Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
Cushman 425 days ago | link | parent

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but look, just read the site.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php

MYTH: A national popular vote would undermine a partisan advantage in favor of the Republican Party in the small states.

The small state issue sometimes serves as a surrogate for the unstated political concern (and misconception) that the small states confer a partisan advantage in favor of the Republican Party. However, this belief does not reflect current political reality. In the last six presidential elections (1988 through 2008), six of the 13 least populous states have regularly gone Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), while six others (Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, and the District of Columbia) have regularly gone Democratic. New Hampshire has been, in recent years, the one closely divided battleground state among the 13 smallest states (having supported the Democrat in 1992 and 1996, the Republican in 2000, and the Democrat in 2004 and 2008).

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/Withdrawal-V6-2...

  An attempt to change the “rules of the game” contrary to clause 2 of Article IV  
    ● would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and be void; 
    ● would violate existing federal law specifying that presidential electors may only 
      be appointed on one specific day in  every four-year period, namely the Tuesday 
      after the first Monday in November (i.e., election day);  
    ● would invalidate the “conclusiveness”  of that state’s results under  existing 
      federal law specifying that presidential electors must be appointed under 
      “laws enacted prior” to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November;
    [et al]


Steko 425 days ago | link

Regarding withdrawl: most of what you're quoting assumes I'm talking about changing the process after election day. I'm not. I'm talking about the entire electoral process being subject to one state deciding on July 19 to leave the coalition. So yes as said earlier it's possible without a constitutional amendment but I don't have great hopes for such a system. help

"MYTH: A national popular vote would undermine a partisan advantage in favor of the Republican Party in the small states.

... In the last six presidential elections (1988 through 2008), six of the 13 least populous states."

Obviously they're cherry picking here and framing their argument and "myth" around the statistic that looks the closest. What if we look at the biggest states? What if we look at the smallest 8 or 16 or 22 instead of 13?

What if we did something simple and honest and looked at the percentage of votes (or possible voters) of all states vs the percentage of electoral votes of all states? Going back to 2000 for a basically tied election we find that 31 states gain via the electoral college, 6 of them are purplish (<10%), 7 are blue and 19 are red states. If we weight by eligible voting population I suspect it's even worse.

-----

AnthonyMouse 425 days ago | link

>Going back to 2000 for a basically tied election we find that 31 states gain via the electoral college, 6 of them are purplish (<10%), 7 are blue and 19 are red states.

You're assuming that what matters is which party wins rather than how the voters influence what the parties do. There is a reason that Floridians got Medicare Part D and Ohioans got the auto bailout but Monsanto continues to be allowed to rape family farmers in all the deep red states.

-----

Steko 425 days ago | link

"Ohioans got the auto bailout"

And Michigan? I think it borders on conspiracy theory to suggest that, on the precipice of a large depression, no bailout would have been issued to save a 3 million job industry had those jobs been centered in red states.

"family farmers in all the deep red states"

There are no family farmers anymore. Let me rephrase that, there are almost no family farmers anymore. This has nothing to do with them being from red states (trust me, farmers in Hawaii get screwed by Monsanto just like everywhere else) and everything to do with there not being many of them.

-----

AnthonyMouse 425 days ago | link

>And Michigan? I think it borders on conspiracy theory to suggest that, on the precipice of a large depression, no bailout would have been issued to save a 3 million job industry had those jobs been centered in red states.

Michigan is a swing state too. And the auto industry didn't fail because of the recession. The recession was just the last straw. They've been slowly dying for decades as a result of strong competition from foreign competitors. But that's the case across all traditional manufacturing industries. Why did we bail out General Motors but not any of the companies that used to make all the Walmart inventory that now comes from China?

>There are no family farmers anymore.

Because the Department of Agriculture and the president's veto pen had no incentive to care when they were being destroyed.

-----

Steko 424 days ago | link

"And the auto industry didn't fail because of the recession."

Never said it did.

"Why did we bail out General Motors but not any of the companies that used to make all the Walmart inventory that now comes from China?"

I already explained because the auto collapse came as we were staring down the barrel of a huge depression. It would have been a devastating shock to the economy to have an industry of that size collapsing suddenly added to the other problems.

-----




Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: