Skip to main content

View Diary: Defending a System that Has Long Since Collapsed: The Electoral College (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If it were a national popular vote you'd see more (5+ / 0-)

    turnout in Presidential election year in states that are reliably red or blue.  Primarily because there are plenty of folks who won't vote in these states as things are because it doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference.  Obama is going to win CA.  No doubt.  There are definitely people in CA who are voting 3rd party because they live in a safe state.  You get rid of safe states and I bet the Dems pick up a lot of votes.

    The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

    by AoT on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 01:17:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  How much of that red state turnout... (6+ / 0-)

      ...would be real people? There is so much proven Republican voter registration fraud, that I'm really concerned about what would happen in a National Popular Vote in areas where there is little or not oversight by Democrats. Heck, even when there IS a lot of oversight by Democrats, the Republicans have pulled off some major vote suppression.

      So I think NPV is a very bad idea unless it is linked to some kind of strong (which would have to be Federal) enforcement of voting rules & ballot access. Given that, NPV would be great.

      •  I think you have the incentives backwards (7+ / 0-)

        In a winner take all system, a relatively small shift in votes can mean a big shift in electoral votes. That encourages cheating. In NPV big shifts in outcome can only happen with big shifts in votes. Cheating becomes a more difficult task. Plus the present system means Dems have no incentive to police deep red states whereas with NPV they would.

        Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity. Notes on a Theory

        by David Kaib on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 02:33:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That can only happen in a state... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dream It Real, Tuba Les

          ...where there is a significant presence by Democrats, who should therefore be able to poll-watch and catch such things.

          In a state heavily dominated by Republicans -- and where voting procedures are controlled entirely locally -- there isn't any practical way to stop them from padding their own vote & suppressing ours. But if they are in that control, it's a deep red state & getting extra votes does not matter under the current system. Under NPV, it would.

          I'm all in favor of policing voting rights in red states. Show me a way that's possible & I'll be a NPV supporter, FWIW.

          •  I think you are making too much of outright (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            voting fraud by the GOP.  Where it has been clear that it happens it is in cases where the vote was very close.  At best they can come up with about .1% new votes for the GOP.  If you compare that with the increased turnout in states that will suddenly matter, like CA, NY, etc.  What your analysis lacks is the fact that blue states have a higher population on average, and popular voting means that more of that population would turn out.  Under the current system Montana is represented in the EC twice as much as CA is per capita.

            The other thing we'd see is a large increase in voting in districts in blue states that generally elect conservatives, and that could help in the house.

            The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 04:35:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Think about the fraud math again. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            David Kaib, ConfusedSkyes

            Let's say you're a fraudster looking to steal an election. You look for a swing state with a lot of EVs. In Ohio 2004, flipping 60,000 votes from R to D would've flipped the state, the EC, the White House. But the 2004 popular vote margin was 3 million. Try to flip that many in any single state and it will stick out like a sore thumb. So to steal the election, you have to mount a multi-state operation. More people involved, harder to recruit them, and the odds that somebody will spill the beans go way up.

            An NPV would make an election harder, not easier, to steal.

            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

            by HeyMikey on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:21:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site