Dems (for example) win more senatorial elections than what does it even matter? It probably helps the minority party more anyway.
1 Like
So it shakes out to high pop states have extra power in the House.
Low pop states have extra power in the Senate AND Oval.
I think a system that makes a very large chunk of voters useless is a bad thing in general. Like yours in MD, or mine if I still lived in WV.
That being said, the level of voter motivation we’d see probably isn’t worth it. Muricans ain’t so smrt most of the time
Like the 1/3 of eligible who don’t vote even in presidential elections… drones.
OK, so let’s check the scoreboard:
Citizens of more-populous states: 1 (the House)
Citizens of less-populous states: 2 (POTUS; the Senate)
Hence my assertion.
I don’t understand what you mean here.
What does it matter who controls the Senate?
1 Like
Hence why I think it would be interesting to see what happens to voter turnout when your vote matters just as much as the next guy.
As opposed to now, where a CA republican and Alabama Democrat are both useless voters
Apologies, my mistake.
I think it would be interesting to see what happens to voter turnout in a national election when your vote matters just as much as the next guy.
As opposed to now, where a CA republican and Alabama Democrat are both useless voters
I guess you could look at it that way. I look at it more like, every state has the same power in the Senate because in federalism every state is supposed to have equal say in how the United States is run. It just so happens that some states have lower populations so if you look at it from that perspective than sure the individuals in more populace states have less say in the Senate.
In regards to the Oval, less populated states have slightly more sway in who reaches the oval office. They have very little sway in how that person will run the country.
I’m not really sure how else to do it. A straight popular vote does essentially the same thing.
See above, less-populace states are weighted giving them more electoral votes than they would if EC votes were given based on straight HC. They still get less than bigger states:
California got 55 EC votes (10.22% of total EC votes) having a population that’s roughly 12.3% of the US population. It’s not like they got hosed…
I can see an argument that states with larger population should get a greater say in who is appointed/confirmed to cabinet positions/courts, which is not the case with Alaska and California having the same number of Senators.
That isn’t what I said.
I wrote:
Meaning, the popular vote already determines who is in the Senate anyway so what does it even matter if Alaska and California have the same number of Senators? Just win local elections and crazy enough you’ll have more seats.
People don’t really turn out in mid-terms where their vote equals the same as everyone else in their state so why would it be any different for national elections?
1 Like
Iirc the lowest pop states have ~4x the weight of CA
Not in the slightest. Just because your side lost doesn’t mean your vote was useless. In a pop vote scenario they’re all added the the pile.
In an EC sense it obviously doesn’t work that way.
Are you of the opinion that the average American doesn’t value a POTUS election more than the midterms? If so, Trecos graph above has some news for you
I think it’s only about 2x.
No, my opinion is the opposite. People don’t really turn out when it’s a straight popular vote so why would turnout change if the POTUS election changed to a popular vote? I think the graph would remain the same. I doubt people abstain from voting because of the electoral college.
Straight popular vote is just mob rule. If you aren’t part of the mob your vote is worthless.
1 Like
Apologies, I mispoke with 4x. Turns out the low states it’s only 3.4-3.6ish
Edit: And a point to note. As time goes on, and low pop states continue to bleed citizenry and large states continue to grow, the inequality grows with it. What’s the breaking point? When Wyoming citizen’s vote is 10x as powerful as a Californian, will we still go ‘BUT FEDERALISM’
Because their vote for POTUS may no longer be a complete waste? Being able to actually contribute is very motivating.
How ghastly. A nation with officials elected by the people. I shudder at the thought
“Mob rule” lol
1 Like
The popular vote mos def doesn’t determine who controls the Senate, which is the outcome that matters. As of 2016, IIRC the 49 Senate D’s (and I’s who caucus with Dems) had received 5-6M more votes than the 51 R’s who control the Senate.
2 Likes
That doesn’t surprise me as the largest state is blue every year…
The popular vote within a state wins Senate seats. Convince people in red states dem policies are better and win more elections.
Every Senator is picked by popular vote; therefore, the Senate is contolled by the popular vote. It’s just not the popular vote in the aggregate.
2.97x is the highest they came up with.
Sure, that’s why they vote in mid-term elections and gobernatorian elections already…
Ya, we have such a strong history of great outcomes when one group of people “governs” everyone. I’m sure minorities will be thrilled at your, lol.
1 Like
So adjusted for turnout the inequality is only 2.97:1 and not 3.6:1?
As opposed to now where one group of people governs everyone in a national election?
The lol was directed at how that criticism of a popular vote model is absolutely also true of an EC model. That’s how voting always works. Your vote was useless if you lose.
The argumentative in me would say that even if you lose, your vote is a demonstration to pols how far they can sway before being reeled in, but realistically, you lost if your guy doesn’t win, regardless of the voting type.
In EC we just made the mob a minority % instead of a majority %
Does a national election for POTUS invalidate the checks and balances we have in place?
Is the EC in any way a requirement of our government structure ‘Republic’ to exist?
Do you anticipate a pop vote election to carry with it dictator status upon the President?