Biden takes 2 point lead in new Fox poll

[CJD]

(06-24-2024, 06:28 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote:  That scenario happens all of the country to Republicans whose vote does pick the winner in California, NY, Mass., Illinois, Oregon, Washington and many other places. My point is population is not ignored in detrmining the POTUS, eletoral college uses population to assign delegates for each state.

...I know that happens to Republicans. I explicitly state that in my post.

I believe our elections should be egalitarian in nature where every vote counts the same and I'd feel that way even if it meant Republicans had more votes. 

I'm not talking about populations, I'm talking about individual people. 

I'll give you a hypothetical. 

Let's say there's a state with 100 million people and it was assigned 10 electoral votes (I don't care that that is not the proportion in real life, it's just an example with even numbers)

In this state, the election ends up being 49 million to 51 million,  that means the 49 million people who "lost" the election have their votes erased. All 10 electoral votes of the state go to a single candidate even though 49% of those people disagreed with that choice.

I just don't like it. It would be more representative of the will of the people to proportion the electoral votes based on margin. It makes the 1 to 2 % of people in swing states vastly disproportionate in the value of their votes.

Also, population to votes is not proportional. Wyoming, the least populated state at 576,851 people has 3 votes. That ratio in California's population of 39,538,223 would yield 205 electoral votes.

I think your problem is that you're trying to fit my beliefs into "what will help democrats the most" instead of listening to words that I'm saying.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-24-2024, 06:44 PM)CJD Wrote: ...I know that happens to Republicans. I explicitly state that in my post.

I believe our elections should be egalitarian in nature where every vote counts the same and I'd feel that way even if it meant Republicans had more votes. 

I'm not talking about populations, I'm talking about individual people. 

I'll give you a hypothetical. 

Let's say there's a state with 100 million people and it was assigned 10 electoral votes (I don't care that that is not the proportion in real life, it's just an example with even numbers)

In this state, the election ends up being 49 million to 51 million,  that means the 49 million people who "lost" the election have their votes erased. All 10 electoral votes of the state go to a single candidate even though 49% of those people disagreed with that choice.

I just don't like it. It would be more representative of the will of the people to proportion the electoral votes based on margin. It makes the 1 to 2 % of people in swing states vastly disproportionate in the value of their votes.

Also, population to votes is not proportional. Wyoming, the least populated state at 576,851 people has 3 votes. That ratio in California's population of 39,538,223 would yield 205 electoral votes.

I think your problem is that you're trying to fit my beliefs into "what will help democrats the most" instead of listening to words that I'm saying.

You are making fair points, but the Republic is what it is.

It could be better, and it could be worse, pending who is making and approving the changes.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-24-2024, 06:44 PM)CJD Wrote: ...I know that happens to Republicans. I explicitly state that in my post.

I believe our elections should be egalitarian in nature where every vote counts the same and I'd feel that way even if it meant Republicans had more votes. 

I'm not talking about populations, I'm talking about individual people. 

I'll give you a hypothetical. 

Let's say there's a state with 100 million people and it was assigned 10 electoral votes (I don't care that that is not the proportion in real life, it's just an example with even numbers)

In this state, the election ends up being 49 million to 51 million,  that means the 49 million people who "lost" the election have their votes erased. All 10 electoral votes of the state go to a single candidate even though 49% of those people disagreed with that choice.

I just don't like it. It would be more representative of the will of the people to proportion the electoral votes based on margin. It makes the 1 to 2 % of people in swing states vastly disproportionate in the value of their votes.

Also, population to votes is not proportional. Wyoming, the least populated state at 576,851 people has 3 votes. That ratio in California's population of 39,538,223 would yield 205 electoral votes.

I think your problem is that you're trying to fit my beliefs into "what will help democrats the most" instead of listening to words that I'm saying.

We all get why it is the way it is. It was so that the rural areas wouldn't become "subject" to the voting wishes of the highly populated areas.

[CJD]

(06-24-2024, 07:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: We all get why it is the way it is. It was so that the rural areas wouldn't become "subject" to the voting wishes of the highly populated areas.

You could accomplish that while still awarding electoral votes proportionate to margin of victory. In fact, in a lot of ways it would make the rural areas more impactful. There are millions of acres of farm land in Illinois. Nearly 75% of the state is rural. But Chicago is so big, it turns the entire state blue, canceling out those rural voters' votes.

If a states' votes were proportional to the margin of victory, you'd be giving those rural areas more power to influence the election because now, instead of 100% of the votes being determined by the voters in Chicago, they'd only be able to control 71% of the electoral votes (Chicago metro population = 8,937,000. Illinois state population = 12,580,000).

And it also helps with incentivizing candidates to campaign in states that they already know they'll win.

For example, a Republican can basically ignore most of the south and still count on winning their electoral votes. A democrat can probably ignore most of the south because they think it's lost already.

But if you awarded electoral votes proportional to the margin of victory, then there'd be a reason for both sides to campaign in otherwise solid red or blue states. Because if you can change a 60 - 40 state to a 55 - 45 state (or, conversely, to a 65 - 35 state), you will get 5% more of that states' electoral votes.

That means more people's votes matter because margin of victory would matter.

[Luvnit2]

In the end, we have the electoral college to pick the winner. All know the rules and campaign accordingly. Republicans did not campaign at all in California, NY, Illinois, Ma. and deep leaning blue states. Why? They did not think they could win their nomination. Democrats still campaign in 2 of the big red states Florida and Texas. Could Republicans pick up more popular votes if they expanded their campaign? Could Democrats?

We will never know the answer, we do know the path to win the POTUS is get the most electoral college votes. The rules are stated 2 both parties so they can spend their campaign resources accordingly.

Look at the most recent election, it was settled by results in 7 swing states and likely will be again. The loser Trump received over 73 million popular votes, the most by any losing candidate in history. There was no landslide and likely will not be a landslide again.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-25-2024, 08:52 AM)CJD Wrote: You could accomplish that while still awarding electoral votes proportionate to margin of victory. In fact, in a lot of ways it would make the rural areas more impactful. There are millions of acres of farm land in Illinois. Nearly 75% of the state is rural. But Chicago is so big, it turns the entire state blue, canceling out those rural voters' votes.

If a states' votes were proportional to the margin of victory, you'd be giving those rural areas more power to influence the election because now, instead of 100% of the votes being determined by the voters in Chicago, they'd only be able to control 71% of the electoral votes (Chicago metro population = 8,937,000. Illinois state population = 12,580,000).

And it also helps with incentivizing candidates to campaign in states that they already know they'll win.

For example, a Republican can basically ignore most of the south and still count on winning their electoral votes. A democrat can probably ignore most of the south because they think it's lost already.

But if you awarded electoral votes proportional to the margin of victory, then there'd be a reason for both sides to campaign in otherwise solid red or blue states. Because if you can change a 60 - 40 state to a 55 - 45 state (or, conversely, to a 65 - 35 state), you will get 5% more of that states' electoral votes.

That means more people's votes matter because margin of victory would matter.

Ok, that makes sense. I must not have read the previous post clearly enough. Thanks for the clarification.