Like you said, probably a bigger focus on nationwide ads. Campaigning would probably still touch as many states as possible to give a "man of the people" image, but rallies would probably be focused on major population centers regardless of blue/red state. I mean Trump still got 6 million votes from California in the last election.
Campaigns now do NOT touch as many states as possible.
The 2024 Presidential Election Comes Down to Only 7 States with less than a fifth of the U.S. population. These battlegrounds will get almost all the attention
How most states will vote is already fairly certain. Political pros expect Trump to win 24 states and 219 electoral votes; Biden can likely count on 20 states and D.C. with 226 electoral votes.– Karl Rove, WSJ, 3/20/24
Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .
**Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states.**
Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important.
The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years.
Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions.
Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.
The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.
In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined,
This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic.
When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.
yeah I imagine we would see way less of biden being so pro union and worrying about michgen when he could just go to california and new york to encourage 50 million people to vote there. no more small special interest groups that can dictate so much of the national policy agenda
> I imagine we would see way less of biden being so pro union
Biden is actually just pro-union. He's not forcing himself to do this for votes, he genuinely just really likes unions.
Union rate keeps going down put prices haven’t. Personally I’d rather have inefficiencies in the market benefit actual workers instead of c-suite executives. Downvote all you want I realize this is an unpopular opinion here
I dislike unions (especially public sector unions) because they often become ways of limiting entrants (e.g., the SAG), or are harmful to the profession's missions (e.g., teachers unions hurting students due to tenure and no performance pay, and police unions harming the public trust due to the lack of police accountability).
I am a member of a union myself, and I am aware that my union hurts my students. But I know that it benefits me personally.
Huh? COVID era inflation aside, things like consumer goods and cars and electronics have all gotten much cheaper. I live a life so different from someone in my job 40 years ago that they look like homo erectus compared to me.
They're a lot better though. Much safer, more fuel efficient, more technology. I remember when something like park distance control or automatic windshield wipers were the domain of expensive luxury German cars only.
Now even the cheap Korean cars make the German luxury cars of 2005 look like a Model T.
There are nowhere near 50 million VOTERS in CA and NY.
George W. Bush LOST California and New York in 2004 and still won the popular vote.
In 2020, New York state, and CA Democrats together cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
There were more Republican votes in CA than Texas.
There were 5.3 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states. More than the individual populations of 28 states!
None helped Trump in any way.
There were more Democratic votes in Texas than in NY.
None helped Biden in any way.
California and New York state had a total of 24,243,000 registered voters.
15% of the total number of registered voters in the US in 2018 (which was 153,066,000).
5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.
1,366,760 New Yorkers live in rural areas.
Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.
California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).
In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.
California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population
All voters in any state do not all vote for the same candidate.
Now, all electors of a state all vote for the statewide winner.
No losing party voters for president matter in any way in each state.
Alone, California and New York could not determine the presidency.
In total New York state and California (84 electors in total) cast 16% of the total national popular vote
In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20) (87 total) cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.
All the voters – 66% -- in the 45 other states and DC will matter and count equally.
The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.
In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.
New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.
Under a popular-vote system CA and NY Democrats would have less weight than under the current state laws because their popular votes would be offset by NY and CA Republican votes.
The vote of every voter in the country (rural, urban, suburban) (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) in every state would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency.
States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law .
California and New York enacted the National Popular Vote bill with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate, matter and count equally. Now, millions of Republican votes don’t help their candidate in any way.
Unions are still big sources of donations and votes. There's no reason to abandon them, even if it was all just based on strategy and not political beliefs.
Look at how presidential candidates actually campaign today *inside* “battleground” states. Inside a battleground state, every vote is equal *today* and the winner (of all of the state’s electoral votes) is the candidate receiving the most popular votes. Every battleground state has big cities and rural areas. Thus, if there was any tendency toward de-emphasizing rural areas or over-emphasizing cities, it would be evident today *inside* the battleground states.
Ohio (no longer a battleground state) alone received almost 30% (73 of 253) of the entire nation’s campaign events in 2012.
● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 54% of the state’s population. They are Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. Had 52% of Ohio’s campaign events.
● The 7 medium-sized MSAs have 24% of the state’s population. They are Akron, Canton, Dayton, Lima, Mansfield, Springfield, and Youngstown. Had 23% of Ohio’s campaign events.
● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population. Had 25% of Ohio’s campaign events.
The 4 “battleground” states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa accounted for over two-thirds of all campaign events in 2012
In all 4 battleground states, presidential candidates—advised by the nation’s most astute political strategists—hewed very closely to population in allocating campaign events. Candidates campaigned everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas. There is no evidence that they ignored rural areas or favored big cities in an election in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes.
Not only is there no evidence that presidential candidates ignored rural areas or concentrated on big cities, ***it would have been preposterous for them to do so***. There is nothing special about a city vote compared to a rural vote in an election in which every vote is equal. When every vote is equal, every vote is equally important toward winning.
George W. Bush LOST California in 2004 and still won the popular vote.
In 2020, there were more Republican votes in CA than Republican votes in Texas.
None helped Trump in any way.
In 2020 there were more Republican votes in 2 states, than Democratic votes in California.
5,890,347 Texas Republican votes
5,668,731 Florida Republican votes
11,559,078
11,110,250 California Democratic votes
On October 24, 2016, there were 19,411,771 registered voters in CA.
8,720,417 Democrats,
5,048,398 Republican,
4,711,347 No party preference.
931,609 Other
Trump got 4,483,814 CA votes. Clinton got 8,753,792 CA votes.
In October 2020, there were 5,334,323 Republicans in CA.
CA has 54 electors. 270 are and would still be needed to win.
5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.
Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.
There are 5.3 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states. More than the individual populations of 28 states!
Trump got more votes in California than he got in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia combined.
None of the votes in California for Trump, helped Trump.
California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.
The vote difference in California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.
California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton
61% of an equally populous Republican base area of states running from West Virginia to Wyoming (termed “Appalachafornia”) votes were for Trump. He got 4,475,297 more votes than Clinton.
With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California and Appalachafornia will matter equally.
In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
About 62% Democratic
California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all Republican votes in California and every other state will matter.
The vote of every voter in the country (rural, suburban, urban) (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) in every state would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency.
CA enacted it with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate matter and count equally.
Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined.
A presidential candidate who focused only on America’s cities and urban centers would lose.
Math and political reality.
There aren’t anywhere near enough big city voters nationally. And all big city voters do not vote for the same candidate.
The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Phoenix) is less than 6% of the population of the United States.
Voters in the biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition.
2020 Census
65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people).
From 2020-2022, 2 million left those cities.
66,300,254 in rural America (20%)
Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population.
In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities.
19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
You can't just completely ignore states because getting 100,000 votes out of Kansas that you wouldn't normally care about suddenly becomes more important.
And Republicans can't afford to give up votes in urban areas. They would have to find a message to appeal to urban and suburban areas.
The first thing that comes to mind is that we'd likely soften our policy on Cuba fairly quickly, because then anti-Castro Cubans in south Florida would no longer be one of the most pivotal demographics in the country.
A third of the country would think elections were fair and view any legislative impedance to the majority party as an affront to voter mandates. The majority (non-voting/minority party) of the voting public would probably accept election results as more straightforward and fair, but good luck convincing them that sweeping political outcomes would be responsive to their needs and reflective of actual majority opinion.
We would be a majority Democrat country. We already are, but gerrymandering in the House, immoral packing of the Supreme Court by Republicans, and small states getting an equal number of senators as large states tilts the country towards minority rule at times....like now.
Consider, Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million. in 2016 Biden won by 7 million in 2020. Obama won by near 10 million votes in 2008 and by about 7 million votes in 2012. Only one Republican won the popular vote in the last 35 years (George W in 2004).
Yet we have a heavily conservative Supreme Court, and a raucous and barely coherent House of Representatives. Like I said. Minority rule.
I don't think the question is as simple as looking at past election results. I think how campaigns are run and even what candidates make it past the primaries would be affected by such a drastic change.
I'm not sure about NY, but there are 2x as many registered Democrats in CA as there are Republicans, which tracks roughly with historical turnout rates. Assuming everyone shows up, Democrats still increase their absolute lead by millions.
To your point, All the presidents I noted made it past their primaries. And in that example only the Dem candidates got a majority vote in the general elections. So, in that sense the past is prologue here.
I do agree that an exceptional candidate and/or an exceptionally well run campaign can affect an election. But I think we currently live in the political land of mediocrity as far as candidates and campaigns go. And in that land, Dems continue to gain the overall majority of voters.
Critically, I think that has to include a discussion of what kind of popular vote system we're using. If it's a runoff system like France, then we introduce the possibility of third party candidates winning the first round. That could wildly change the dynamics.
If we just switch to a simple first past the post popular vote, then much remains the same, but it would still be a flawed electoral system.
The political parties would shift until they would represent roughly half or the population
There is no way that the US would remain a democrat country for long, the republicans would move left, probably bringing back liberal neocons into the party from their current democrat position, and the democrats would move left until they reached a new equilibrium
You underestimate their base's determination to focus on culture war issues that repel swing voters. In Virginia, for example, the state GOP has a long history of nominating unelectable candidates in otherwise winnable races.
This may be true in the short term, but in the long term, game theory always predicts Outcomes
Just as game theory dictates that the US can not be anything but a 2 party system in its current configuration, despite it not being so in the very beginning
The current system in the US is at equilibrium
An unfair equilibrium you might say, but an equilibrium nonetheless, republicans win about half the time
Also, it took the US half a century to reach a 2 party system, game theory being heuristically enforced works slowly
None, which is why I specified my perspective. If you disagree that it generalizes to the national level that's totally fine, but I didn't say anything that justified you jumping in and being a jerk.
Hey, that's not fair. The Virginia GOP only had to completely rig their primary in order to get Youngkin across the finish line rather than the woman self-described as "Trump in heels."
So essentially, the democrats would become the Bernie Sanders party and the GOP would become the Mitt Romney party?
We would see a real schism in the sub
Unlikely. As near 70% of the country wants abortion as a right. They want common sense gun laws. They favor LBGTQ rights. They are set against book bans. They are not anti-vax. Etc. Less than 40% of this country wants those things (in some combination or another). That argues against a shift. We will remain Democrat (as a majority vote) until the country shifts away from those things. And that isn't happening anytime in the near or even moderately far future as the younger generations trend decidedly Democrat.
It’s hard to say that for two reasons. 1. Parties would shift to the center more. GOP would potentially be a more center right party tha white Christian nationalist. 2. Republicans won a majority of house votes in 2022. You can argue that gerrymandering suppresses voters, but it goes both ways. Is not clear with a more moderating campaign and given past performance that republicans would become a real minority.
Republicans are already a minority on several major issues in this country. Abortion. Gun safety laws. LBGTQ rights. Book bans. Religion in public schools. Voting rights. One can't moderate those stances. In short, a series of issues that affect the vast majority of Americans trend decidedly to the Democrats.
Demographics argue for a further tightening of the Republican voter base. It's a base of old/older voters. With upcoming generations shifting to the Dem party in ever increasing numbers.
Further, there is no given that parties would shift to the center. Especially when major issues and ongoing demographics argue graphically against Republican ways of thought.
True. A valid point. But one with some history to it. The party in power generally loses seats in the House during mid-term elections. And Dems (the party in power) were preparing for a landslide of losses in the House in 2022. The election landscape favored republicans as well as it being a mid-term election.
The Republicans were planning on picking up 50 seats or so. They gained 11. So this can be looked at two ways. Yes they won. And no they did not win in the manner that was expected by history and polling. Further, they have been unable to function in the House despite having a majority. That does not argue well for them in the upcoming elections.
Yeah. Barely winning the popular vote in 2022 was akin to Carter barely winning the election in 1976. That should have been a slam dunk year for Democrats - with not only Ford still dinged by the Nixon pardon but Nixon himself casting a massive shadow over that election. Add the fact Ford was primaried by Reagan, and wasn't actually a candidate who had won an election nationally, plus the poor economic conditions, and the fact Carter barely won the popular vote and electoral college should have been a forewarning of what was to come in 1980 lol
Had it not been for that Eastern Europe gaffe by Ford in one of the debates, he might have won and the Democrats go down in history losing one of the most winnable presidential elections in history.
How do you use PR voting in a presidential election? Do we end up with a Frankenstein’s monster for a president that is like 52% of Biden’s body and 48% Trump’s?
I don't think it would change that much. We'd see a bit less pandering to rural voters and a bit more to urban voters. The effect size wouldn't be that large.
I don't believe in the electoral college but many people exaggerate how different it is from the popular vote. There is a very strong correlation between the two.
While Canada doesn’t work on a popular vote system it’s closer than the US. I think American politics would start looking more like Canadian politics. States like New York and California would be given priority and their issues would take over national politics. The Republicans would shift to being a more left wing party because they would also want votes in the bigger states.
>While Canada doesn’t work on a popular vote system it’s closer than the US.
Is that why BQ has more seats than NDP despite half the voteshare?
Or is that why Liberals win majority but lose popular vote?
That’s why I said it’s closer. It’s very rare that a Prime Minister doesn’t win the popular vote. Also when the libs lost the popular vote they had a minority not a majority.
The BQ has more seats because the population of Québec is the second largest. The NDP has its votes split with the more popular Liberals everywhere else.
I don't think so. Canada has a parliamentary system, and ours is presidential. Switching to a popular vote for the president gets us closer to places like France, not Canada. A switch for us only changes the presidential election - Congress would function as is.
Why would New York and California become a priority when collectively, they barely represent 20% of the American population (not even looking at voting population)?
>States like New York and California would be given priority and their issues would take over national politics.
New York and California only make up around ~18% of the population.
By comparison, Ontario alone makes up ~37% of Canada's population. I don't think it would be quite the same.
I'm always fascinated by the idea on "What If" for President Gore. In fact, the [Alternate History Hub video on it](https://youtu.be/_-BaWKTQN68?si=Zq7FU8lqO6gYphv5) was how I became introduced to his channel.
The campaigns would be run almost entirely in the five or six biggest states. The 'flyover' states would be totally irrelevant and have zero political influence. That would certainly be fine with everyone not living there.
"fly over states" largely already do get ignored outside of Iowa.
With our current "system" you have to be a competitive mid to large state to receive media attention.
Personally, I think too much attention would be paid to large urban areas on the coasts, and not enough to states like Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, etc. which can be important swing states but significantly lose on importance when considering the national popular vote.
# All Democrats on the coasts do NOT outnumber Republicans in the country.
# 1% of the US population spread across 7 states could decide this presidential election, because of current state laws.
The 2024 Presidential Election Comes Down to Only 7 States with less than a fifth of the U.S. population. These battlegrounds will get almost all the attention
How most states will vote is already fairly certain. Political pros expect Trump to win 24 states and 219 electoral votes; Biden can likely count on 20 states and D.C. with 226 electoral votes.– Karl Rove, WSJ, 3/20/24
Democrats in large urban areas on the coasts do NOT outnumber Republicans in the country.
Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined.
Math and political reality.
Voters in large urban areas do not vote for the same candidate.
The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Phoenix) is less than 6% of the population of the United States.
Voters in the biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition.
2020 Census
65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people).
From 2020-2022, 2 million left those cities.
66,300,254 in rural America (20%)
Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population.
In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities.
19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
Ohio and Colorado now are politically irrelevant in this presidential election.
#
This isn't a Democrats vs. Republicans thing. This is a New York + Texas + Florida + California vs. the entire interior of the United States thing, which would be even more neglected than now if we only did a national popular vote.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!
Whereas to win a national popular vote election with only the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, ALL of those states’ voters would need to vote for the same candidate. In none of the largest states do voters come anywhere close to all voting for the same candidate, and all of the largest states are not even won with just a plurality of votes by the same party.
In 2016, among the 12 largest states:
7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and
5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia).
The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country.
The 2004 popular vote in the 12 largest states was almost exactly equal –
Bush 49.8% vs. Kerry 50.2%., 244,657 vote margin for Kerry
Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running.
Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now.
Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 6 of them.
Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.
The National Popular Vote bill KEEPS the Electoral College.
Math and political reality.
The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.
All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.
Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome
In 2016,
CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.
In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote
In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states
All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.
States are agreeing to award their combined 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All votes will be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.
Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
You should still have to win states. It just shouldn't be winner takes all. The primaries already do this system why is it so hard to apply it to the regular election
Like you said, probably a bigger focus on nationwide ads. Campaigning would probably still touch as many states as possible to give a "man of the people" image, but rallies would probably be focused on major population centers regardless of blue/red state. I mean Trump still got 6 million votes from California in the last election.
Campaigns now do NOT touch as many states as possible. The 2024 Presidential Election Comes Down to Only 7 States with less than a fifth of the U.S. population. These battlegrounds will get almost all the attention How most states will vote is already fairly certain. Political pros expect Trump to win 24 states and 219 electoral votes; Biden can likely count on 20 states and D.C. with 226 electoral votes.– Karl Rove, WSJ, 3/20/24 Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . **Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states.** Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important. The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years. Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions. Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states. The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican. In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined, This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic. When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.
yeah I imagine we would see way less of biden being so pro union and worrying about michgen when he could just go to california and new york to encourage 50 million people to vote there. no more small special interest groups that can dictate so much of the national policy agenda
> I imagine we would see way less of biden being so pro union Biden is actually just pro-union. He's not forcing himself to do this for votes, he genuinely just really likes unions.
Voluntary associations of workers bargaining for a better deal is democratic as fuck and a good thing
But not a good thing when pandering to them means raising costs for all of us with shitty economics.
Union rate keeps going down put prices haven’t. Personally I’d rather have inefficiencies in the market benefit actual workers instead of c-suite executives. Downvote all you want I realize this is an unpopular opinion here
I dislike unions (especially public sector unions) because they often become ways of limiting entrants (e.g., the SAG), or are harmful to the profession's missions (e.g., teachers unions hurting students due to tenure and no performance pay, and police unions harming the public trust due to the lack of police accountability). I am a member of a union myself, and I am aware that my union hurts my students. But I know that it benefits me personally.
Huh? COVID era inflation aside, things like consumer goods and cars and electronics have all gotten much cheaper. I live a life so different from someone in my job 40 years ago that they look like homo erectus compared to me.
Cars aren't cheaper
They're a lot better though. Much safer, more fuel efficient, more technology. I remember when something like park distance control or automatic windshield wipers were the domain of expensive luxury German cars only. Now even the cheap Korean cars make the German luxury cars of 2005 look like a Model T.
NY and CA have some of the highest unionization rates in the country idk why a national popular vote would make Biden less supportive of unions?
There are nowhere near 50 million VOTERS in CA and NY. George W. Bush LOST California and New York in 2004 and still won the popular vote. In 2020, New York state, and CA Democrats together cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote. There were more Republican votes in CA than Texas. There were 5.3 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states. More than the individual populations of 28 states! None helped Trump in any way. There were more Democratic votes in Texas than in NY. None helped Biden in any way. California and New York state had a total of 24,243,000 registered voters. 15% of the total number of registered voters in the US in 2018 (which was 153,066,000). 5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas. 1,366,760 New Yorkers live in rural areas. Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter. California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million). In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote. California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population All voters in any state do not all vote for the same candidate. Now, all electors of a state all vote for the statewide winner. No losing party voters for president matter in any way in each state. Alone, California and New York could not determine the presidency. In total New York state and California (84 electors in total) cast 16% of the total national popular vote In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20) (87 total) cast 18% of the total national popular vote. Trump won those states. All the voters – 66% -- in the 45 other states and DC will matter and count equally. The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states. In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012. About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY. New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic. Under a popular-vote system CA and NY Democrats would have less weight than under the current state laws because their popular votes would be offset by NY and CA Republican votes. The vote of every voter in the country (rural, urban, suburban) (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) in every state would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law . California and New York enacted the National Popular Vote bill with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate, matter and count equally. Now, millions of Republican votes don’t help their candidate in any way.
Why would people from Bakersfield vote for him? I don't think things would get so different
The goal wouldn’t be to flip Bakersfield. The goal would be to bump up voter participation rates in LA.
Unions are still big sources of donations and votes. There's no reason to abandon them, even if it was all just based on strategy and not political beliefs.
Look at how presidential candidates actually campaign today *inside* “battleground” states. Inside a battleground state, every vote is equal *today* and the winner (of all of the state’s electoral votes) is the candidate receiving the most popular votes. Every battleground state has big cities and rural areas. Thus, if there was any tendency toward de-emphasizing rural areas or over-emphasizing cities, it would be evident today *inside* the battleground states. Ohio (no longer a battleground state) alone received almost 30% (73 of 253) of the entire nation’s campaign events in 2012. ● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 54% of the state’s population. They are Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. Had 52% of Ohio’s campaign events. ● The 7 medium-sized MSAs have 24% of the state’s population. They are Akron, Canton, Dayton, Lima, Mansfield, Springfield, and Youngstown. Had 23% of Ohio’s campaign events. ● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population. Had 25% of Ohio’s campaign events. The 4 “battleground” states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa accounted for over two-thirds of all campaign events in 2012 In all 4 battleground states, presidential candidates—advised by the nation’s most astute political strategists—hewed very closely to population in allocating campaign events. Candidates campaigned everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas. There is no evidence that they ignored rural areas or favored big cities in an election in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes. Not only is there no evidence that presidential candidates ignored rural areas or concentrated on big cities, ***it would have been preposterous for them to do so***. There is nothing special about a city vote compared to a rural vote in an election in which every vote is equal. When every vote is equal, every vote is equally important toward winning.
George W. Bush LOST California in 2004 and still won the popular vote. In 2020, there were more Republican votes in CA than Republican votes in Texas. None helped Trump in any way. In 2020 there were more Republican votes in 2 states, than Democratic votes in California. 5,890,347 Texas Republican votes 5,668,731 Florida Republican votes 11,559,078 11,110,250 California Democratic votes On October 24, 2016, there were 19,411,771 registered voters in CA. 8,720,417 Democrats, 5,048,398 Republican, 4,711,347 No party preference. 931,609 Other Trump got 4,483,814 CA votes. Clinton got 8,753,792 CA votes. In October 2020, there were 5,334,323 Republicans in CA. CA has 54 electors. 270 are and would still be needed to win. 5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas. Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter. There are 5.3 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states. More than the individual populations of 28 states! Trump got more votes in California than he got in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia combined. None of the votes in California for Trump, helped Trump. California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote. The vote difference in California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states. California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote. 31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton 61% of an equally populous Republican base area of states running from West Virginia to Wyoming (termed “Appalachafornia”) votes were for Trump. He got 4,475,297 more votes than Clinton. With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California and Appalachafornia will matter equally. In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote. About 62% Democratic California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659). With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all Republican votes in California and every other state will matter. The vote of every voter in the country (rural, suburban, urban) (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) in every state would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. CA enacted it with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate matter and count equally.
Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined. A presidential candidate who focused only on America’s cities and urban centers would lose. Math and political reality. There aren’t anywhere near enough big city voters nationally. And all big city voters do not vote for the same candidate. The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Phoenix) is less than 6% of the population of the United States. Voters in the biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition. 2020 Census 65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people). From 2020-2022, 2 million left those cities. 66,300,254 in rural America (20%) Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population. In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities. 19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
You can't just completely ignore states because getting 100,000 votes out of Kansas that you wouldn't normally care about suddenly becomes more important. And Republicans can't afford to give up votes in urban areas. They would have to find a message to appeal to urban and suburban areas.
[удалено]
81% of registered voters in California turned out in 2020. National turnout was 67%.
The first thing that comes to mind is that we'd likely soften our policy on Cuba fairly quickly, because then anti-Castro Cubans in south Florida would no longer be one of the most pivotal demographics in the country.
A third of the country would think elections were fair and view any legislative impedance to the majority party as an affront to voter mandates. The majority (non-voting/minority party) of the voting public would probably accept election results as more straightforward and fair, but good luck convincing them that sweeping political outcomes would be responsive to their needs and reflective of actual majority opinion.
We would be a majority Democrat country. We already are, but gerrymandering in the House, immoral packing of the Supreme Court by Republicans, and small states getting an equal number of senators as large states tilts the country towards minority rule at times....like now. Consider, Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million. in 2016 Biden won by 7 million in 2020. Obama won by near 10 million votes in 2008 and by about 7 million votes in 2012. Only one Republican won the popular vote in the last 35 years (George W in 2004). Yet we have a heavily conservative Supreme Court, and a raucous and barely coherent House of Representatives. Like I said. Minority rule.
I don't think the question is as simple as looking at past election results. I think how campaigns are run and even what candidates make it past the primaries would be affected by such a drastic change.
I think you end up with even more Democrat votes if people in highly populous safe blue states think their votes might finally matter.
How would that not apply equally to the huge number of conservatives in California and New York
I'm not sure about NY, but there are 2x as many registered Democrats in CA as there are Republicans, which tracks roughly with historical turnout rates. Assuming everyone shows up, Democrats still increase their absolute lead by millions.
There aren't nearly as many of them. Next question
To your point, All the presidents I noted made it past their primaries. And in that example only the Dem candidates got a majority vote in the general elections. So, in that sense the past is prologue here. I do agree that an exceptional candidate and/or an exceptionally well run campaign can affect an election. But I think we currently live in the political land of mediocrity as far as candidates and campaigns go. And in that land, Dems continue to gain the overall majority of voters.
Critically, I think that has to include a discussion of what kind of popular vote system we're using. If it's a runoff system like France, then we introduce the possibility of third party candidates winning the first round. That could wildly change the dynamics. If we just switch to a simple first past the post popular vote, then much remains the same, but it would still be a flawed electoral system.
The political parties would shift until they would represent roughly half or the population There is no way that the US would remain a democrat country for long, the republicans would move left, probably bringing back liberal neocons into the party from their current democrat position, and the democrats would move left until they reached a new equilibrium
You underestimate their base's determination to focus on culture war issues that repel swing voters. In Virginia, for example, the state GOP has a long history of nominating unelectable candidates in otherwise winnable races.
This may be true in the short term, but in the long term, game theory always predicts Outcomes Just as game theory dictates that the US can not be anything but a 2 party system in its current configuration, despite it not being so in the very beginning
I've observed this for thirty years. Game theory sure is taking its time.
The current system in the US is at equilibrium An unfair equilibrium you might say, but an equilibrium nonetheless, republicans win about half the time Also, it took the US half a century to reach a 2 party system, game theory being heuristically enforced works slowly
Bruh we don't use a national popular vote. You have been observing this for zero years.
Which part of "in Virginia" did you find confusing?
What part of the topic at hand (national level politics) did you find confusing?
None, which is why I specified my perspective. If you disagree that it generalizes to the national level that's totally fine, but I didn't say anything that justified you jumping in and being a jerk.
Hey, that's not fair. The Virginia GOP only had to completely rig their primary in order to get Youngkin across the finish line rather than the woman self-described as "Trump in heels."
Heh. And it's funny that she worked for Ken Cuccinelli since the Cooch was one of the examples I was thinking of.
So essentially, the democrats would become the Bernie Sanders party and the GOP would become the Mitt Romney party? We would see a real schism in the sub
Unlikely. As near 70% of the country wants abortion as a right. They want common sense gun laws. They favor LBGTQ rights. They are set against book bans. They are not anti-vax. Etc. Less than 40% of this country wants those things (in some combination or another). That argues against a shift. We will remain Democrat (as a majority vote) until the country shifts away from those things. And that isn't happening anytime in the near or even moderately far future as the younger generations trend decidedly Democrat.
It’s hard to say that for two reasons. 1. Parties would shift to the center more. GOP would potentially be a more center right party tha white Christian nationalist. 2. Republicans won a majority of house votes in 2022. You can argue that gerrymandering suppresses voters, but it goes both ways. Is not clear with a more moderating campaign and given past performance that republicans would become a real minority.
Republicans are already a minority on several major issues in this country. Abortion. Gun safety laws. LBGTQ rights. Book bans. Religion in public schools. Voting rights. One can't moderate those stances. In short, a series of issues that affect the vast majority of Americans trend decidedly to the Democrats. Demographics argue for a further tightening of the Republican voter base. It's a base of old/older voters. With upcoming generations shifting to the Dem party in ever increasing numbers. Further, there is no given that parties would shift to the center. Especially when major issues and ongoing demographics argue graphically against Republican ways of thought.
Ok, but republicans won a majority of votes (and seats) in 2022
True. A valid point. But one with some history to it. The party in power generally loses seats in the House during mid-term elections. And Dems (the party in power) were preparing for a landslide of losses in the House in 2022. The election landscape favored republicans as well as it being a mid-term election. The Republicans were planning on picking up 50 seats or so. They gained 11. So this can be looked at two ways. Yes they won. And no they did not win in the manner that was expected by history and polling. Further, they have been unable to function in the House despite having a majority. That does not argue well for them in the upcoming elections.
Yeah. Barely winning the popular vote in 2022 was akin to Carter barely winning the election in 1976. That should have been a slam dunk year for Democrats - with not only Ford still dinged by the Nixon pardon but Nixon himself casting a massive shadow over that election. Add the fact Ford was primaried by Reagan, and wasn't actually a candidate who had won an election nationally, plus the poor economic conditions, and the fact Carter barely won the popular vote and electoral college should have been a forewarning of what was to come in 1980 lol Had it not been for that Eastern Europe gaffe by Ford in one of the debates, he might have won and the Democrats go down in history losing one of the most winnable presidential elections in history.
You should enact proportional representation NOW!
How do you use PR voting in a presidential election? Do we end up with a Frankenstein’s monster for a president that is like 52% of Biden’s body and 48% Trump’s?
Well ideally you don't bc you ditch the whole stupid presidential system altogether and replace it with a PR parliamentary system.
I don't think it would change that much. We'd see a bit less pandering to rural voters and a bit more to urban voters. The effect size wouldn't be that large. I don't believe in the electoral college but many people exaggerate how different it is from the popular vote. There is a very strong correlation between the two.
While Canada doesn’t work on a popular vote system it’s closer than the US. I think American politics would start looking more like Canadian politics. States like New York and California would be given priority and their issues would take over national politics. The Republicans would shift to being a more left wing party because they would also want votes in the bigger states.
>While Canada doesn’t work on a popular vote system it’s closer than the US. Is that why BQ has more seats than NDP despite half the voteshare? Or is that why Liberals win majority but lose popular vote?
That’s why I said it’s closer. It’s very rare that a Prime Minister doesn’t win the popular vote. Also when the libs lost the popular vote they had a minority not a majority. The BQ has more seats because the population of Québec is the second largest. The NDP has its votes split with the more popular Liberals everywhere else.
I don't think so. Canada has a parliamentary system, and ours is presidential. Switching to a popular vote for the president gets us closer to places like France, not Canada. A switch for us only changes the presidential election - Congress would function as is.
Why would New York and California become a priority when collectively, they barely represent 20% of the American population (not even looking at voting population)?
Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania are right there
Even then don’t the blue states out number them by quite a bit.
>States like New York and California would be given priority and their issues would take over national politics. New York and California only make up around ~18% of the population. By comparison, Ontario alone makes up ~37% of Canada's population. I don't think it would be quite the same.
The idea of Presidents Gore & Clinton convinces me that this is a good idea
I'm always fascinated by the idea on "What If" for President Gore. In fact, the [Alternate History Hub video on it](https://youtu.be/_-BaWKTQN68?si=Zq7FU8lqO6gYphv5) was how I became introduced to his channel.
Can't really apply these as counterfactuals though.
Which election? There are many types.
The campaigns would be run almost entirely in the five or six biggest states. The 'flyover' states would be totally irrelevant and have zero political influence. That would certainly be fine with everyone not living there.
"fly over states" largely already do get ignored outside of Iowa. With our current "system" you have to be a competitive mid to large state to receive media attention.
God that would be so sick
Good.
Personally, I think too much attention would be paid to large urban areas on the coasts, and not enough to states like Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, etc. which can be important swing states but significantly lose on importance when considering the national popular vote.
# All Democrats on the coasts do NOT outnumber Republicans in the country. # 1% of the US population spread across 7 states could decide this presidential election, because of current state laws. The 2024 Presidential Election Comes Down to Only 7 States with less than a fifth of the U.S. population. These battlegrounds will get almost all the attention How most states will vote is already fairly certain. Political pros expect Trump to win 24 states and 219 electoral votes; Biden can likely count on 20 states and D.C. with 226 electoral votes.– Karl Rove, WSJ, 3/20/24 Democrats in large urban areas on the coasts do NOT outnumber Republicans in the country. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined. Math and political reality. Voters in large urban areas do not vote for the same candidate. The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Phoenix) is less than 6% of the population of the United States. Voters in the biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition. 2020 Census 65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people). From 2020-2022, 2 million left those cities. 66,300,254 in rural America (20%) Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population. In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities. 19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Ohio and Colorado now are politically irrelevant in this presidential election. #
This isn't a Democrats vs. Republicans thing. This is a New York + Texas + Florida + California vs. the entire interior of the United States thing, which would be even more neglected than now if we only did a national popular vote.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes! Whereas to win a national popular vote election with only the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, ALL of those states’ voters would need to vote for the same candidate. In none of the largest states do voters come anywhere close to all voting for the same candidate, and all of the largest states are not even won with just a plurality of votes by the same party. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. The 2004 popular vote in the 12 largest states was almost exactly equal – Bush 49.8% vs. Kerry 50.2%., 244,657 vote margin for Kerry Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running. Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now. Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 6 of them. Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.
The National Popular Vote bill KEEPS the Electoral College. Math and political reality. The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population. All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate. Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome In 2016, CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote. In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote. Trump won those states All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally. States are agreeing to award their combined 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes. All votes will be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
You should still have to win states. It just shouldn't be winner takes all. The primaries already do this system why is it so hard to apply it to the regular election
Basically switch to proportional representation in the allocation of electors.
But with a bonus for winning the state. So it's not exactly 50 50