Why vote in the US for president?

[hanimmal]

Electoral College votes are equal to a state's representation in Congress. The House allocates seats according to population while the Senate gives two seats to each state regardless. That means Montana, with a small population has larger weight in the EC per voter compared to California. This is by itself should be a reason for getting rid of the EC but it's not the most important one.

More important is the winner takes all rules that most states hold for selecting Electors. Most states are already blue or red in partisan leanings. The election is already decided in Oregon, for instance. From 538, based on aggregate polling models and their own time-tested models, this is the path to the presidency for either candidate:

View attachment 4663398

There are just a handful of states in play. To win, Trump just needs to flip Arizona, Florida and PA to win while keeping NC, Ohio and Georgia. He has a real chance of doing this despite him trailing Biden in opinion polls by no less than 8% and as much as 12%. This is why 538 give Trump a 30% chance of winning in the fall even though his record as President is one of the worst in history.

Selecting a president by majority vote will not guarantee a great president. But it does guarantee that president was the choice of the majority. I think it's better than the system we have.

I disagree with thinking short term about which states matter now and what they will be for all time. Moving and shit like that will have swayed a lot post 2010 census counting.

The next issue is going to be that Trump's trolling of our census is going to skew shit again for another decade. Again it is not the EC system imo it is that the Republicans have been setting themselves up to keep their power while the Democrats have been playing catchup through better policy and representation of their districts/states/presidents since the 70's.


I am not apposed to the strait popular vote for POTUS, but I agree with the reasoning to have the EC more. Checks and balances and having to be accountable to everyone and every state.

 

[Fogdog]

I disagree with thinking short term about which states matter now and what they will be for all time. Moving and shit like that will have swayed a lot post 2010 census counting.

The next issue is going to be that Trump's trolling of our census is going to skew shit again for another decade. Again it is not the EC system imo it is that the Republicans have been setting themselves up to keep their power while the Democrats have been playing catchup through better policy and representation of their districts/states/presidents since the 70's.


I am not apposed to the strait popular vote for POTUS, but I agree with the reasoning to have the EC more. Checks and balances and having to be accountable to everyone and every state.

Explain to me again why the EC is better than majority vote? I don't get it. More fair? Better at choosing a president? More representative of -- I can't say what that would be. As it is right now, small states get zero attention, just a few battleground states. The difference is, larger states like CA and NY get no attention whatsoever. I don't understand the checks and balances thing.

 

[hanimmal]

Explain to me again why the EC is better than majority vote? I don't get it. More fair? Better at choosing a president? More representative of -- I can't say what that would be. As it is right now, small states get zero attention, just a few battleground states. The difference is, larger states like CA and NY get no attention whatsoever. I don't understand the checks and balances thing.

Isn't Schumer from NY? Clinton was senator there, they are well represented in the Federal government, same with California.

I understand you just mean the presidential election, but I am talking about the house, senate, and presidency all as a push and pull design on each other to keep checks and balances. I haven't looked but I am sure Biden is spending money, blah nm.

Do you know if there is a database of candidate spending to see what they have spent in every state. I am sure that Biden is spending a lot in local level, or at least was prior to the pandemic, who the hell knows what is happening now, but under normal circumstances.

I think the president needs to consider every senate seat also in the house, and state senate seat, governor etc, it takes everyone to run the work of the nation, and the president needs them all to line up to get his agenda done.

Giving a cult leader like Trump the ability to just focus on 9 or 10 major cities and ignore the rest of the nation is scary.

 

[Fogdog]

Isn't Schumer from NY? Clinton was senator there, they are well represented in the Federal government, same with California.

I understand you just mean the presidential election, but I am talking about the house, senate, and presidency all as a push and pull design on each other to keep checks and balances. I haven't looked but I am sure Biden is spending money, blah nm.

Do you know if there is a database of candidate spending to see what they have spent in every state. I am sure that Biden is spending a lot in local level, or at least was prior to the pandemic, who the hell knows what is happening now, but under normal circumstances.

I think the president needs to consider every senate seat also in the house, and state senate seat, governor etc, it takes everyone to run the work of the nation, and the president needs them all to line up to get his agenda done.

Giving a cult leader like Trump the ability to just focus on 9 or 10 major cities and ignore the rest of the nation is scary.

There are three branches in government. The House and the Senate write the laws and small states are guaranteed representation in that process due to their disproportionate representation in the Senate, the more powerful body of the two.

The president is supposed to run the administration of those laws. You would hand control of the legislative and administrative processes to the smallest states?

Of course, there is also the judicial branch, who are selected by the President and the Senate. What do we have today? A minority president and a legislative body that is mostly driven by small states. I find that scary, when those people are choosing judges who will rule in those same big cities.

Those 9 or 10 major cities only account for a fraction of the total vote. Roughly 16 million people live in those 10 cities. 325 million in the US.

Yes, urban areas account for the largest number of people in the country but it's more spread out geographically and across states than you've made it out to be.

 

[Fogdog]

Do you know if there is a database of candidate spending to see what they have spent in every state. I am sure that Biden is spending a lot in local level, or at least was prior to the pandemic, who the hell knows what is happening now, but under normal circumstances.

9.2 Myths That Candidates Reach Out to All the States under the Current System

9.2.1 MYTH: The current system ensures that presidential candidates reach out to all states. 9.2.2 MYTH: A national popular vote will simply make a different group of states irrelevant in presidential elections. 9.2.3 MYTH: The disproportionate attention received by battleground states is not a...

www.nationalpopularvote.com

9.2.1 MYTH: The current system ensures that presidential candidates reach out to all states.
QUICK ANSWER:

• Far from ensuring that presidential candidates reach out to all states, the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of electing the President resulted in four out of five states being ignored in the 2012 general-election campaign for President.
• In 2012, Obama conducted campaign events in just eight states after being nominated, and Romney did so in only 10 states.
• In 2012, only 12 states received even one post-convention campaign event involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.
• Two thirds of the presidential and vice-presidential post-convention campaign events were conducted in just four states in 2012 (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
• Only three of the 25 smallest states received any attention in the post-convention campaign period in 2012.
• The South is largely ignored in presidential elections because of the state-by-state winner-take-all system.
• Advertising spending was also heavily concentrated in the 12 states where the presidential and vice-presidential candidates held post-convention general-election campaign events in 2012.
• Campaign field offices were also heavily concentrated in the 12 states where the presidential and vice-presidential candidates held post-convention general-election campaign events in 2012.
• The number of battleground states has been consistently shrinking in recent decades.

 

[hanimmal]

There are three branches in government. The House and the Senate write the laws and small states are guaranteed representation in that process due to their disproportionate representation in the Senate, the more powerful body of the two.

The president is supposed to run the administration of those laws. You would hand control of the legislative and administrative processes to the smallest states?

Of course, there is also the judicial branch, who are selected by the President and the Senate. What do we have today? A minority president and a legislative body that is mostly driven by small states. I find that scary, when those people are choosing judges who will rule in those same big cities.

Those 9 or 10 major cities only account for a fraction of the total vote. Roughly 16 million people live in those 10 cities. 325 million in the US.

Yes, urban areas account for the largest number of people in the country but it's more spread out geographically and across states than you've made it out to be.

Who is handing it to the smallest states? I don't think the 3 votes of whatever state is doing that. I am confused by how you come to the conclusion that I am saying that.

The people's vote would count towards 1/336(?) million if the EC is based on population, because their states EC would be state population/national population*whatever the total EC are right?

It is just within that state, that person may be on the losing proportion in their state, it wouldn't make their vote count any less though.

Am I missing something here? Just the nuts and bolts of the EC system, not the impact in a swing state in any given year, just the structure of the EC.

 

[hanimmal]

five states being ignored in the 2012 general-election campaign for President

I would request the data, because I doubt Obama did not have contact with people in any state in 2012. Could that article just be considering tv air time or specific dates Obama travelled there? It doesn't mean that as POTUS he 'ignored' those states.

• In 2012, Obama conducted campaign events in just eight states after being nominated, and Romney did so in only 10 states.
• In 2012, only 12 states received even one post-convention campaign event involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.
• Two thirds of the presidential and vice-presidential post-convention campaign events were conducted in just four states in 2012 (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
• Only three of the 25 smallest states received any attention in the post-convention campaign period in 2012.
• The South is largely ignored in presidential elections because of the state-by-state winner-take-all system.
• Advertising spending was also heavily concentrated in the 12 states where the presidential and vice-presidential candidates held post-convention general-election campaign events in 2012.
• Campaign field offices were also heavily concentrated in the 12 states where the presidential and vice-presidential candidates held post-convention general-election campaign events in 2012.
• The number of battleground states has been consistently shrinking in recent decades.

Leading up to the final push to win an election, sure I agree with what you are saying, but I am arguing that the president needs the support of the party he is in across the board. From getting signatures to become a candidate on that election kind of thing.

Just having some raving cult leader get enough votes and bypass election rules with having his cult do something like write his name in is something that is scary in the extreme cases.

No question Trump hacked 2016 EC system, but anything is hackable by corrupt people with enough determination and ability.



The founders didn't forsee the internet data manipulation to brainwash American citizens, but they did foresee Trump, and the Republicans, which is why we get to vote and why our individual states are in charge of it and not Trump or his minions (who were not voted in by the people in those states).

I don't know anymore, but I trust the distrust that the EC offers and the separations of Federal and State governments.

 

[Fogdog]

Who is handing it to the smallest states? I don't think the 3 votes of whatever state is doing that. I am confused by how you come to the conclusion that I am saying that.

The people's vote would count towards 1/336(?) million if the EC is based on population, because their states EC would be state population/national population*whatever the total EC are right?

It is just within that state, that person may be on the losing proportion in their state, it wouldn't make their vote count any less though.

Am I missing something here? Just the nuts and bolts of the EC system, not the impact in a swing state in any given year, just the structure of the EC.

The allocation of 537 EC electors are not based on population in each state, it is based on representation in Congress and therefore skewed to smaller stated due by representation in the Senate -- two per state regardless of population size. It would require an amendment to the Constitution to change that. I do not have an issue with how Senatorial seats are allocated. I feel that it is appropriate and a good check the power of large states to have the Senate structured the way it is. I disagree that smaller states should have disproportionate power in the EC.

The Senate holds the most power in Congress AND the Senate designed to favor smaller states. Handing disproportionate power in the hands of small states to select the POTUS as in addition to disproportionate power to write or cancel laws only makes the power structure in DC more favorable to small states. This is a bone of contention and important to me but not the major problem with the EC.

The major problem with the EC is the winner take all rules that most states have adopted. As I pointed out earlier, the winner takes all system cancels the votes of a large number of people who live in red and blue states. This system shifts the focus to a very few states. In this election, perhaps 4 or 6 states will receive the lions share of attention because the election will be won or lost there. I'm not saying selection of POTUS by popular vote will be perfect, I am saying it would be more just and would eliminate the chances of poor or corrupt (or both) presidents from stealing an election by gaming it. Trump is most definitely playing this game. His cynical use of our system is a threat to our democracy.

 

[Fogdog]

I would request the data, because I doubt Obama did not have contact with people in any state in 2012. Could that article just be considering tv air time or specific dates Obama travelled there? It doesn't mean that as POTUS he 'ignored' those states.

Leading up to the final push to win an election, sure I agree with what you are saying, but I am arguing that the president needs the support of the party he is in across the board. From getting signatures to become a candidate on that election kind of thing.

Just having some raving cult leader get enough votes and bypass election rules with having his cult do something like write his name in is something that is scary in the extreme cases.

No question Trump hacked 2016 EC system, but anything is hackable by corrupt people with enough determination and ability.

View attachment 4663503

The founders didn't forsee the internet data manipulation to brainwash American citizens, but they did foresee Trump, and the Republicans, which is why we get to vote and why our individual states are in charge of it and not Trump or his minions (who were not voted in by the people in those states).

I don't know anymore, but I trust the distrust that the EC offers and the separations of Federal and State governments.

Sorry, but you'll have to fact check that site on your own. The interstate agreement for the popular vote is a bi-partisan one and from all I've read, it's a reputable source.

 

[schuylaar]

Isn't Schumer from NY? Clinton was senator there, they are well represented in the Federal government, same with California.

I understand you just mean the presidential election, but I am talking about the house, senate, and presidency all as a push and pull design on each other to keep checks and balances. I haven't looked but I am sure Biden is spending money, blah nm.

Do you know if there is a database of candidate spending to see what they have spent in every state. I am sure that Biden is spending a lot in local level, or at least was prior to the pandemic, who the hell knows what is happening now, but under normal circumstances.

I think the president needs to consider every senate seat also in the house, and state senate seat, governor etc, it takes everyone to run the work of the nation, and the president needs them all to line up to get his agenda done.

Giving a cult leader like Trump the ability to just focus on 9 or 10 major cities and ignore the rest of the nation is scary.

uncle joe was broke just prior to the pandemic; Sanders had all the cash from his donors in a contest never to be finished..but had we had no pandemic? guess we'll never know..again..

my vote is not a vote for biden; it's a vote against Trumpy*.

 

[hanimmal]

The allocation of 537 EC electors are not based on population in each state, it is based on representation in Congress and therefore skewed to smaller stated due by representation in the Senate -- two per state regardless of population size. It would require an amendment to the Constitution to change that. I do not have an issue with how Senatorial seats are allocated. I feel that it is appropriate and a good check the power of large states to have the Senate structured the way it is. I disagree that smaller states should have disproportionate power in the EC.

The Senate holds the most power in Congress AND the Senate designed to favor smaller states. Handing disproportionate power in the hands of small states to select the POTUS as in addition to disproportionate power to write or cancel laws only makes the power structure in DC more favorable to small states. This is a bone of contention and important to me but not the major problem with the EC.

The major problem with the EC is the winner take all rules that most states have adopted. As I pointed out earlier, the winner takes all system cancels the votes of a large number of people who live in red and blue states. This system shifts the focus to a very few states. In this election, perhaps 4 or 6 states will receive the lions share of attention because the election will be won or lost there. I'm not saying selection of POTUS by popular vote will be perfect, I am saying it would be more just and would eliminate the chances of poor or corrupt (or both) presidents from stealing an election by gaming it. Trump is most definitely playing this game. His cynical use of our system is a threat to our democracy.

Is it a problem now because people have cheated and stopped the states from having a actual representation of their population size? Because we are still overcoming the legacies of the racist shit we have pulled and this is one of them.

When you say congress representation, do you mean seats in congress +2 for the states? Because I still have no real issue with states having the ability to put their EC votes to good use to stop a would be dictator cult leader in times of great need.

I just don't really see the need to waste legislative space on this issue that would be a big division when there are so many low hanging fruit to take care of after Trump making a mess.

Sorry, but you'll have to fact check that site on your own. The interstate agreement for the popular vote is a bi-partisan one and from all I've read, it's a reputable source.

That is what I mean, this is not worth trying to dig up the data to me, much bigger fish to fry. The EC is not going to change any time soon, Trump's buddy is trying to troll our ability to have a agency with the capability of reaching every American household every day. While foreign nations are attacking our electorate.

uncle joe was broke just prior to the pandemic; Sanders had all the cash from his donors in a contest never to be finished..but had we had no pandemic? guess we'll never know..again..

my vote is not a vote for biden; it's a vote against Trumpy*.

That is how life goes. It sucks, there might not have been a reason for the DNC this year if Comey would have just slapped cuffs on Trump in October.

But he knew at that point Trump wanted that to happen. I still think the real corruption with him is with Netanyahu and MBS. Putin just capitalized on Trump's corruption and stupidity, Trump didn't know he had the firepower to depress the vote in such an epic fashion.

Comey was more afraid of Trump crying about being a political prisoner and they didn't have everything they needed until after the election was over and he thought (wrongly not understanding what/how the Russians were communicating in full with over 120 million Americans) Clinton would win and it would be a moot point.

But just to be sure lol, you do mean you are voting for Biden because you want to be sure Trump is gone right? Sorry to be hyper specific, scary times with the third party/dont vote nonsense.

 

[Wattzzup]

I disagree with thinking short term about which states matter now and what they will be for all time. Moving and shit like that will have swayed a lot post 2010 census counting.

The next issue is going to be that Trump's trolling of our census is going to skew shit again for another decade. Again it is not the EC system imo it is that the Republicans have been setting themselves up to keep their power while the Democrats have been playing catchup through better policy and representation of their districts/states/presidents since the 70's.


I am not apposed to the strait popular vote for POTUS, but I agree with the reasoning to have the EC more. Checks and balances and having to be accountable to everyone and every state.

so you don’t think the people should pick the president? I don’t understand how you say they have to be accountable to each state. I just showed you they only paid attention to a few states. A few states are deciding it. You keep saying how great the EC is but the people are not picking the president. A few states, not all of them. Not all the people. A few states and that’s it.

 

[hanimmal]

so you don’t think the people should pick the president?

There is nothing that I said that would get you to infer that. The people vote period, Each state has the vote that their population decides who the state sends its vote to become president.

I don’t understand how you say they have to be accountable to each state.

Like its a rule or in general? Do you not understand the whole signature thing?

I just showed you they only paid attention to a few states. A few states are deciding it. You keep saying how great the EC is but the people are not picking the president. A few states, not all of them. Not all the people. A few states and that’s it.

No you showed that the handful of states have the majority of the political focus leading up to the election, not that Biden can just ignore those states. It is illogical to think he is not focused on 50 states at all times, just maybe has to economically make decisions when it comes to campaigning. I would bet now that he is virtual reality campaigning you would see him talking to people from every state if you took the time.

Just to get on the ballot as the Democratic nominee they have to understand that they are putting skin in the game.

It is not as clear cut as it feels like it should be. I really like the checks, each state elects their delegates, completely on their own rules. Then the vote itself is the same weight as anyone else in the country.

 

[Wattzzup]

There is nothing that I said that would get you to infer that. The people vote period, Each state has the vote that their population decides who the state sends its vote to become president.



Like its a rule or in general? Do you not understand the whole signature thing?


No you showed that the handful of states have the majority of the political focus leading up to the election, not that Biden can just ignore those states. It is illogical to think he is not focused on 50 states at all times, just maybe has to economically make decisions when it comes to campaigning. I would bet now that he is virtual reality campaigning you would see him talking to people from every state if you took the time.

Just to get on the ballot as the Democratic nominee they have to understand that they are putting skin in the game.

It is not as clear cut as it feels like it should be. I really like the checks, each state elects their delegates, completely on their own rules. Then the vote itself is the same weight as anyone else in the country.

Well they are only spending money in a few so that tells me the rest don’t matter. I showed you the stats, not sure what else can prove to you that they don’t care. If they aren’t focusing their money there, they probably aren’t too worried about it. And it makes sense why waste money when you know who the winner of the state is already.

 

[hanimmal]

Well they are only spending money in a few so that tells me the rest don’t matter. I showed you the stats, not sure what else can prove to you that they don’t care. If they aren’t focusing their money there, they probably aren’t too worried about it. And it makes sense why waste money when you know who the winner of the state is already.

I reject your 'only spending in a few states' is my problem I guess.

From your link :

and virtually all campaign expenditures

Virtually is not all, just because the campaign spend the majority of money on those key states that in that particular year will be the major impact on the outcome of the election, doesn't mean that the presidential candidate is only focused on them, it just means they are not spending nearly as much money in those areas they don't feel as confident about the outcome.

Also this doesn't mean that the DNC, which the candidate is the big ticket draw is not spending money across the nation. They just need to have always (in the past, now everyone from every state is being 'touched' by the political candidates online) had economic constraints with campaigning.

 

[Wattzzup]

I reject your 'only spending in a few states' is my problem I guess.

From your link :


Virtually is not all, just because the campaign spend the majority of money on those key states that in that particular year will be the major impact on the outcome of the election, doesn't mean that the presidential candidate is only focused on them, it just means they are not spending nearly as much money in those areas they don't feel as confident about the outcome.

Also this doesn't mean that the DNC, which the candidate is the big ticket draw is not spending money across the nation. They just need to have always (in the past, now everyone from every state is being 'touched' by the political candidates online) had economic constraints with campaigning.

I guess we can respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[Wattzzup]

Similarly, in 2016, almost all (94%) general-election campaign events were in the 12 battleground states where Trump's support was in the narrow range of 43%-51%. Two-thirds of the campaign events (273 of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).

They aren’t spending money or time there. Sooooo....

 

[hanimmal]

'General Election' again is dismissive of who they won the nomination for the run for POTUS, which is the primary election in which they need to consider all 50 states and everyone inside of those states.

 

[Wattzzup]

'General Election' again is dismissive of who they won the nomination for the run for POTUS, which is the primary election in which they need to consider all 50 states and everyone inside of those states.

I think they pick the candidate based on if they can win key states. They don’t worry about all 50. Sad but true. The proof is in the money

 

[hanimmal]

I think they pick the candidate based on if they can win key states. They don’t worry about all 50. Sad but true. The proof is in the money

Even that though leads to compromises being made, which I don't think should be a dirty word. Everywhere ends up counting in it's own way, we need to govern 100% of the country so that we can all be successful.

Tell you what, for real let's play 'the name a state game'.

Where do you think Biden has ignored? Ill go dig into it, and we will figure it out together.