2020 Election

[Dill]

(11-06-2020, 03:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To answer the main question: no. The reason for this is that states are represented in Congress. If the executive branch moves to strip mine public lands in North Dakota, then the Representatives and Senators from North Dakota have the option to stop those actions by working for a legislative check on those actions. That's how the system is supposed to work.

As it stands, national parties ONLY pay attention to battleground states. They don't spend money or visit places where they don't see any real path to victory. In fact, a national popular vote provides more incentive to visit more states because every vote gained in any state matters. There are Democratic and Republican voters in every state, but some of them get ignored by their party because they are outnumbered.

All-in-all, I think going to a national popular vote would actually help Congress take back some of its power that it has given up to the executive. I think forcing states to act out their interests on Capitol Hill would mean that we could end up with a better functioning Congress.

Thanks for the explanation: I'm listening. But . . .

My response to your first paragraph is--I understand the reason states are represented in Congress and the rationale for our bi-cameral legislature, etc. That's surely is how the system was supposed to work, but that does not exclude or replace or deny the power now accumulated to smaller states by the EC. 

National parties pay a great deal of attention to battleground states, but it is not entirely true to say they don't spend money or visit places that aren't battleground states. In part because it is not always clear where the battle ground states are/will be. Think of Wisconsin, Michigan, and PA in 2016--the Blue "firewall." Also, having been a Dem living in a reliably red state--and still in discussion with Dems actively organizing there--I can assure you that Dems in such states aren't simply ignored by the national party. And as the case of Georgia proves, such states' "minority" parties are incentivized to move their state into battleground status, drawing more support and national attention as they push to flip.  EC or no, won't more time spent in VA still be more cost effective than time spent in Wyoming or Alaska, whose combined populations barely equal Fairfax County? 

I need more time to think about your final argument, which potentially has the most gravity. Rural Western states are already forced to act out their interests on Capital Hill; I'm having trouble imagining how they are advantaged in any way by elimination of the EC. 

Last night I was looking at counties in Nevada, trying to calculate Trump's chances. So easy to simply ignore Eureka county with less than 1,000 votes. That's Montana and Alaska on a national analogy--almost--but not quite because their "state" status gives them more heft.  But we are a step closer to Eureka if the EC is trashed. 

That's why I am thinking over the long term here, and in principle, not simply to secure Dem power now cuz we lost the popular vote a couple of times. We lost it in a Federal system of states, not a unitary state collecting votes by administrative units like counties.