Poll: How confident are you the Dems will win the popular vote again?

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

538 has Biden with something like a 96% chance of winning the popular vote. There is a good chance he wins the election, too, but the latter is something that shouldn't matter at all. One person, one vote. Not 3.5 votes in Wyoming to Californians 1 vote.

True.
I wonder if the forefathers envisioned a situation where minority rules.  I’ll go out on a limb and say no...

Of course they envisioned it.  They debated it, and decided on a balance of population versus states’ rights.  They didn’t want Virginia making decisions for the entire country.

If they wanted straight majority rule, that’s what the Constitution would say.  I mean, in the very first election where popular vote was recorded (1824), the “winner” of the popular vote lost the election.  And nobody cared, because it was irrelevant.  There was no majority in the Electoral College, so the vote went to the House, where John Quincy Adams was elected despite losing the popular vote by 10+ percentage points.

I'm failing to understand the argument from some here against the Electoral College. They're saying it's not fair because it gives rural states "too much power," but rural states have very few electoral votes. My home state of Maine has only 4 electoral votes, and consequently, presidential candidates barely pay Maine any attention. I mean, if you win New York, California, Florida, and Pennsylvania, you're well on your way to winning the presidency. The system is proportional, right? Populous states have lots of electoral votes, which makes those states "more valuable" in a presidential election. If anything, that seems to highly favor "big states" and highly marginalize "small states." When was the last time you heard any presidential candidate talk about the importance of "winning Maine" or "winning South Dakota"?

[Roy H.]

538 has Biden with something like a 96% chance of winning the popular vote. There is a good chance he wins the election, too, but the latter is something that shouldn't matter at all. One person, one vote. Not 3.5 votes in Wyoming to Californians 1 vote.

True.
I wonder if the forefathers envisioned a situation where minority rules.  I’ll go out on a limb and say no...

Of course they envisioned it.  They debated it, and decided on a balance of population versus states’ rights.  They didn’t want Virginia making decisions for the entire country.

If they wanted straight majority rule, that’s what the Constitution would say.  I mean, in the very first election where popular vote was recorded (1824), the “winner” of the popular vote lost the election.  And nobody cared, because it was irrelevant.  There was no majority in the Electoral College, so the vote went to the House, where John Quincy Adams was elected despite losing the popular vote by 10+ percentage points.

Nobody believes in the EC anymore - which is why states bind their electors to cast a ballot for the winner of the popular vote in their state. If the electors ever overthrew the popular vote there would be a political crisis of the highest order.

For historical reasons, and quirks of demographics, older white populations that live in rural states are wildly over represented in the senate and somewhat over represented in the EC. I’m sure you will strive to rationalize this result as good and fair if you benefit from it. For me, the simpler principle of one person one vote seems infinitely fairer.

I think the model is brilliant in its recognition of regional differences and of the urban / rural divide.  I’m not sure that a system that caters to California while ignoring the various interests of New England and the Plains States is a better one.

[Roy H.]

538 has Biden with something like a 96% chance of winning the popular vote. There is a good chance he wins the election, too, but the latter is something that shouldn't matter at all. One person, one vote. Not 3.5 votes in Wyoming to Californians 1 vote.

True.
I wonder if the forefathers envisioned a situation where minority rules.  I’ll go out on a limb and say no...

Of course they envisioned it.  They debated it, and decided on a balance of population versus states’ rights.  They didn’t want Virginia making decisions for the entire country.

If they wanted straight majority rule, that’s what the Constitution would say.  I mean, in the very first election where popular vote was recorded (1824), the “winner” of the popular vote lost the election.  And nobody cared, because it was irrelevant.  There was no majority in the Electoral College, so the vote went to the House, where John Quincy Adams was elected despite losing the popular vote by 10+ percentage points.

I'm failing to understand the argument from some here against the Electoral College. They're saying it's not fair because it gives rural states "too much power," but rural states have very few electoral votes. My home state of Maine has only 4 electoral votes, and consequently, presidential candidates barely pay Maine any attention. I mean, if you win New York, California, Florida, and Pennsylvania, you're well on your way to winning the presidency. The system is proportional, right? Populous states have lots of electoral votes, which makes those states "more valuable" in a presidential election. If anything, that seems to highly favor "big states" and highly marginalize "small states." When was the last time you heard any presidential candidate talk about the importance of "winning Maine" or "winning South Dakota"?

You must live in Southern Maine. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I mean, if you can win 30 or more states you should win.  That's more important than total raw votes when you consider this is a republic.

If you don't want this to be a republic anymore and want to eliminate the states get enough support to change the constitution.  Or stop congregating in the same places and spread out.  Crying endlessly about it does you no good.

You realize that North and South Dakota were added as separate states, rather than 1 for the purpose of enhancing Republican power in the senate? Being a “republic” had nothing to do with it. It was raw power politics. Politicians like to choose their voters when they can, instead of the other way round.

I get that it’s all fun and games when it helps your side. But don’t pretend that there’s some principle at stake.

There is principle, though.  It’s found in the Constitutional system itself, not in the actions of individual politicians.  There’s a recognition that regional differences are real, as true today as 200 years ago.

Haven't you heard, Roy? Anything older than a couple of decades is "irrelevant" and "antiquated," and the fact that the Constitution was written by "a bunch of old white guys" makes it particularly in need of eradication.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

538 has Biden with something like a 96% chance of winning the popular vote. There is a good chance he wins the election, too, but the latter is something that shouldn't matter at all. One person, one vote. Not 3.5 votes in Wyoming to Californians 1 vote.

True.
I wonder if the forefathers envisioned a situation where minority rules.  I’ll go out on a limb and say no...

Of course they envisioned it.  They debated it, and decided on a balance of population versus states’ rights.  They didn’t want Virginia making decisions for the entire country.

If they wanted straight majority rule, that’s what the Constitution would say.  I mean, in the very first election where popular vote was recorded (1824), the “winner” of the popular vote lost the election.  And nobody cared, because it was irrelevant.  There was no majority in the Electoral College, so the vote went to the House, where John Quincy Adams was elected despite losing the popular vote by 10+ percentage points.

I'm failing to understand the argument from some here against the Electoral College. They're saying it's not fair because it gives rural states "too much power," but rural states have very few electoral votes. My home state of Maine has only 4 electoral votes, and consequently, presidential candidates barely pay Maine any attention. I mean, if you win New York, California, Florida, and Pennsylvania, you're well on your way to winning the presidency. The system is proportional, right? Populous states have lots of electoral votes, which makes those states "more valuable" in a presidential election. If anything, that seems to highly favor "big states" and highly marginalize "small states." When was the last time you heard any presidential candidate talk about the importance of "winning Maine" or "winning South Dakota"?

You must live in Southern Maine. 

Haha! I'm in SoCal now, but used to live in the Augusta area.

[ozgod]

Electoral college vote is stupid. If I live in a blue-heavy state and I wanna vote blue, my vote won't even matter. No point in voting lol. Your vote is only important if you live in swing states.

I’m enjoying my Second District Maine vote.  We’ve had two visits by Trump, one by Pence, one by Jill Biden (today) and another by Harris’ husband.  My kids have seen Air Force One, Marine One, presidential motorcades, members of the Secret Service, and the probable future First Lady, and my son got to see the president in person this weekend.  They’ve met Susan Collins, Janet Mills, and our AG.

People in large population centers aren’t the only ones who count.  I think the Electoral College makes sense, although I’d prefer that all states adopt the Maine / Nebraska model of allocating electoral votes.

I think this would make it a lot fairer. That way you don't get someone winning a state by 100 votes and getting every electoral vote in the state.

[ozgod]

538 has Biden with something like a 96% chance of winning the popular vote. There is a good chance he wins the election, too, but the latter is something that shouldn't matter at all. One person, one vote. Not 3.5 votes in Wyoming to Californians 1 vote.

True.
I wonder if the forefathers envisioned a situation where minority rules.  I’ll go out on a limb and say no...

Of course they envisioned it.  They debated it, and decided on a balance of population versus states’ rights.  They didn’t want Virginia making decisions for the entire country.

If they wanted straight majority rule, that’s what the Constitution would say.  I mean, in the very first election where popular vote was recorded (1824), the “winner” of the popular vote lost the election.  And nobody cared, because it was irrelevant.  There was no majority in the Electoral College, so the vote went to the House, where John Quincy Adams was elected despite losing the popular vote by 10+ percentage points.

I'm failing to understand the argument from some here against the Electoral College. They're saying it's not fair because it gives rural states "too much power," but rural states have very few electoral votes. My home state of Maine has only 4 electoral votes, and consequently, presidential candidates barely pay Maine any attention. I mean, if you win New York, California, Florida, and Pennsylvania, you're well on your way to winning the presidency. The system is proportional, right? Populous states have lots of electoral votes, which makes those states "more valuable" in a presidential election. If anything, that seems to highly favor "big states" and highly marginalize "small states." When was the last time you heard any presidential candidate talk about the importance of "winning Maine" or "winning South Dakota"?

Funny you mention that...Bill Stepien thinks that Trump's only paths to victory (he outlined 3 scenarios) involve winning Maine's Second District and getting that single electoral vote up for grabs to get to 270.

At the outset, Stepien apparently thinks Trump needs to win four states — Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Ohio — as well as the electoral vote in Maine’s Second Congressional District. (Maine and Nebraska are the only states that divvy up some of their electoral votes this way.)

...

This gets Trump the bare minimum 270 electoral votes, meaning he has to win that Maine district, or the election ends up in a tie and everything hits the fan. This path also requires that Trump win two states where he’s down by at least six points, not a trivial endeavor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/trump-win-his-campaign-manager-thinks-he-has-carry-state-where-hes-down-7-points/

[Roy H.]

538 has Biden with something like a 96% chance of winning the popular vote. There is a good chance he wins the election, too, but the latter is something that shouldn't matter at all. One person, one vote. Not 3.5 votes in Wyoming to Californians 1 vote.

True.
I wonder if the forefathers envisioned a situation where minority rules.  I’ll go out on a limb and say no...

Of course they envisioned it.  They debated it, and decided on a balance of population versus states’ rights.  They didn’t want Virginia making decisions for the entire country.

If they wanted straight majority rule, that’s what the Constitution would say.  I mean, in the very first election where popular vote was recorded (1824), the “winner” of the popular vote lost the election.  And nobody cared, because it was irrelevant.  There was no majority in the Electoral College, so the vote went to the House, where John Quincy Adams was elected despite losing the popular vote by 10+ percentage points.

I'm failing to understand the argument from some here against the Electoral College. They're saying it's not fair because it gives rural states "too much power," but rural states have very few electoral votes. My home state of Maine has only 4 electoral votes, and consequently, presidential candidates barely pay Maine any attention. I mean, if you win New York, California, Florida, and Pennsylvania, you're well on your way to winning the presidency. The system is proportional, right? Populous states have lots of electoral votes, which makes those states "more valuable" in a presidential election. If anything, that seems to highly favor "big states" and highly marginalize "small states." When was the last time you heard any presidential candidate talk about the importance of "winning Maine" or "winning South Dakota"?

Funny you mention that...Bill Stepien thinks that Trump's only paths to victory (he outlined 3 scenarios) involve winning Maine's Second District and getting that single electoral vote up for grabs to get to 270.

At the outset, Stepien apparently thinks Trump needs to win four states — Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Ohio — as well as the electoral vote in Maine’s Second Congressional District. (Maine and Nebraska are the only states that divvy up some of their electoral votes this way.)

...

This gets Trump the bare minimum 270 electoral votes, meaning he has to win that Maine district, or the election ends up in a tie and everything hits the fan. This path also requires that Trump win two states where he’s down by at least six points, not a trivial endeavor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/trump-win-his-campaign-manager-thinks-he-has-carry-state-where-hes-down-7-points/

He made a last minute trip here on Sunday.  Nobody knew the location he’d be until maybe two hours ahead of time.  He spoke at an apple orchard, and drew 3,000 people.  It’s crazy. 

[jambr380]

538 has Biden with something like a 96% chance of winning the popular vote. There is a good chance he wins the election, too, but the latter is something that shouldn't matter at all. One person, one vote. Not 3.5 votes in Wyoming to Californians 1 vote.

True.
I wonder if the forefathers envisioned a situation where minority rules.  I’ll go out on a limb and say no...

Of course they envisioned it.  They debated it, and decided on a balance of population versus states’ rights.  They didn’t want Virginia making decisions for the entire country.

If they wanted straight majority rule, that’s what the Constitution would say.  I mean, in the very first election where popular vote was recorded (1824), the “winner” of the popular vote lost the election.  And nobody cared, because it was irrelevant.  There was no majority in the Electoral College, so the vote went to the House, where John Quincy Adams was elected despite losing the popular vote by 10+ percentage points.

I'm failing to understand the argument from some here against the Electoral College. They're saying it's not fair because it gives rural states "too much power," but rural states have very few electoral votes. My home state of Maine has only 4 electoral votes, and consequently, presidential candidates barely pay Maine any attention. I mean, if you win New York, California, Florida, and Pennsylvania, you're well on your way to winning the presidency. The system is proportional, right? Populous states have lots of electoral votes, which makes those states "more valuable" in a presidential election. If anything, that seems to highly favor "big states" and highly marginalize "small states." When was the last time you heard any presidential candidate talk about the importance of "winning Maine" or "winning South Dakota"?

While it is based somewhat on population, what you state is actually not the case. Because all states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes (1 for every representative, 2 for Senators). While it may not seem like much, a state like Wyoming would only receive 1 electoral vote (instead of 3) and California would increase its # to 65 (from 55). I found this article helpful:

https://www.270towin.com/news/2017/01/24/if-electoral-votes-were-weighted-by-state-population-alone-trump-303-clinton-235_442.html

As you can see, it actually would have made very little difference in the 2016 election. The bigger issue is the winner take all system we currently have. Not only does it make bigger states irrelevant in national elections, but it just isn't representative of the voting electorate. Elections should hinge on FL every year, and if they do, I agree that Dems need to get their act together and begin moving to some of these swing states. If they could ever secure FL and TX as blue, it would be over forever. It may not be fair (as I mentioned, I believe in a popular vote system), but it's pretty easy to get it to work in your favor if you're just willing to a little adventurous.