Election Day in America

[saxitoxin]

Republicans have lost 5 out of the previous 6 presidential elections regarding the national popular vote.

Democrats haven't won a majority of the popular vote in 3 of the previous 6 presidential elections ('92, '96, '04).

Now you're just being trollish. You know I was referring to the 6 most recent presidential elections. Hence the generational issue.

Uh ... the six most recent presidential elections were 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012. But, I was wrong as I forgot Democrats didn't get a majority in 2000 either - so actually they lost majorities in 4 of the previous 6 presidential elections. It's not exactly like they've been sweeping into office. They eked out back-to-back wins running a novelty candidate (first black president) while remaining blocked-out of Congress. Republicans have very little incentive to retool much right now. In two years that might change, though, depending on if the midterms go south for them.

• 1992 - Democrat candidate receives 43% of vote
  1996 - Democrat candidate receives 49% of vote
  2000 - Democrat candidate receives 48% of vote
  2004 - Democrat candidate receives 48% of vote
  2008 - Democrat candidate receives 52% of vote
  2012 - Democrat candidate receives 51% of vote

[Symmetry]

Republicans have lost 5 out of the previous 6 presidential elections regarding the national popular vote.

Democrats haven't won a majority of the popular vote in 3 of the previous 6 presidential elections ('92, '96, '04).

Now you're just being trollish. You know I was referring to the 6 most recent presidential elections. Hence the generational issue.

Uh ... the six most recent presidential elections were 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012.

My mistake, but you were being an ass:

Popular vote:

1992: Dem Clinton: 44,909,806, Repub George WH Bush: 39,104,550

1996: Dem Clinton: 47,401,185, Rebub Bob Dole: 39,197,469

2000: Dem Al Gore: 50,999,897, Repub Dubya: 50,456,002

2004: Repub Dubya: 62,040,610, Dem Kerry: 59,028,444

2008: Dem Obama: 69,456,89, Repub McCain: 59,934,814

2012: Dem Obama: 60,567,122, Repub Romney: 57,744,50

That's five of six on the popular vote front.

All sources from wikipedia, simply insert the year at the end, replacing 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... tion,_1992

[saxitoxin]

Republicans have lost 5 out of the previous 6 presidential elections regarding the national popular vote.

Democrats haven't won a majority of the popular vote in 3 of the previous 6 presidential elections ('92, '96, '04).

Now you're just being trollish. You know I was referring to the 6 most recent presidential elections. Hence the generational issue.

Uh ... the six most recent presidential elections were 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012.

My mistake, but you were being an ass:

Popular vote:

1992: Dem Clinton: 44,909,806 (43% of total vote), Repub George WH Bush: 39,104,550

1996: Dem Clinton: 47,401,185 (49% of total vote), Rebub Bob Dole: 39,197,469

2000: Dem Al Gore: 50,999,897 (48% of total vote), Repub Dubya: 50,456,002

2004: Repub Dubya: 62,040,610 , Dem Kerry: 59,028,444 (48% of total vote)

2008: Dem Obama: 69,456,89 (52% of total vote), Repub McCain: 59,934,814

2012: Dem Obama: 60,567,122 (51% of total vote), Repub Romney: 57,744,50

Yes, as I said, Democrats have failed to secure a majority in 4 of the last 6 presidential elections (or 7 of the last 9). In '08 and '12 they finally got mandates, but it was by a sliver and they had to run a novelty candidate.

• The silver lining for Democrats is that Republicans, due to an entrenched, racist component within their party, can't run novelty candidates (maybe a woman or an Hispanic like George Prescott Bush but that's stretching it).
  
  The storm cloud for Democrats is that this (a bare majority in the Senate, no House control, a thin win in the presidency won with a novelty candidate) is the pinnacle of their recent success. If old Joe Biden somehow manages to finagle his way into the top spot in 2016 they'll get vaporized. But, if they tape up Hillary's cankles and get a good make-up artist to do something with her double-chin they should be able to three-peat the presidency.

(additions in red, also from wikipedia)

[Symmetry]

Republicans have lost 5 out of the previous 6 presidential elections regarding the national popular vote.

Democrats haven't won a majority of the popular vote in 3 of the previous 6 presidential elections ('92, '96, '04).

Now you're just being trollish. You know I was referring to the 6 most recent presidential elections. Hence the generational issue.

Uh ... the six most recent presidential elections were 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012.

My mistake, but you were being an ass:

Popular vote:

1992: Dem Clinton: 44,909,806 (43% of total vote), Repub George WH Bush: 39,104,550

1996: Dem Clinton: 47,401,185 (49% of total vote), Rebub Bob Dole: 39,197,469

2000: Dem Al Gore: 50,999,897 (48% of total vote), Repub Dubya: 50,456,002

2004: Repub Dubya: 62,040,610 (48% of total vote), Dem Kerry: 59,028,444

2008: Dem Obama: 69,456,89 (52% of total vote), Repub McCain: 59,934,814

2012: Dem Obama: 60,567,122 (51% of total vote), Repub Romney: 57,744,50

Yes, as I said, Democrats have failed to secure a majority in 4 of the last 6 presidential elections (or 7 of the last 9). In '08 and '12 they finally got mandates, but it was by a sliver and they had to run a novelty candidate.

• The silver lining for Democrats is that Republicans, due to an entrenched, racist component within their party, can't run novelty candidates (maybe a woman or an Hispanic like George Prescott Bush but that's stretching it).
  
  The storm cloud for Democrats is that this (a bare majority in the Senate, no House control, a thin win in the presidency won with a novelty candidate) is the pinnacle of their recent success. If old Joe Biden somehow manages to finagle his way into the top spot in 2016 they'll get vaporized. But, if they tape up Hillary's cankles and get a good make-up artist to do something with her double-chin they should be able to three-peat the presidency.

(additions in red, also from wikipedia)

I'm not sure what your point is unless you're trying to prove that the Republicans have never held the popular vote in the previous 6 presidential elections.

[saxitoxin]

I'm not sure what your point is

yeah, it seemed like this is where we were heading a few posts ago

it starts with you getting called out on a factual error to which you reply with your "you're a jackass" line, then you move to your angry Wiley Coyote discussion style, that'll go on for awhile and then you'll start up with your Fox Mulder bit with the conspiracy theories and such ... that'll run its course and then you'll just start yelling at people about using emoticons ... new thread, same routine; we get it

[saxitoxin]

[Baron Von PWN]

Would choosing not to vote be passive acceptance of whichever outcome?

[patrickaa317]

NPVIC doesn't abolish state-administered elections. It's just a treaty whereby states agree to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Currently no one cares if Romney wins by 100,000 votes or 500,000 votes in Texas. He's getting their electoral votes either way. Under NPVIC Texas is incentivized to maximize the raw vote total they publish.

Unless you have absolute faith in the uncorruptability of 50 separate elections systems to accurately report their local vote totals, NPVIC becomes a well-intentioned idea with serious unintended consequences (absent a uniform elections system for federal contests, like in Canada).

Well, I think that if states reached a majority with NPVIC, that would be the spur needed to abolish the electoral college, which is my ultimate aim in supporting it. But besides that, I don't think that arguments of potential corruption are a strong reason to avoid it. Corruption exists either way. Even with a federal election system, voting happens on the local level, and you can't stop local officials from attempting to engage in corruption. Furthermore, I don't want to be part of a system where we distrust our elected representatives so much that we change how we act because of fear that they will systematically disenfranchise us. I am much more of an optimist than that.

Abolishing the electoral college really makes many low population density states completely irrelevant and is a horrible idea. There's a reason that when the thirteen independent states got together to form a common union, the electoral college is what was decided upon. Otherwise it would have been between Virginia & North Carolina vs New York & Mass., with Pennsylvania really being the decider. Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey wouldn't have meant anything.

It's not a perfect system but this country was founded as a union of several states, not one large state with several districts. "state" used to be used as "country", similar to the old Greek city-states. Athens was of Greek heritage but had it's own independent system of government.

[Metsfanmax]

Abolishing the electoral college really makes many low population density states completely irrelevant and is a horrible idea. There's a reason that when the thirteen independent states got together to form a common union, the electoral college is what was decided upon. Otherwise it would have been between Virginia & North Carolina vs New York & Mass., with Pennsylvania really being the decider. Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey wouldn't have meant anything.

Yes, there is a reason. The fact that there was a reason 200+ years ago does not mean that the reason is still valid.

Your argument holds no particular weight; because of the electoral college system, there are now over 40 irrelevant states in a presidential election. Furthermore, in a direct popular vote the state you live in does not actually matter. The fact that New York and California would get visited more would have nothing to do with their status as states; they just happen to contain, respectively, NYC and LA. In other words, it's high population density areas, not states, that would get favored. Most of upstate New York and California would be ignored, for example.

What this argument fails to recognize is that candidates don't have unlimited campaign time, and it's only logical for them to visit the states where they would gain the highest rewards for their time spent. Keeping the electoral college just moves the battleground states from New York, Texas and California to Ohio, Iowa and Virginia. Some people are going to get the shaft no matter what happens.

As an aside, Rhode Island and New Jersey have the two highest population densities, so that may not be the best metric for your argument.

It's not a perfect system but this country was founded as a union of several states, not one large state with several districts. "state" used to be used as "country", similar to the old Greek city-states. Athens was of Greek heritage but had it's own independent system of government.

The individualism of each of the states is far less than it originally was. It was necessary for a state to be a somewhat autonomous unit in the 1700s, since the infrastructure did not exist for a federal government to maintain uniformity of law the way it does today. That necessity no longer exists.

[patrickaa317]

Abolishing the electoral college really makes many low population density states completely irrelevant and is a horrible idea. There's a reason that when the thirteen independent states got together to form a common union, the electoral college is what was decided upon. Otherwise it would have been between Virginia & North Carolina vs New York & Mass., with Pennsylvania really being the decider. Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey wouldn't have meant anything.

Yes, there is a reason. The fact that there was a reason 200+ years ago does not mean that the reason is still valid.

Your argument holds no particular weight; because of the electoral college system, there are now over 40 irrelevant states in a presidential election. Furthermore, in a direct popular vote the state you live in does not actually matter. The fact that New York and California would get visited more would have nothing to do with their status as states; they just happen to contain, respectively, NYC and LA. In other words, it's high population density areas, not states, that would get favored. Most of upstate New York and California would be ignored, for example.

What this argument fails to recognize is that candidates don't have unlimited campaign time, and it's only logical for them to visit the states where they would gain the highest rewards for their time spent. Keeping the electoral college just moves the battleground states from New York, Texas and California to Ohio, Iowa and Virginia. Some people are going to get the shaft no matter what happens.

As an aside, Rhode Island and New Jersey have the two highest population densities, so that may not be the best metric for your argument.

It's not a perfect system but this country was founded as a union of several states, not one large state with several districts. "state" used to be used as "country", similar to the old Greek city-states. Athens was of Greek heritage but had it's own independent system of government.

The individualism of each of the states is far less than it originally was. It was necessary for a state to be a somewhat autonomous unit in the 1700s, since the infrastructure did not exist for a federal government to maintain uniformity of law the way it does today. That necessity no longer exists.

The fact that it had reason 200+ years ago does not mean that reason is invalid today.

Fair enough on the highest densities areas versus states, that is more what I meant, just didn't word it as well. I agree that 10 states really decide the election right now but the other 40 states can easily override those 10, if things are built to favor only them whereas that is lost with the popular vote. As Saxi mentions, a district by district voting system would give much better indication and make every individuals vote mean much more than it does today.

[Metsfanmax]

Fair enough on the highest densities areas versus states, that is more what I meant, just didn't word it as well. I agree that 10 states really decide the election right now but the other 40 states can easily override those 10, if things are built to favor only them whereas that is lost with the popular vote. As Saxi mentions, a district by district voting system would give much better indication and make every individuals vote mean much more than it does today.

Well, in principle you're right, but I think the status quo is a historical accident. It just so happened that because of the way that most states settled, there is currently a sizable majority that favors one party over another. Unless that changes in coming years, the electoral college will necessarily render most states irrelevant.

[thegreekdog]

The individualism of each of the states is far less than it originally was. It was necessary for a state to be a somewhat autonomous unit in the 1700s, since the infrastructure did not exist for a federal government to maintain uniformity of law the way it does today. That necessity no longer exists.

While I agree that infrastructure permits easier central governance, I don't agree that "the individualism of each of the states is far less than it originally was."

The federal government became the way it was during and immediately after the Civil War, hardly a time of great infrastructure. Further, state individualism is quite apparent, even in the latest election. Wyoming and Maine, for example, couldn't have been farther apart on for whom they voted for president.

Needless to say, I hate this argument against autonomous states.

[patrickaa317]

Fair enough on the highest densities areas versus states, that is more what I meant, just didn't word it as well. I agree that 10 states really decide the election right now but the other 40 states can easily override those 10, if things are built to favor only them whereas that is lost with the popular vote. As Saxi mentions, a district by district voting system would give much better indication and make every individuals vote mean much more than it does today.

Well, in principle you're right, but I think the status quo is a historical accident. It just so happened that because of the way that most states settled, there is currently a sizable majority that favors one party over another. Unless that changes in coming years, the electoral college will necessarily render most states irrelevant.

Which is why the district by district would be a better system. This would also open up the chance for third parties to be relevant as they could actually get some electoral votes and possibly even block a majority from being had by one of the two main parties.

[Funkyterrance]

Ridiculous, Sad, Pathetic. Choose your adjective.

Is there a chart anywhere showing how each state did in this regard? I am wondering if those states that are very strong in one party tend to have more non-voters?

[Baron Von PWN]

Fair enough on the highest densities areas versus states, that is more what I meant, just didn't word it as well. I agree that 10 states really decide the election right now but the other 40 states can easily override those 10, if things are built to favor only them whereas that is lost with the popular vote. As Saxi mentions, a district by district voting system would give much better indication and make every individuals vote mean much more than it does today.

Well, in principle you're right, but I think the status quo is a historical accident. It just so happened that because of the way that most states settled, there is currently a sizable majority that favors one party over another. Unless that changes in coming years, the electoral college will necessarily render most states irrelevant.

Which is why the district by district would be a better system. This would also open up the chance for third parties to be relevant as they could actually get some electoral votes and possibly even block a majority from being had by one of the two main parties.

I guese this would mean a run off election?

I suppose the advantage would be more air time for third parties.

[patrickaa317]

Fair enough on the highest densities areas versus states, that is more what I meant, just didn't word it as well. I agree that 10 states really decide the election right now but the other 40 states can easily override those 10, if things are built to favor only them whereas that is lost with the popular vote. As Saxi mentions, a district by district voting system would give much better indication and make every individuals vote mean much more than it does today.

Well, in principle you're right, but I think the status quo is a historical accident. It just so happened that because of the way that most states settled, there is currently a sizable majority that favors one party over another. Unless that changes in coming years, the electoral college will necessarily render most states irrelevant.

Which is why the district by district would be a better system. This would also open up the chance for third parties to be relevant as they could actually get some electoral votes and possibly even block a majority from being had by one of the two main parties.

I guese this would mean a run off election?

I suppose the advantage would be more air time for third parties.

Great question:

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
Source: http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... html#no270

[thegreekdog]

I am wondering if those states that are very strong in one party tend to have more non-voters?

Well... anecdotal evidence here... I live in New Jersey, a solidly Democratic state. My particular district is solidly Republican. So, the question is why do people in my district vote? The answer is to elect a Republican representative or school board or whatever.

[Funkyterrance]

I am wondering if those states that are very strong in one party tend to have more non-voters?

Well... anecdotal evidence here... I live in New Jersey, a solidly Democratic state. My particular district is solidly Republican. So, the question is why do people in my district vote? The answer is to elect a Republican representative or school board or whatever.

That's a good point, TGD.
Here's an anecdotal offering of my own: A lot of people that I know could care less about the state/local elections. So I guess the revised question is what percentage of these people say "why bother?".

[patrickaa317]

I am wondering if those states that are very strong in one party tend to have more non-voters?

Well... anecdotal evidence here... I live in New Jersey, a solidly Democratic state. My particular district is solidly Republican. So, the question is why do people in my district vote? The answer is to elect a Republican representative or school board or whatever.

That's a good point, TGD.
Here's an anecdotal offering of my own: A lot of people that I know could care less about the state/local elections. So I guess the revised question is what percentage of these people say "why bother?".

I would be more apt to sit out if my vote was being blended in with every other person in the country.

[Funkyterrance]

You know what, I think I may be looking for something where it's not. I've been thinking on the people I know who don't vote and they choose that route out of pure apathy/laziness. It really sucks.

[thegreekdog]

I am wondering if those states that are very strong in one party tend to have more non-voters?

Well... anecdotal evidence here... I live in New Jersey, a solidly Democratic state. My particular district is solidly Republican. So, the question is why do people in my district vote? The answer is to elect a Republican representative or school board or whatever.

That's a good point, TGD.
Here's an anecdotal offering of my own: A lot of people that I know could care less about the state/local elections. So I guess the revised question is what percentage of these people say "why bother?".

A shitload.

More anecdotal evidence: My best friend is a liberal Democrat. He voted all the time in high school and college because he was in the vast minority in my home town. He now lives in New York City and doesn't vote. "What's the point?"

[Funkyterrance]

I am wondering if those states that are very strong in one party tend to have more non-voters?

Well... anecdotal evidence here... I live in New Jersey, a solidly Democratic state. My particular district is solidly Republican. So, the question is why do people in my district vote? The answer is to elect a Republican representative or school board or whatever.

That's a good point, TGD.
Here's an anecdotal offering of my own: A lot of people that I know could care less about the state/local elections. So I guess the revised question is what percentage of these people say "why bother?".

I would be more apt to sit out if my vote was being blended in with every other person in the country.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean?

[Funkyterrance]

That's a good point, TGD.
Here's an anecdotal offering of my own: A lot of people that I know could care less about the state/local elections. So I guess the revised question is what percentage of these people say "why bother?".

A shitload.

More anecdotal evidence: My best friend is a liberal Democrat. He voted all the time in high school and college because he was in the vast minority in my home town. He now lives in New York City and doesn't vote. "What's the point?"

Well that is at least somewhat comforting. They are voting without voting. It also stands to reason that if push came to shove he would vote.

[patrickaa317]

I am wondering if those states that are very strong in one party tend to have more non-voters?

Well... anecdotal evidence here... I live in New Jersey, a solidly Democratic state. My particular district is solidly Republican. So, the question is why do people in my district vote? The answer is to elect a Republican representative or school board or whatever.

That's a good point, TGD.
Here's an anecdotal offering of my own: A lot of people that I know could care less about the state/local elections. So I guess the revised question is what percentage of these people say "why bother?".

I would be more apt to sit out if my vote was being blended in with every other person in the country.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean?

Sorry, I'm more apt when my vote is going in with the others in my state. If my vote was going in with all others in the entire union, I'd probably sit out.

[Funkyterrance]

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean?

Sorry, I'm more apt when my vote is going in with the others in my state. If my vote was going in with all others in the entire union, I'd probably sit out.

Wow, this is not something I had considered.
You mean if it was a popular vote you wouldn't bother? What's your rationale behind this? I would think that your vote would matter more if it were a popular vote, considering swing states are in the minority.