You can't be both pro-Electoral College and anti-DEI

[The San Diegan]

And by the same token, you can't be both pro-DEI and anti-Electoral College.

Discuss...

[Spaztecs]

[Aslowhiteguy]

On 10/29/2024 at 9:11 PM, The San Diegan said:

And by the same token, you can't be both pro-DEI and anti-Electoral College.

Discuss...

Why not?

If you're a pro-DEI idiot from a small state, and you have an IQ above room temperature,  you don't want any changes in the electoral.

Personally,  if I had a say in the matter, I'd advocate  to keep the EC in place but make the popular vote count as a few EC votes. 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 10/29/2024 at 10:05 PM, Aslowhiteguy said:

Why not?

If you're a pro-DEI idiot from a small state, and you have an IQ above room temperature,  you don't want any changes in the electoral.

Personally,  if I had a say in the matter, I'd advocate  to keep the EC in place but make the popular vote count as a few EC votes. 

Easiest change that would have a 0.1% chance of happening instead of a 0%, IMO, would be for all states to use the system Maine and Nebraska use. Still gives small states disproportionately more influence, but it makes the results more closely track with the popular vote.

[The San Diegan]

On 10/29/2024 at 10:05 PM, Aslowhiteguy said:

Why not?

If you're a pro-DEI idiot from a small state, and you have an IQ above room temperature,  you don't want any changes in the electoral.

Personally,  if I had a say in the matter, I'd advocate  to keep the EC in place but make the popular vote count as a few EC votes. 

Because the EC is simply DEI for states.

[Akkula]

The best thing we could do while still maintaining the electoral college is to prohibit the "winner take all" system within states.

Presidential candidates should be visiting swing districts.  Instead they ignore swing districts that are not in swing states and more states would get attention.

Currently only a handful of states matter.   But districts in Maine and Nebraska are still getting attention. 

 

[CV147]

The Electoral College was the result of a compromise between small states and more populous states in adopting the U.S. Constitution, to promote equality among the collection of states.

The Electoral College was also supposed to prevent the election of a tyrant through the democratic process, though I think that ship has sailed.

DEI is the result of sociology, determining which classes of people have been disadvantaged or discriminated against and weighting systems to advantage them instead, with the goal of promoting equity (not equality).

[The San Diegan]

On 10/30/2024 at 5:57 AM, Akkula said:

The best thing we could do while still maintaining the electoral college is to prohibit the "winner take all" system within states.

Presidential candidates should be visiting swing districts.  Instead they ignore swing districts that are not in swing states and more states would get attention.

Currently only a handful of states matter.   But districts in Maine and Nebraska are still getting attention. 

 

I really like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where states that are signatories to the compact agree to cast their electoral college votes to the popular vote winner. It's a grass-roots, bipartisan effort that could marginalize the power of the seven swing states with enough states participating.

Link

[bornontheblue]

On 10/30/2024 at 9:42 AM, The San Diegan said:

I really like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where states that are signatories to the compact agree to cast their electoral college votes to the popular vote winner. It's a grass-roots, bipartisan effort that could marginalize the power of the seven swing states with enough states participating.

Link

They have been trying to do that for years. It's only Blue States that have signed on. 

There is a realistic probability that Trump could get the popular vote this year.  These blue states will drop that compact like a lead balloon if a Republican wins the popular. 

There is no way in hell you could convince small states like the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi etc to vote to diminish their own power and sign on to that. 

The whole thing is a pipe dream. 

 

[The San Diegan]

On 10/30/2024 at 9:00 AM, bornontheblue said:

They have been trying to do that for years. It's only Blue States that have signed on. 

There is a realistic probability that Trump could get the popular vote this year.  These blue states will drop that compact like a lead balloon if a Republican wins the popular. 

There is no way in hell you could convince small states like the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi etc to vote to diminish their own power and sign on to that. 

The whole thing is a pipe dream. 

 

While I sincerely doubt it, I found it interesting to see Trump campaign ads airing in our local TV market. MAGA candidates for both House seats and state legislature, sure, but I can't recall seeing Trump ads in San Diego in either 2016 or 2020, and the only reason I could think of they would be spending campaign money on ads in the county is to increase their popular vote count.

The metrics tho - in particular the delta between male and female early voters, which is more than enough to overcome to gender gap for each candidate - seem to indicate it is a Hail Mary at best.

 

ETA: Re: the underlined portion, you don't need to. You just need a critical mass of states to offset the power of the seven swing states that right now decide our presidential elections.

And @sean327, I'm curious to hear your thoughts (as opposed to just see your reaction). Do you think it's okay that just seven. -seven - states decide the fate of all 50? Do you think this is the scenario the Founding Fathers envisioned? I'm open to discussion on this one...

[RSF]

On 10/30/2024 at 11:42 AM, The San Diegan said:

While I sincerely doubt it, I found it interesting to see Trump campaign ads airing in our local TV market. MAGA candidates for both House seats and state legislature, sure, but I can't recall seeing Trump ads in San Diego in either 2016 or 2020, and the only reason I could think of they would be spending campaign money on ads in the county is to increase their popular vote count.

The metrics tho - in particular the delta between male and female early voters, which is more than enough to overcome to gender gap for each candidate - seem to indicate it is a Hail Mary at best.

Both sides have been running national ads.  Never use to see Presidential ads in Texas either.

[bornontheblue]

On 10/30/2024 at 10:42 AM, The San Diegan said:

While I sincerely doubt it, I found it interesting to see Trump campaign ads airing in our local TV market. MAGA candidates for both House seats and state legislature, sure, but I can't recall seeing Trump ads in San Diego in either 2016 or 2020, and the only reason I could think of they would be spending campaign money on ads in the county is to increase their popular vote count.

The metrics tho - in particular the delta between male and female early voters, which is more than enough to overcome to gender gap for each candidate - seem to indicate it is a Hail Mary at best.

The main reason that the Ds always seem to get the popular vote is because they run up the score in CA, and NY, and IL etc. After 50.1 percent they are unneeded votes.  They will still win those states but by diminished margins IMO. 

The ds will still probably get the popular, but Trump has a better chance at it than 16 or 20.. 

[Spaztecs]

On 10/29/2024 at 11:57 PM, The San Diegan said:

Because the EC is simply DEI for Red states.

Fify 

[bornontheblue]

On 10/30/2024 at 10:42 AM, The San Diegan said:

While I sincerely doubt it, I found it interesting to see Trump campaign ads airing in our local TV market. MAGA candidates for both House seats and state legislature, sure, but I can't recall seeing Trump ads in San Diego in either 2016 or 2020, and the only reason I could think of they would be spending campaign money on ads in the county is to increase their popular vote count.

The metrics tho - in particular the delta between male and female early voters, which is more than enough to overcome to gender gap for each candidate - seem to indicate it is a Hail Mary at best.

John Ralston is a good follow on X. He has a good handle on the political situation In Nevada. It is not going well at all for the D's there. The blue firewall of Clark County is not holding up. 

[The San Diegan]

On 10/30/2024 at 9:47 AM, bornontheblue said:

The main reason that the Ds always seem to get the popular vote is because they run up the score in CA, and NY, and IL etc. After 50.1 percent they are unneeded votes.  They will still win those states but by diminished margins IMO. 

The ds will still probably get the popular, but Trump has a better chance at it than 16 or 20.. 

Or, and - regardless of how difficult it might be for you - try to follow me for a second here... maybe - just maybe - a majority of Americans are not neo-fascist Kool-Aid® drinking nuthuggers that support some dipshit who said we should "terminate the Constitution." 🤔

[bornontheblue]

On 10/30/2024 at 12:16 PM, The San Diegan said:

Or, and - regardless of how difficult it might be for you - try to follow me for a second here... maybe - just maybe - a majority of Americans are not neo-fascist Kool-Aid® drinking nuthuggers that support some dipshit who said we should "terminate the Constitution." 🤔

You have to understand that Trump getting the popular vote is within the realm of realistic possibilities, especially this year.  You may not like it, and I understand that. 

 

 

[Buttermaker]

On 10/30/2024 at 9:47 AM, bornontheblue said:

The main reason that the Ds always seem to get the popular vote is because they run up the score in CA, and NY, and IL etc. After 50.1 percent they are unneeded votes.  They will still win those states but by diminished margins IMO. 

The ds will still probably get the popular, but Trump has a better chance at it than 16 or 20.. 

So you are saying that the main reason that the Ds always seem to get the popular vote is because more US voters vote D? 

Run up the score, what the heck does that mean? Lord. 

[Buttermaker]

On 10/30/2024 at 11:55 AM, bornontheblue said:

You have to understand that Trump getting the popular vote is within the realm of realistic possibilities, especially this year.  You may not like it, and I understand that. 

 

 

I live in CA.  And wasn't going to vote because it didn't matter... but due to your post, I'll be sure to get my ballot cast.  thanks

[bornontheblue]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:10 PM, Buttermaker said:

o you are saying that the main reason that the Ds always seem to get the popular vote is because more US voters vote D? 

I am saying the reason the Ds have gotten the popular vote is because they have historically had massive margins in heavily populated blue states. They are all excess votes that are not needed to win the election. The Ds will still win those states but I think their margins will have shrunk from prior elections, thus giving the Trump a reasonable (not probable) chance at the popular vote. 

 

On 10/30/2024 at 1:10 PM, Buttermaker said:

Run up the score, what the heck does that mean? Lord. 

It's a football analogy for adding on points when the game is long over. Appropriate when looking at historical voter behavior in heavily populated blue states. 

 

If this is all too complex for you I am sorry , 

[stanfordchef]

On 10/30/2024 at 11:55 AM, bornontheblue said:

You have to understand that Trump getting the popular vote is within the realm of realistic possibilities, especially this year.  You may not like it, and I understand that. 

 

 

Just bc you wish it to be true doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.