Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gregoire signs popular vote bill into law

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
New Dawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 07:49 PM
Original message
Gregoire signs popular vote bill into law
Source: Seattle Times

Gregoire signs popular vote bill into law

Washington state will join a compact with other states to cast its presidential electoral votes for the national popular vote winner.

OLYMPIA, Wash. —

Washington state will join a compact with other states to cast its presidential electoral votes for the national popular vote winner.

Gov. Chris Gregoire signed the bill Tuesday, but it doesn't take effect until enough states sign on to account for 270 electoral votes - the number it takes to win the White House. Washington has 11 electoral votes.

The compact has been ratified in Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey and is moving ahead in several other states.

Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009140302_apwaelectoralcollege1stldwritethru.html?syndication=rss



Great news, now five states have joined the http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/">National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which will give the winner of the popular vote for president the states' electoral votes (once states with a majority of electoral votes have signed it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Now for California to pass it again over Ahnulds veto. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BartMang Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Nice
Good news! not to get more states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting how it's all blue voting states that have signed on so far.
What's up GOPers? No confidence in your party's ability to win the popular vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. I think it is becase, due to recent history, Democrats have been more upset with election results
It doesn't meant this is "right".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I actually do think it's right though. I both favor the popular vote system, as well as feeling
that the electoral college system is more favorable to Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. As is, the electoral system sucks...
But Id venture to say the cure is worse than the sickness here, in this case. States will literally be disenfranchised and subjected to some arbitrary count that is open to countless manipulation.

How can any intelligent person put any reasonable faith in the "Popular Vote"?

Its just absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. In your system, the delegation of proportional electoral votes is just an approximation of popular
vote anyway so I fail to see how it's better.

If I win by 2 percent in the popular vote but lose by 5 electoral votes because if the vagaries of how the EV's apportion out in your system I don't think it's better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. No, it isn't an approximation of popular vote whatsoever
I give two shits about the "popular vote". Its a meaningless arbitrary tally.

My approach is rather a measure of the will of the people, factoring in all such people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Here's what you said your system does:
"Why don't states rather seek to distribute their electoral votes proportionally to each candidate, according to how their state (And only their state) has voted? Popular vote means jack shit due to the idiosyncrasies in voting across different state lines."

When you say "how their state has voted" I presume you mean according to the popular vote of that state.

Since the overall popular vote is the sum of the popular vote in each state, I don't see how this is anything other than an approximation of popular vote by electoral votes. It's closer to the actual popular vote than the current college winner take all system for each state, but it's still an approximation as opposed to the real thing. You still add the electoral votes the way you would add popular votes. The actual translation of popular votes to electoral votes still gives room for inaccuracy.

But I don't seem to get angry about this the way you appear to, so whatever. Feel free to have the last word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. Look, here is the problem with giving any credence, whatsoever, to the Popular Tally.
Edited on Wed Apr-29-09 11:01 AM by Oregone
Imagine there is a country of two states {A, B}. There exists 200 electoral votes, split among the two states {A - 80, B - 120} according to their populations {A - 80K, B - 120 K}.

There is also Candidate 1 (who polls 60% in state A) and Candidate 2 (who polls 60% in state B). Every pundit, news anchor, and blogger clearly gives the upper hand to candidate 2.

So, election day comes:

State A Results
---------------
The weather is perfect, voting stations are open, a state holiday is declared, rides are provided to the ample polling stations by the state, all 1 million people are registered, state advertising campaigns push people into voting, everyone is excited due to primary involvement (which started and finished in State A), the candidates spent a fortune since it was a "battleground state" and nothing went wrong.

- 100% Turnout

- Candidate 1 wins with 60% of the vote (48 K votes)


State B Results
---------------
There is a massive flood preventing transportation, everyone must work, no transportation programs are available, polling stations are few and far between, and many are not accessible due to road blocks and overbearing police officers, the voter rolls were recently purged, the primary was pointless in the state, hardly any political rallies were held there, the media has completely ignored the state, and the public is anything but enthusiastic about the election. From weather, to political activity, to state policy, controllable and random circumstances greatly impact who can vote.

- 10% turnout

- Candidate 2 wins with 60% of the vote (7.2 K votes)


Now lets examine simple methods to determine election:

*Current EV college: Candidate 2 wins with 120 EVs ("loser voters" in each state are ignored and the will of the people takes second place to some archaic approximation that is in itself a bit arbitrary)

*Popular vote tally: Candidate 1 wins with 52.8 K votes to 39.2 K votes, and 200 EVs (All votes are counted, but apples are compared to oranges. State B had circumstances that disenfranchised their state and lowered their impact in the election. The overall will of their people was still in favor of Candidate 2, but it couldn't be expressed accurately across non-homogeneous systems).

*Proportional Allocation: Candidate 2 wins with (.6 * 120 + .4 * 80) 104 EVs to Candidate As 96 EVs (.4 * 120 + .6 * 80) = 96. (It just so happens that with 100% turnout, its likely the "Popular Vote" would of been equivalent to this 52% victory. This equalizes the idiosyncrasies to approximate the will of the people, weighted per each state).

Both the popular tally and proportional allocation are subject to manipulation based on simply targeting population centers (that are liberal) with suppression. To fix this, proportional allocation can be taken straight down to the district level (as some states do in the primary) to equalize to voting problems from district to district. This allows a suppressed city to still have the will of their people expressed proportionally, despite problems that they may run into. With an effective multi-district rounding algorithm, you can very accurately approximate the actual will of the people.

To be honest, Id prefer to scrap it all and go with a parliamentary system with single transferable voting. But, that will never happen. Proportional allocation (at state/district level) is something that could easily happen, which will fix a lot of problems. The bottom line is that the popular vote method (which Hillary ignorantly touted) merely measures the popular vote, but there are so many factors from state to state that makes this beyond arbitrary. The last thing we need is states being disenfranchised by a vote that means little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. The problem is that the GOP's strong hold, the South and the West
Edited on Tue Apr-28-09 11:22 PM by happyslug
First the South. The South, historically, has always voted 10-20% less then the rest of the Country. Given the GOP's strength in the South, and the GOP's growing weakness in the rest of the Nation, the GOP is looking at 10-20% vote disadvantage when it comes to a popular vote. The flip side of this is when the South votes 10-20% less then the rest of the Country, the electoral collage eliminates that 10-20% less people voting in the South from affecting who wins the National Election. Remember we only have ONE national election, everyone else is elected on a state wide basis (Governors and Senators) OR in districts drawn by States (Congressional seats as while as state legislature seats). These state based elections occurs at the same time as the Presidential Elections, but only the President is elected nation wide.

When the Electoral Collage was invented, different states had different eligibility when it came to who could vote (and no state permitted Slaves to vote, but slaves were counted in the census when it came to determining how many congressional seats each state had, this was viewed as unfair at the time period and the 3/5th clause was added to resolve this dispute). Now come the 1820s, almost every state had adopted universal white male suffrage (South Carolina was one exception to this rule), come 1866 the US and every state had made Suffrage universal for ALL Males. By 1921 this was extended to women. Dispute these increases in who could vote (and I am ignoring the South's efforts to prohibit Blacks from voting till the 1950s, on the grounds it was illegal but permitted) the South's problem of having lower voter turnout then the rest of the Country remained (And some of this lack of turnout was do to, and is do to, persistent racism in the South).

People in the South do NOT vote at the same level people vote in the rest of the Country. The South knows this, as to the Democratic and Republican Parities. The GOP prefer to accept this situation rather then try to get more voters out (Probably on the fear that more blacks will vote and the South would return to the Democratic Party). The South's excuse is that why should the south lose its existing vote count, based on its population NOT the number of people who vote, do to the fact the rest of the country vote at higher percentages then the South. The Electoral Collage provides votes to reflect the POPULATION of each state NOT how many voters vote in each state. The GOP knows this and will continue to refuse to have any GOP controlled State pass the compact. As long as the Compact needs 270 votes out of 525 electoral votes, the GOP will prevail. Remember the totals, The GOP controls (or more accurately can prevent this bill from getting to the Floor) of the following states with their electoral votes"
Texas (34)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Alabama (9)
Georgia (15)
South Carolina (8)
North Carolina (13)
Virginia (15)
West Virginia (5)
Kentucky (8)
Tennessee (11)
Arkansas (6)
Kansas (6)
Oklahoma (7)
Missouri (11)
Florida (27)

Then the Midwest (and I know Pennsylvania is considered an "Eastern State" but Pittsburgh and the Western Part of the State is Midwestern in outlook, not east coast). The Midwest is 180 Electoral Votes in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. In each of these states the GOP still have strength to make sure this does not pass those states, so you have to add 69 more oppose to this compact( Total 249).

Finally the Great plains and the West (But NOT the West Coast) If you go into the Great Plains and West, you can add the following states to the states that will NOT pass this bill:

North Dakota (3)
South Dakota (3)
Montana (3)
Utah (5)
Wyoming (3)
Arizona (10)
Idaho (4)
Nebraska (5)
Alaska (3)

That is an additional 39 Electoral votes (42 if you include Nevada, which went for Obama in 2008, but will fear lost of power if popular vote becomes the law). ALL of these states (With the exception of Arizona) will not like the change for each will lose electoral vote power, for direct election eliminates the additional power these states have do to the fact the electoral vote goes by members in the House and Senate and each state gets at least two senator and thus two less votes given the state LOW population. This totals 288 electoral votes, which is more then the 270 needed under the terms of this act.

Thus unless Congress does something to force states to adopt this rule (Which I do NOT see happening, even if it was constitutional) this compact will never be adopted by enough state to pass. To many states have a vested interest in making sure it does NOT become passed by enough states, and in the middle you have the Midwest which probably would like this compact, but enough Republicans exist in those states to prevent such a compact from ever passing those states (More to keep the GOP viable on the National Level then anything in those states themselves).

For more details see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Not to mention, that when push comes to shove, it would be awful hard
For states to follow through in the event of popular and electoral votes having different winners.

Would voters stand for their state government sending Republican delegates, when they had voted for Democrats, or vice versa?

All it would take is one state to spurn this whole agreement when it comes to crunch time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. Washing State can't buy toilette paper
for the Capitol restrooms without a referendum. How does something like this go down without a popular vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The voters can hold a referendum on repealing it

It wouldn't be the first time up there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spirald Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. So what happens when deep red states suddenly have 200% turnout
and throw the national vote? At least before, each state couldn't send more electors than they had allocated, regardless of any shenanigans, but now they can hijack Washington's electors in a close race. Has this been answered? Unintended consequences, anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. If the red states come up with a 200% turnout
they will be in deep deep doo doo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. President Jeb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
29. With Diebold, anything is possible. No one would stop them.
Edited on Wed Apr-29-09 06:05 AM by lostnfound
Specific districts can easily pad their vote counts. And we saw a lot of that in 2000 and 2004. and we also saw Democratic districts mysteriously depleted, with high undervotes in the presidential race (i..e., far more votes were cast for down-ballot races than for the top race), which would have the same effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eggplant Donating Member (395 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. We're not the party of voter suppression
If the R's can get that many people to the polls, then they are entitled to win. Simple as that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Turnout and suppression are factors that make the popular vote beyond arbitrary
Therefore, why adhere to it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jfkraus Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. I'm not sure I like this...
Suppose the rest of the country has a brain fart, but WA mostly votes for the other candidate? It will just be overruled? Why even vote then? I think it is not a good idea. I want MY vote to count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. That's not how it works.
The law applies only if enough states ratify it to determine the election. And if that is so, then the popular vote for the whole country will determine the outcome, since enough states to control the electoral college will vote that way. Everybody in the whole country will then be able to know that their vote counts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theMark Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. It will...
YOUR vote will count even more, as part of the NATIONAL total.

The way it stands now, if you vote D, but most of your state votes R, your vote doesn't count at all - ALL the state's electoral votes go for the R. (I know there are some exceptions, but anyway...) This way, a candidate will need to win a majority in the Country, not just a few sizable states.

I, myself, would like to eliminate the Electoral College, but this is a good first step.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. This is beyond a crappy law
Edited on Tue Apr-28-09 10:46 PM by Oregone
Reform in the wrong direction. Do we need more first past the post, winner take all criteria?

Why don't states rather seek to distribute their electoral votes proportionally to each candidate, according to how their state (And only their state) has voted? Popular vote means jack shit due to the idiosyncrasies in voting across different state lines.

States should express the will of their people, and only their people (and with my approach, they would stop ignoring the will of the minority voters too). Who needs supression, weather patterns, access to polls, media coverage, ID laws, and a ton of other factors in a non-homogeneous country creating an over-riding "Popular Vote" everyone must adhere to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. That is doable today, but the states do NOT want it
Both parties like winner take all and until one or the other party adopts as part of its policy to go to each state going to proportional distribution this will NOT happen (i.e. the winner of the state gets two electoral votes, equal to the number of Senators and then leave the remaining electrical voters come from who won what congressional district).

Right now only Nebraska and Maine has this policy, Maine has always gone one party to the other, Nebraska did the same till 2008, where Omaha went for Obama while the rest of the state went for McClain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ztarbod Donating Member (82 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. A very bad idea
As Scoop Jackson said, on the space needle, 'from here I can see all the votes I need to win the election'. Washington has the popular vote problem of King county. National elections have the problem of California and New York. As a Washington citizen, I do not want California and New York deciding how Washington votes are cast. If John Kerry had won Ohio, he would won the election but George Bush would have won the popular vote - be careful what you wish for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. No, a very good idea
The way it is now, sparsly populated rural conservative states hold too much sway on our national elections -- far beyond what their small populations deserve. Short of changing to a parliamentary system, a national popular vote is the best thing that could ensure that a vote represents the will of the majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. The popular vote tally isn't a measure of "the will of the majority"
Its a tally of votes across non-homogeneous systems
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bette Noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. As a patriotic Californian, I am unwilling to give up my state's
disproportionate power in determining the Presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #20
28. It beats the current system where cows and corn can vote.
Basing electors only partially on population means that small, farmy states have a disproportionate say in national politics. As a Californian, I like to think my opinion counts as much as that of somebody from Wyoming (not knocking people from Wyoming, I just spent the evening drinking with a buddy who is from there) but under the current system a person voting in Wyoming has almost six times as much say in national politics as somebody from California. My buddy's cool and all, but he's not six times more informed about politics than I am. ;)

Under the current system, the larger states only see national candidates when they come through begging for money. That's not fair at all, and it's not consistent with democratic ideals, small or large d.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. It's a great idea, we want a President of the USA, not a President of Ohio. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
30. Problem with this is...
that a close election will turn the entire country into the Florida 2000/Ohio 2004 situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC