I think the only state that does it so far is Nebraska. It'll take a large state like New York, Texas, or California to do it to really get the ball rolling and both parties in each state are too entrenched to allow that to happen.

They should think about how much that will bring in campaign advertising dollars.

Political parties don't want to spend more money than they have to. Or rather, they want safe states like CA, Texas, etc to provide the funding for their campaigns while still not require an investment in maintaining the state.

But that could be offset by economies of scale. A few more campaign stops and a little more advertising in NYC to get another 50,000 votes and a Dem could blow off WV completely.

New Jersey passed a law a few years back stating that when a majority of other states pass similar laws, they would apportion their EC votes in proportion to the popular vote, I believe.

You're talking about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and that wasn't the plan. The plan was to give all of each participatory state's electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. The law only goes into effect if enough states to constitute an EC majority sign on. If that were ever to happen, then the electoral college would become irrelevant and the election would be decided solely by the national popular vote. Not many states have signed on yet, but most of the ones that have are fairly big, including California which is the biggest of all.

Would it work? Does an intentional subversion of part of the constitution by a coalition of large states pass constitutional muster? Who knows?

considering the effects that republican gerrymandering has had on the demographics of individual congressional districts, i think it would be absurd to divide the EC along those lines.

and likewise, w/r/t proportional distribution of EC votes, i think it really has to be all of the states or none of them. if california, new york and new jersey split their votes, but texas, indiana, and georgia do not, that's a major shift in electoral politics that throws off the balance of power in this country.

and w/r/t just electing the candidate who wins the popular vote, well, that's just not nearly as much fun as the current setup.

Maine also divvies up EVs by district FWIW...

I don't particularly care for this - at least, so long as districts are such a partisan, gerrymandering process. What's more - even if you completely eliminated eliminated the 'district' issue - then it would really bother me (and frankly, it still bothers me even under the current system) that the people of say... Wyoming or Alaska have 3 X the federal electoral power of my district, despite the fact that there are 1-200K more people living in my district than those entire states... and that's before we get into the discussions about revenue into the federal kitty and federal revenue back out.

Political parties don't want to spend more money than they have to.

Where would that money go though? Presumably local media would get enormous revenue boosts. Kinda wonder why they haven't pushed harder for this.

Not directly very often, but that is only because you are generally passive-aggressive and legalistic. One time, you openly backed and supported a guy on here calling me a troll, a liar, and several other names (not on a political thread) and when I called you on it, didn't own it.

I don't recall this; if you post what you're referring to I'll be able to comment. But even from your description it sounds like it wasn't me doing the insulting so I'm not sure where you're going with it.

Ray, telling a guy that he can't even remember how he was insulted is itself insulting.

Hey Ray any comment?

3925. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4196966)

Some posters argue merits, Ray jumps to the personal attacks, though I admit often in response to other's personal attacks on him.

I don't ever use personal attacks, or call people names, or anything like that. I don't think calling someone a liar is a personal attack, but rather a statement of what the person did. When Johnny says "Ray said X" and Ray never said or even implied X, Johnny is lying. If it's a personal attack to then point out that he was lying, so be it.

2705. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 19, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4187682)

Bitter Mouse: you are a troll.

I am curious if you think you are a liar or not, and if not why not?

EDIT: Because it sure seems like you called me a name, which you say you have never done.

#4010, Bitter Mouse: When one is engaged in a discussion and someone lies about what he said, it is fair to point out that the person has lied. How could it be otherwise?

And when one is engaged in a discussion and someone posts just to try to get a rise out of people (such as by saying "Nyah, nyah, Obamacare has been upheld, Obamacare has been upheld, we won we won we won deal with it!"), then it is fair to point out that the person is trolling. How could it be otherwise?

These are within reasonable bounds of any internet discussion. On the other hand, calling someone fat, for example, would not be.

Do you understand now?

Would it work? Does an intentional subversion of part of the constitution by a coalition of large states pass constitutional muster? Who knows?

Not a lawyer, but everything I have read says it would pass SC muster, since states can determine how the apportion votes, but really who can say.

When is Andy due back*? I am terrible about passage of time, so I have no idea. Anyway I miss him.

*If he has been posting and I missed I apologize.

Do you understand now?

Calling someone a troll is calling them a name. Calling someone a liar is calling them a name. You do both and then claim you "don't ever use personal attacks, or call people names, or anything like that", I am sad to say it but you are in fact a liar.

I am not stating your statement was incorrect, but rather you are engaged in conscious mendacity and it is a bit sad to see you refuse to just admit error and move on. Oh well.

And by the way you didn't call me a troll for saying "nyah nayh" (though I did, and do again - it is legal), I am pretty sure if you go back and look I was goading you about owning something. I admit I was being obnoxious, but I was using your own formulation which you had used on others repeatedly.

Obnoxiousness <> Troll, which I suspect you also know but will not admit.

I will drop this for now, but I make no promises I won't bring this up again the next time you call someone a liar.

EDIT: The problem, BTW, is not you calling people names, it is the lying and claiming you don't that is ... I guess I'll go with sad.

I will drop this for now, but I make no promises I won't bring this up again the next time you call someone a liar.

Knock yourself out. I've stated and explained my position, and have responded to your reply. People can form their own conclusions about it.

I like to think of Ray using Henry Rollins voice.

Looking at that Wikipedia link on the popular vote initiative:

All of the states that have approved this are in current terms considered very safe states for Democratic presidential nominees, which gives it the appearance of a partisan initiative. (The least certain Dem states of that list are New Jersey and Washington.) Of course one can understand why states like Florida and Ohio might not want to go along - one assumes that they like the attention. (When I say "they", I'm referring to political insiders, not the general population hiding their eyes from the onslaught of all those ads.) The only way to make this a bigger story would be to have Texas adopt it, to even out the appearance of partisanship.

As to why it might have a partisan tinge: if the election were to be decided by the national popular vote, then the Democratic strategic response would almost surely be to sink serious resources (both advertising and GOTV) into urban areas in New York, California, and Illinois. Any real increase in turnout in those locations would be hard for the GOP to counter in other places.

I like to think of Ray using Henry Rollins voice.

Really? I imagine more of a cross between Jello Biafra and T.S. Eliot.

Which I wished worked, but doesn't, as I know Ray's voice is very regular, which I mean as a compliment.

Really? I imagine more of a cross between Jello Biafra and T.S. Eliot.

Sigh. Yes.

I don't recall this;

I was quite sure that you wouldn't.

Where "I am going with it" is that while other than calling people liars sometimes, you don't engage in "traditional" internet personal attacks, in that particular case, you said stuff that made it clear that you thought I was both troll and a liar, so the idea that you never engage in personal attacks is, well, questionable at best.

I like to think of Ray using Henry Rollins voice.

Heh. I've met him (Ray, not Rollins), and thus find this more amusing than I otherwise might. I will now amuse myself further by imagining Ray singing (er..."singing," it being Rollins) "Low Self Opinion."

I hate to be that guy, but the latter-day Henry Rollins has always given me a headache. I'm glad he became successful and happy and all that, but I preferred him as a weird and mental anti-hero of Family Man.

Where "I am going with it" is that while other than calling people liars sometimes, you don't engage in "traditional" internet personal attacks, in that particular case, you said stuff that made it clear that you thought I was both troll and a liar, so the idea that you never engage in personal attacks is, well, questionable at best.

Well, without you posting the exchange, again, I can't comment intelligently on it.

I imagine it had something to do with one of the times Good Face insulted you; he's the only person I can recall doing that. But if I didn't do it, I don't see your point. You'd have to be more specific about "stuff that made it clear I thought you were both troll and liar." It depends what the "stuff" was. As I said just above, I do think it's within bounds of any reasonable discussion to call someone both troll and liar if that's what they are doing. Those are substantive complaints that are related to the discussion, not random attacks that have nothing to do with anything.

I hate to be that guy, but the latter-day Henry Rollins has always given me a headache.

Hey, no worries--Rollins's vocals are and have always been shite.

Gore Vidal is dead. I hadn't realized just how ugly it got between him and William F. Buckley.

New politics thread.