13 years on what are your thoughts on the U.S. presidential election of 2000?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah... California has not been decisive in recent elections

It hasn't been as decisive under the electoral college, as the electoral college makes the overflow irrelevant.

You talk about how removing the EC would make California decisive in every election... well guess what, it already is decisive.

What the EC does is take a small difference and turns it into a larger difference. Switching to the popular vote would make the elections actually much narrower.

In 2012, it's a 5 million gap in the popular vote. 3 million of that gap alone is in California. Per vote differential, it's again the square of the overall size of the state.

Obama could have lost in every other state save California, and still would have won the popular vote.

One person, one vote.

As I showed, in 2012 - only California matters. Again, Obama could have lost 49:1 in states and still won the popular election in California.

Hell, we might as well save the government a lot of money and only bother holding the election in possible swing states.

As opposed to holding the election in California only?

Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states might as well not even vote.

In your system, that wouldn't change. No one outside of California would ever matter.

[N35t0r]

In your system, that wouldn't change. No one outside of California would ever matter.

You're saying that California has 2/3rds of the US voting population.

[giblets]

The likelihood of the deciding vote being cast in Texas would not change. Texas would then become the state most likely to have the deciding ballot cast, all else considered equal.



That's absolutely how it would work.

So essentially the "decisiveness" of a state is a quality that has no influence on the election results whatsoever. What a bizarre objection to raise against a popular vote system.

[Ming]

It hasn't been as decisive under the electoral college, as the electoral college makes the overflow irrelevant.

Gee, 10% of the total Electoral votes isn't decisive?

What the EC does is take a small difference and turns it into a larger difference. Switching to the popular vote would make the elections actually much narrower.

Uhhh... that's what I said. It would make the actual election represent the voice of the people... one person, one vote.

In 2012, it's a 5 million gap in the popular vote. 3 million of that gap alone is in California. Per vote differential, it's again the square of the overall size of the state.

Obama could have lost in every other state save California, and still would have won the popular vote.

As I showed, in 2012 - only California matters. Again, Obama could have lost 49:1 in states and still won the popular election in California.

Uhhhh... if he had lost every other state, then the numbers would have been different, and your argument is moronic. You have shown nothing but make believe.

As opposed to holding the election in California only?
In your system, that wouldn't change. No one outside of California would ever matter.

No... every single person would matter. Their vote would count toward their candidate.
Sure, California has a lot of people. But one more time so maybe you will understand it...

Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states might as well not even vote.

A person's vote in a small state should count just as much as in a large state. As it is right now, in a majority of the states, the opposition party's votes don't count at all.

[Elok]

But one more time so maybe you will understand it...

Oh Ming, you so crazy...

[korn469]

Here is some stats

CA
2012 Dem Winner, 2008 Dem Winner, 2004 Dem Loser, 2000 Dem Loser, 1996 Dem Winner, 1992 Dem Winner, 1988 Rep Winner, 1984 Rep Winner, 1980 Rep Winner, 1976 Rep Loser, 1972 Rep Winner, 1968 Rep Winner, 1964 Dem Winner, 1960 Rep Loser

7 Dem
7 Rep
10/14 Winners

OH
2012 Dem Winner, 2008 Dem Winner, 2004 Rep Winner, 2000 Rep Winner, 1996 Dem Winner, 1992 Dem Winner, 1988 Rep Winner, 1984 Rep Winner, 1980 Rep Winner, 1976 Dem Winner, 1972 Rep Winner, 1968 Rep Winner, 1964 Dem Winner, 1960 Rep Lose

6 Dem
8 Rep
13/14 Winners

So although California is very important, it isn't vital to win the Electoral College. Ohio is much more vital to win the EC.

[Aeson]

Why is Utah shaped the way it is?

Because of all the perfectly straight "rivers" out in the deserts and wastelands?

Or maybe it's because there's a line between Grand Junction, CO and Green River, UT where suddenly rural ranchers become totally different culturally and politically and so need to be grouped in with Denver and SLC respectively to ensure their rural way of life is protected?

On the Nevada side it's because people are stupid (or were channeling the future Big Oil interests), and think it's a good idea for Wendover, NV to not be right next to Salt Lake City, UT. So they drew an arbitrary line out in the desert where no one would willingly go if it weren't for divergent gambling laws so that people will waste more petrol to do what they're going to do anyways.

On the Arizona side it's so polygamists living out in the desert can move their encampment a few miles if the state officials (from Utah or Arizona) start to harass them about marrying off their 15 year old daughters to their elderly friends. Making it a straight line ensures that they don't accidentally misread the map and end up going to prison.

Don't even get me started on the differences between Pocatello, ID and Tremonton, UT. It's like travelling to another world ... but then finding out you actually took a wrong turn and ended up right back where you started.

Because of the Wasatch mountains, and because of the trail routes through Wyoming.

No. It's because of the Uinta mountains. Which of course HAD TO BE PARTIALLY IN UTAH AND WYOMING WITH AT LEAST 2 AND ONLY 2 STRAIGHT LINES AT RIGHT ANGLES DELINEATING THE BOUNDARY or otherwise we couldn't have freedom and liberty because some bears, pine trees, and/or hikers may have been disenfranchised as they are completely different politically and culturally when you cross those arbitrary lines. Anyone who disagrees with that is a socialist who wants California to decide everything.

(The Wasatch mountains would have made a lot more sense, at least if you were a fortune teller and could see the future. Of course they aren't in a straight line, and so couldn't have worked.)

[Tupac Shakur]

Leave it to Ming to make BK look intelligent...

[Ben Kenobi]

Uhhhh... if he had lost every other state, then the numbers would have been different, and your argument is moronic. You have shown nothing but make believe.

60 percent of Obama's popular vote Margin came from California alone. Hence, my argument that no other state matters.

In an election which was closer, this margin advantage percentage in California would actually increase, rather than decrease. The only elections in which CA would be irrelevant would be blowouts.

No... every single person would matter. Their vote would count toward their candidate.

Sure. If they lived in California.

Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states might as well not even vote.

And there are plenty of purple states out there. Whereas under your model only CA and TX would matter. Campaign in LA, campaign in Dallas. And you're done.

A person's vote in a small state should count just as much as in a large state.

Proportionally, a person's vote in a small state matters very little to the overall total. Their vote would only be decisive in fewer cases than someone's vote. This is counterbalanced by the larger sizes of the state, making it less likely that their vote will tip the state.

In your system, there's not counterbalancing against size. Only CA matters.

As it is right now, in a majority of the states, the opposition party's votes don't count at all.

At least their votes count more if they live in a state other than California under the present system.

[Ben Kenobi]

(The Wasatch mountains would have made a lot more sense, at least if you were a fortune teller and could see the future. Of course they aren't in a straight line, and so couldn't have worked.)

It doesn't take a fortune teller to say that there's going to be a boundary with the Salt Lake on one side of the Wasatch and another state on the other side. It also doesn't take a fortune teller to state that there's going to be another dividing line between the Humbolt and west of the Greater salt lake.

[Aeson]

It doesn't take a fortune teller to say that there's going to be a boundary with the Salt Lake on one side of the Wasatch and another state on the other side.

Utah is on both sides [east and west] of the Wasatch. And on all sides of the Great Salt Lake. Not much of a boundary in regards to state lines, those ...

[Ming]

Sure. If they lived in California.
Whereas under your model only CA and TX would matter. Campaign in LA, campaign in Dallas. And you're done.

First, either way you look at it, CA only represents 10 to 11% of the total vote or Electoral votes... You can talk all you want about margin of victory, but the reality is, if you only campaigned in CA, you would probably lose the election thanks to the other 90%.

The math is simple, 90% beats 10%

One person, one vote, no matter where you live. It's a more realistic view of what the people want.

[korn469]

The Electoral College cannot guarantee the winner will have either a majority of the voters (2000 election and others) or a majority of the states (1960 elections and others) backing the winner. There is even a scenario where both a minority of voters and a minority of states could elect a winner.

Consider this (unlikely though still possible):

You have the normal two party candidates with a decently strong third party candidate (similar to a Ross Perot in 1992). At the end of the election, non of the candidates have close to a majority.

Candidate A won 42% of the popular vote
Candidate B won 38% of the popular vote
Candidate C won 19% of the popular vote
All the other guys who always run won 1% of the popular vote

Candidate A won 39 states and DC
Candidate B won 11 states
Candidate C won 0 states
All the other guys won nothing like usual

Who won the election?

Candidate B

Candidate B won razor thin pluralities (not majorities) in the following 11 states

CA (55), TX (38), FL (29), NY (29), IL (20), PA (20), OH (18), MI (16), GA (16), NC (15), NJ (14)

Yea! Candidate B is president

Under a direct popular election Candidate A would win (which isn't ideal...but I'm not sure if we need runoffs if nobody wins a majority, though I wouldn't be opposed to them either).

Please explain to me how the Electoral College provided the best solution in that election scenario?

Also Ben, what are you going to do if California becomes a swing state? It is quite possible for an election to revolve around two swing states. If suddenly California and New York replaced Ohio, Florida and Virginia as swing states, then it's possible that the "nightmare" of California and New York deciding everything could come true.

[Ben Kenobi]

First, either way you look at it, CA only represents 10 to 11% of the total vote or Electoral votes... You can talk all you want about margin of victory, but the reality is, if you only campaigned in CA, you would probably lose the election thanks to the other 90%.

Again, the math for 2012 shows that 60 percent of Obama's total vote margin in victory came from California alone. He didn't need any of the other 49 states.

The math is simple, 90% beats 10%

Let's go back a bit.

2008. Obama won by 9.4 million votes. California contributed 3.2 million to his win total, over a third. New York state contributed more than 2 million to the total.

Obama needed 2 states this time, CA and NY to put him over the top.

2004, Bush had a 3 million advantage. 1.7 of which was Texas.

So three elections, only 4 states mattered by your system. CA, CA, TX, and NY.

2000, Gore had a 540k popular vote advantage.

States with a greater than 300k vote swing: CA, IL and NY.

So in the narrowest election ever, still, only three states were decisive. That brings our total, in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012, 4 elections the following states are decisive:

CA, NY, CA, CA, NY, IL, TX.

One person, one vote, no matter where you live. It's a more realistic view of what the people want.

No, it's a reflection of what liberals want because they are sore that they lost in 2000 and the evil Bush got elected because their man couldn't deliver his own home state of Tennessee.

Had it been reversed, where Bush won the popular vote but lost the EC - we'd hear none of this whining.

As it is your system, going back to 2000, means that only 4 states matter. CA, IL, NY and TX. All the other states were irrelevant.

1996, Clinton had an 8.3 million vote margin.

1.3 million was from CA. 1.8 from NYC, .82 from MA, .7 for IL and that's it. We have a new relevant state. MA.

So now we have CA, IL, NY, TX and MA.

1992, Clinton won by 5.8 million votes. 1.5 was in CA, 1.1 was in NY. .8 in IL.

Five relevant states: CA, IL, NY, TX and MA. 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 6 elections.

[Tupac Shakur]

Of course Ming wants the popular vote. He lives in one of the handful of major metropolitan areas that will matter after the Electoral College is abolished.