As far as I understand the system in the US: with first-past-the-post and the gerrymandering that is possible these days with all the data gathered from social media, the only thing you're doing there is to throw your vote away.
Those two things would have to be broken down first. But unfortunately for the people in the US both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would rather keep that system and abuse it towards their own goal than to get rid of it.
I am not sure what could be done against that other than having another revolutionary event.
Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of congressional districts. It has nothing to do with presidential voting, which is by state.
Perhaps what you are referring to is 'winner-take-all'. That is not mandated by the Constitution, which says the states are to choose their electors 'in the manner of their choosing'. There is always a lot of wailing about winner-take-all. Of course, what the whiners really mean is OTHER states should get rid of winner-take-all. For instance, after the 2016 election there w
Gerrymandering is absolutely about presidential voting as it is used to dominate state elections and thus control over voter registration/suppression in that state.
Nope. A State can decide to use a direct proportional system, they don't have to do it by District. Gerrymandering primarily affects Local and State level issues.
I can't speak for all states (like you apparently can) but control of the state senate & house or assembly or whatever and the federal house are done by district, thus gerrymandering can create situations where concentrations of one party are given 'a' district for their own while diluting their representation in many other districts to the advantage of the party in control of the process. That misrepresentation then reinforces itself in some cases by implementation of voter suppression actions targeti
Interestingly, it is almost all blue states that have signed on to the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". The approach if 270EV states adopts it turns the US into a popular vote system instead of a EC system. NY is one of the states that has adopted the compact. I think the compact has around 250 right now if you count pending states. EC could be supplanted without a constitutional amendment with this approach.
That thing is nothing but a grandstanding joke by the left. It has no legal force behind it, and is possibly illegal itself. If you think for one second that a legislature is going to direct its electors to vote against what its own constituents want, you are insane. As soon as an election went the opposite of what a state wants, it will ignore that compact so fast your head will spin. And since compacts between the states are illegal without the approval of Congress, and the Constution says the state L
From wikipedia: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Which means, for instance, if the people in NY voted for a Democrat, but a republican won the nationwide popular vote, the NY legislature would appoint electors who will vote for the republican, the opposite of what the vo
Republicans in state legislatures are actively talking about just that. By delaying accurate vote counting and relying on claims of voter fraud/irregularities with no evidence, they can supplant a potential Biden result and nominate their own electors to the Electoral College, who would of course then vote for Trump.
That thing is nothing but a grandstanding joke by the left. It has no legal force behind it, and is possibly illegal itself.
None of this is clear. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors". Generally state legislatures have broad constitutional authority to choose how electors are selected, including deciding against a winner-take-all policy as well as forcing unfaithful electors to vote against their personal conscience or to allow electors to vote their personal conscience in opposition to the state popular vote. All of this is
A constitutional amendment is not required. States are allowed to assign their electoral votes by whatever system they choose. Nebraska and Maine already apportion their electoral votes based on congressional district votes, rather than winner-take-all. 15 states have signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [wikipedia.org]. When enough states sign (enough to reach 270 votes), they all agree to apportion electoral votes based on statewide popular vote.
You've got it wrong. The pact is to assign all electors to the apparent winner of the national popular vote. This gives whichever party tries to be the most dishonest a substantial advantage.
Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of congressional districts. It has nothing to do with presidential voting, which is by state.
The party that controls the state controls a lot of levers used to put the thumb on the scale of presidential elections. I'm always astounded by how well Americans know the details of their laws and systems, but are absolutely blind to the consequences of those systems.
All voting is 'winner take all'. You're just trying to find a way for an almost-winner to actually prevail. Disliking the prospect of a 'winner' not actually winning a 'majority' isn't the reason to change all this. It's realizing that third choices are going to be last, last, last, and your almost winning candidate just didn't overcome that third-place loser.
This is not, BTW, a new problem. Now that it seems to be impacting the candidates of the party ready to change all the rules, well, we HAVE TO CHANGE
Of course, what the whiners really mean is OTHER states should get rid of winner-take-all.
No, they want ALL states to get rid of winner-take-all. Everyone acknowledges that if states run by one party changed this but states run by the other party didn't, it would only hurt the party enacting the reform. This is why you will never see even those who support the change actually enact it without federal coordination.
...the only thing you're doing there is to throw your vote away.
While supporters of major-party candidates love to make the "throwing your vote away" claim to scare people into voting for someone they don't want to, it's untrue.
Yes, it is true that a third-party candidate is exceedingly unlikely to win. Most of us who ever vote for one of them understand that. However, what this argument misses is that voting for another candidate can change the behavior of the major parties in the future. If they see that they are losing elections because a large group of people re
In that case I'd never vote for anyone and anything.
I'm in a different system where 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and whatever parties are possible to get seats in the parliament. Technically we could have 20 different parties sitting in the parliament unless they get rid of that 5% threshold.
And still with all those options across the board every single party and candidate gets to a point where their ideology makes them take impractical if not irrational stances on various issues.
So in the end you either don't vot
The way I put this is as follows. During the primaries you vote for the canidate of your choice. During the general you vote for the best of the two canidates who have a chance to win. So no third party voting, it's stupid. This will maximize the effect of your vote.
with first-past-the-post and the gerrymandering that is possible these days with all the data gathered from social media, the only thing you're doing there is to throw your vote away.
The UK has first-past-the-post, gerrymandering and 'big data'.
People threw their votes away, over 4 million votes to a party that got just one seat in Parliament, out of 650. To put that in context, another party got 56 seats from 1.5 million votes.
The result: Brexit.
Don't underestimate the power of voting against the mainstream.
I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do?
-- Raoul Duke
green (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:green (Score:2)
Those two things would have to be broken down first. But unfortunately for the people in the US both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would rather keep that system and abuse it towards their own goal than to get rid of it.
I am not sure what could be done against that other than having another revolutionary event.
Re: (Score:3)
Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of congressional districts. It has nothing to do with presidential voting, which is by state.
Perhaps what you are referring to is 'winner-take-all'. That is not mandated by the Constitution, which says the states are to choose their electors 'in the manner of their choosing'. There is always a lot of wailing about winner-take-all. Of course, what the whiners really mean is OTHER states should get rid of winner-take-all. For instance, after the 2016 election there w
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Gerrymandering is absolutely about presidential voting as it is used to dominate state elections and thus control over voter registration/suppression in that state.
Re: green (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for all states (like you apparently can) but control of the state senate & house or assembly or whatever and the federal house are done by district, thus gerrymandering can create situations where concentrations of one party are given 'a' district for their own while diluting their representation in many other districts to the advantage of the party in control of the process. That misrepresentation then reinforces itself in some cases by implementation of voter suppression actions targeti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That thing is nothing but a grandstanding joke by the left. It has no legal force behind it, and is possibly illegal itself. If you think for one second that a legislature is going to direct its electors to vote against what its own constituents want, you are insane. As soon as an election went the opposite of what a state wants, it will ignore that compact so fast your head will spin. And since compacts between the states are illegal without the approval of Congress, and the Constution says the state L
Re: (Score:2)
The point of it is to direct the electors to vote the way their constituents want, as evidenced by factual counting of votes.
Whatever you were on about is just made up nonsensical bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
From wikipedia: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Which means, for instance, if the people in NY voted for a Democrat, but a republican won the nationwide popular vote, the NY legislature would appoint electors who will vote for the republican, the opposite of what the vo
Re: green (Score:2)
Republicans in state legislatures are actively talking about just that. By delaying accurate vote counting and relying on claims of voter fraud/irregularities with no evidence, they can supplant a potential Biden result and nominate their own electors to the Electoral College, who would of course then vote for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
That thing is nothing but a grandstanding joke by the left. It has no legal force behind it, and is possibly illegal itself.
None of this is clear. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors". Generally state legislatures have broad constitutional authority to choose how electors are selected, including deciding against a winner-take-all policy as well as forcing unfaithful electors to vote against their personal conscience or to allow electors to vote their personal conscience in opposition to the state popular vote. All of this is
Amendment not required (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of congressional districts. It has nothing to do with presidential voting, which is by state.
The party that controls the state controls a lot of levers used to put the thumb on the scale of presidential elections. I'm always astounded by how well Americans know the details of their laws and systems, but are absolutely blind to the consequences of those systems.
Re: (Score:2)
All voting is 'winner take all'. You're just trying to find a way for an almost-winner to actually prevail. Disliking the prospect of a 'winner' not actually winning a 'majority' isn't the reason to change all this. It's realizing that third choices are going to be last, last, last, and your almost winning candidate just didn't overcome that third-place loser.
This is not, BTW, a new problem. Now that it seems to be impacting the candidates of the party ready to change all the rules, well, we HAVE TO CHANGE
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, what the whiners really mean is OTHER states should get rid of winner-take-all.
No, they want ALL states to get rid of winner-take-all. Everyone acknowledges that if states run by one party changed this but states run by the other party didn't, it would only hurt the party enacting the reform. This is why you will never see even those who support the change actually enact it without federal coordination.
Re: (Score:2)
...the only thing you're doing there is to throw your vote away.
While supporters of major-party candidates love to make the "throwing your vote away" claim to scare people into voting for someone they don't want to, it's untrue.
Yes, it is true that a third-party candidate is exceedingly unlikely to win. Most of us who ever vote for one of them understand that. However, what this argument misses is that voting for another candidate can change the behavior of the major parties in the future. If they see that they are losing elections because a large group of people re
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in a different system where 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and whatever parties are possible to get seats in the parliament. Technically we could have 20 different parties sitting in the parliament unless they get rid of that 5% threshold.
And still with all those options across the board every single party and candidate gets to a point where their ideology makes them take impractical if not irrational stances on various issues.
So in the end you either don't vot
Re: (Score:1)
Well, not exactly, but effectivly right.
The way I put this is as follows. During the primaries you vote for the canidate of your choice. During the general you vote for the best of the two canidates who have a chance to win. So no third party voting, it's stupid. This will maximize the effect of your vote.
Re: (Score:2)
with first-past-the-post and the gerrymandering that is possible these days with all the data gathered from social media, the only thing you're doing there is to throw your vote away.
The UK has first-past-the-post, gerrymandering and 'big data'.
People threw their votes away, over 4 million votes to a party that got just one seat in Parliament, out of 650. To put that in context, another party got 56 seats from 1.5 million votes.
The result: Brexit.
Don't underestimate the power of voting against the mainstream.