***** Official Election Game Day Thread *****

[Born N Bled Red]

I'm warming up to the idea of abolishing the electoral college for the reason Knapp notes above.  However, us smaller states would argue that it would make us a fly over state as the candidates spend all of their time in the big states.  One could argue the other way around - that since ever vote counts, they would need my vote in Okla, @knapplc's vote in Nebraska, @RedDenver's vote in Colorado, @Minnesota_husker's vote in Minnesota, etc. 

Small states also argue that the electoral college gives them more power per vote - more representation per vote - which it does.  But one could argue, that the small states already have that advantage in the Senate.  My home state of S.D. has as many Senators as California. 

I think abolishing the elector college, which is a very long shot as it would have to be an amendment to the constitution, would force parties to be more representative of the people and to their desires.  As it stands now, the GOP can be filled with all of its Trumpism and still have a good chance to win - their is a path forward for them to 270 EC votes.  So the GOP can sit in their dumpster of ideas and still win.  If it was the popular vote only that counted, the GOP would have to change with the prevailing will of the people in order to be competitive.  The same is true for the Dems -   it may force the parties into a more moderate position. 

Agreed. Eliminating the electoral college would certainly dampen the importance of states like Iowa, Colorado, and Minnesota. Here in Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, etc. we probably wouldn't even notice a difference when it came to the presidential election. The other thing that needs to happen to fix presidential politics is open ranked choice primaries. Everyone votes for their top 2 or 3 candidates, regardless of party affiliation. This would quickly pull politics back to the center. 

 

[Cdog923]

I'm warming up to the idea of abolishing the electoral college for the reason Knapp notes above.  However, us smaller states would argue that it would make us a fly over state as the candidates spend all of their time in the big states.  One could argue the other way around - that since ever vote counts, they would need my vote in Okla, @knapplc's vote in Nebraska, @RedDenver's vote in Colorado, @Minnesota_husker's vote in Minnesota, etc. 

Small states also argue that the electoral college gives them more power per vote - more representation per vote - which it does.  But one could argue, that the small states already have that advantage in the Senate.  My home state of S.D. has as many Senators as California. 

I think abolishing the elector college, which is a very long shot as it would have to be an amendment to the constitution, would force parties to be more representative of the people and to their desires.  As it stands now, the GOP can be filled with all of its Trumpism and still have a good chance to win - their is a path forward for them to 270 EC votes.  So the GOP can sit in their dumpster of ideas and still win.  If it was the popular vote only that counted, the GOP would have to change with the prevailing will of the people in order to be competitive.  The same is true for the Dems -   it may force the parties into a more moderate position. 

This is how I argue it; right now, Nebraska has 5 votes for President. If we abolish the EC, we have 1.9 million votes. 

 

[Ulty]

I'm warming up to the idea of abolishing the electoral college for the reason Knapp notes above.  However, us smaller states would argue that it would make us a fly over state as the candidates spend all of their time in the big states.  One could argue the other way around - that since ever vote counts, they would need my vote in Okla, @knapplc's vote in Nebraska, @RedDenver's vote in Colorado, @Minnesota_husker's vote in Minnesota, etc. 

Small states also argue that the electoral college gives them more power per vote - more representation per vote - which it does.  But one could argue, that the small states already have that advantage in the Senate.  My home state of S.D. has as many Senators as California. 

I think abolishing the elector college, which is a very long shot as it would have to be an amendment to the constitution, would force parties to be more representative of the people and to their desires.  As it stands now, the GOP can be filled with all of its Trumpism and still have a good chance to win - their is a path forward for them to 270 EC votes.  So the GOP can sit in their dumpster of ideas and still win.  If it was the popular vote only that counted, the GOP would have to change with the prevailing will of the people in order to be competitive.  The same is true for the Dems -   it may force the parties into a more moderate position. 

Maybe the USA could adopt a BCS style system in which we take the average of the popular vote, the electoral college, and Jeff Sagarin's formula. 

 

[TGHusker]

Does anyone smarter than me know how they would even go about doing that?

My guess is republicans would block it at all costs.

Just seems crazy to me that Hilary won by almost 3 million votes but lost electoral college by 74 points.

I get that states like Nebraska, Iowa and other swing voters with small populations would get forgotten but still just seems silly.

I'm not smarter but  to make the change, a constitutional amendment would have to be approved.  I heard this morning that there have been over 10,000 attempts to change the constitution but there are only 27 amendments that have passed.

2 routes to get an amendment

1. The Convention route : Convention of the States as described in Article Five of the Constitution - call a constitutional convention.  2/3s of the states must attend and approve.  This is the wild card route.  Once a convention is called, all cards are off the table - they could go in with the design to vote on one thing and end up with other changes.   There was talk pushed by Conservatives during the Obama admin to have a constitutional convention addressing 11 items important to conservatives.  Mark Levin and his book the Liberty Amendments were  pushing this convention. 

1. Impose Congressional term limits
   
2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
   
3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
   
4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
   
5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
   
6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and review
   
7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
   
8. Limit eminent domain powers
   
9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing Congress
   
10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
    
11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting
    

2.  Congressional Action and Vote by State Legislature - the common route:  2/3 of Senate & House  must approve an amendment to the Constitution. The 3/4 of state legislatures must approve the amendment. 

 

[GSG]

[No message]

 

[TGHusker]

This is how I argue it; right now, Nebraska has 5 votes for President. If we abolish the EC, we have 1.9 million votes. 

5 out of 270 needed to win is 1.852% of the total needed to win

In 2016 there was a total of 128,838,342 votes,  1/2 + 1 = 64,419,172 = majority to win

Nebraska casted 780,455 votes   or 1.212% of the majority needed to win.

So in this case Nebraska had better representation via the EC. 

Now if Nebraska has 1.9m voters actually cast their votes, then they would represent 2.95% of the total needed to win

in 2016. 

 

[TGHusker]

One election that has been decided: Scholastic Student Vote

https://classroommagazines.scholastic.com/election/vote/student-vote-results.html

It will be interesting to see if the same blowout occurs today

 

[knapplc]

5 out of 270 needed to win is 1.852% of the total needed to win

In 2016 there was a total of 128,838,342 votes,  1/2 + 1 = 64,419,172 = majority to win

Nebraska casted 780,455 votes   or 1.212% of the majority needed to win.

So in this case Nebraska had better representation via the EC. 

Now if Nebraska has 1.9m voters actually cast their votes, then they would represent 2.95% of the total needed to win

in 2016. 

Except that I had zero representation via the Electoral College. I voted for Hillary. My state's EC votes went to the cheeto. 

Without the Electoral College, my vote for Hillary would have counted for one vote for Hillary. Instead I got zero.

 

[TGHusker]

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-wins-all-dixville-notch-votes-1544253

Dixville Notch goes to Biden

Former vice president Joe Biden won all five of the votes cast for president in the tiny New Hampshire township of Dixville Notch, becoming the first candidate to do so in 60 years.

Voters in Dixville Notch traditionally cast their ballots just after midnight and theirs are some of the first cast and counted on Election Day.

All five votes for president went to Biden, but voters were split when choosing candidates for the House and Senate, although the Democratic candidates still prevailed.

 

[Cdog923]

5 out of 270 needed to win is 1.852% of the total needed to win

In 2016 there was a total of 128,838,342 votes,  1/2 + 1 = 64,419,172 = majority to win

Nebraska casted 780,455 votes   or 1.212% of the majority needed to win.

So in this case Nebraska had better representation via the EC. 

Now if Nebraska has 1.9m voters actually cast their votes, then they would represent 2.95% of the total needed to win

in 2016. 

How many more people would believe that their vote actually mattered if it was straight popular vote, though? There's no way to quantify that measure, but I know many people who, even with turnouts being as high as they are this year, don't think their vote matters anyway because of the history of how the state votes. 

 

[TGHusker]

I like this plan. Leave no doubt, don't hold back.  Shut Trump's mouth by ignoring him and his actions.

https://www.axios.com/biden-transition-plan-election-day-65caa1f6-886e-42cd-b205-5ee8f89941f2.html

If news organizations declare Joe Biden the mathematical president-elect, he plans to address the nation as its new leader, even if President Trump continues to fight in court, advisers tell Axios.

Why it matters: Biden advisers learned the lesson of 2000, when Al Gore hung back while George W. Bush declared victory in that contested election, putting the Democrat on the defensive while Bush acted like the winner.

So if Biden is declared the winner, he'll begin forming his government and looking presidential — and won't yield to doubts Trump might try to sow.

• Biden's schedule for Tuesday includes a clue to this posture: He "will address the nation on Election Night in Wilmington, Delaware."
  

Biden campaign manager Jen O'Malley Dillon told reporters Monday that even if all the votes aren't counted tonight, the campaign should have "a very good sense of where we're headed":

• "We're not really concerned about what Donald Trump says. ... We're going to use our data, our understanding of where this is headed, and make sure that the vice president is addressing the American people."
  

To show momentum, Biden may begin transition announcements quickly, starting with senior staff appointments.

• That way, core aides won't have to worry about their own jobs, but will immediately be able to get to work.
  

Biden plans to adopt what one confidant called "a healing tone," and begin talking about the path forward in battling the coronavirus.

• Look for Biden to embrace science, and talk up the role of Dr. Anthony Fauci, after Trump threatened Sunday to try to fire the trusted official.
  

From there, the transition would move with unprecedented speed:

• Biden had eight years in the White House, and he's surrounded by aides with decades of government experience.
  
• So the transition has made the most thorough agency-by-agency preparations in history, including offices no one's thinking about.
  

Biden has blueprints for staffing every single agency, and has extensive plans for executive orders, including ones to undo Trump actions.

• Look for Biden to send all-business signals: He won't pack the courts, and is unlikely to push for repeal of the Senate's filibuster rule and its 60-vote requirement anytime soon.
  
• Instead, look for Biden to push to pass as much as possible under the banner of budget reconciliation, which requires just a simple majority
  

•  
  

 

[TGHusker]

How many more people would believe that their vote actually mattered if it was straight popular vote, though? There's no way to quantify that measure, but I know many people who, even with turnouts being as high as they are this year, don't think their vote matters anyway because of the history of how the state votes. 

I agree - regardless of the %, it feels like your vote counts when it is a part of the real total that counts and not as just a sub total  to an electoral college total.

 

[knapplc]

How do you like them apples, DeJoy?

 

[TGHusker]

Except that I had zero representation via the Electoral College. I voted for Hillary. My state's EC votes went to the cheeto. 

Without the Electoral College, my vote for Hillary would have counted for one vote for Hillary. Instead I got zero.

Yep very true   -

 

[Minnesota_husker]

I am just shaking my head at all this talk about voting lines and how tough and inconvenient it is some places. JFC, it doesn't have to be difficult. Is Colorado the only state that has it's sh#t together in this regard? Y'all need to force some major changes in your state if you have to go stand in line for more than 30 minutes. Absentee....Mail-In......early voting, ffs.

I did it this year and it was awesome. Got my ballot in the mail, voted, put it back in the mail and checked to see it was accepted!

BING BANG BOOM