Oregon to Change Way It Awards Electoral Votes

[applegrove]

Oregon to Change Way It Awards Electoral Votes

June 5, 2019 at 10:40 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 28 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2019/06/05/oregon-to-change-way-it-awards-electoral-votes/

"SNIP.....

“Oregon is close to becoming the 15th state to signal that it will award its Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide,” the Oregonian reports.

“On a 37-22 party line vote, the Democratic majority in the Oregon House sent Senate Bill 870 to the desk of Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, who has indicated her support.”

.....SNIP"

[CentralMass]

1. This seems like potentially a pollution of the electoral process that could come back and hurt us.

Is it a calculation that this will never favor a republican candidate ? I am now an Oregonian. If the Democratic nominee wins the state but the republican nominee recieves the most votes nationwide and this law awards Oregon's electoral votes to the republican i will be extremely pissed off. Particulary if the currently flawed system would have given the electoral win to the Democrat.

I favor dumping the electoral college and using the popular vote.

[pnwmom]

3. Amending the Constitution would require ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

But the popular vote compact, which IS achievable, has little chance of hurting blue states. We are handicapped severely by a Senate that is so tilted toward white, rural, heavily Republican states.

[Demsrule86]

6. No red states will do this so going forward we lose more elections?

How is this helpful?

[pnwmom]

16. We can do it without red states. We would need some purple states. nt

[Demsrule86]

7. And a Republican would not win Oregon any other way

Since no red state has signed on, it would only help the Republicans.

[Voltaire2]

9. Nonsense.

It only takes effect when the participating states electoral votes are greater than or equal to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election. At that point the other states electoral votes are irrelevant. Only the national popular vote count matters.

[Demsrule86]

13. It should not take effect until all states have signed on...I still see a loss...

[Voltaire2]

17. That would be a more stringent requirement than an amendment.

I can understand the "rural states" argument for keeping the EC, but if in fact you want the national popular vote to decide the election, then the compact is the only way forward that has any chance of success.

[Demsrule86]

19. I don't want the GOP to win if we win the electoral college and lose the popular vote.

Thus we lose the election while the GOP gets to win if they take the electoral college and lose the popular vote.

[Voltaire2]

20. huh?

We would all be playing by the same rules.

The compact doesn't affect just one party. If states sign on with a total of 270 or more EC votes, then whoever wins the popular vote gets all those EC votes, republican or democrat. 270 is the number of EC votes needed to win. The states not participating - their EC votes are irrelevant as they add up to less than 270. The only votes that would matter are the popular vote count.

[Demsrule86]

21. I know that but the Gop will have another way to cheat ...add votes.

[Voltaire2]

8. It effectively dumps the electoral college

and uses the popular vote.

Of course it doesn’t guarantee our party will always win. It guarantees that the popular vote winner always wins.

[Hortensis]

12. NO. BIG misconception because of plurality winners.

48 states have plurality systems where the candidate who just gets the most votes wins, and that's often not the popular choice. Including Oregon. If there were only two candidates, they'd always be the same, but third-party candidates too often split the popular opposition to the other party.

So if Trump got 44% but the other 56% were split 43% D-Klobuchar and 13% for a Buttigieg third-party candidacy, Trump would win even if 56% actually voted passionately against him. And THAT means that Oregon's "popular" vote would be awarded to Trump.

THIS and "winner take all" are huge reasons the electoral system doesn't work as intended -- the popular democratic will is often screwed at the state level.

The National Popular Vote won't fix anything until the state systems are fixed. There are various ways to do that so their final result is a majority winner. Failing that, though, it could produce an electoral college landslide for a Trump even with a large majority loathing him. It's unlikely to be in play for 2020, though.

[Voltaire2]

18. the distortions of third party candidates are also present in the current EC.

I also dislike plurality elections. That would have to be changed separately, it cannot be done outside an amendment process.

Meanwhile, the reality is that third party presidential candidates rarely get enough votes to matter, either in the EC or with the popular vote, while we have seen popular vote winners lose in the EC 5 times, two quite recently, and without reform, in the current political situation, we are likely to see another one real soon.

[Hortensis]

22. I believe the states can change how they decide

elections by legislating new methods. What I read on this suggests various possible fixes -- including the run-off elections we have here in Georgia when neither of the top 2 gets a majority, and ranked-choice voting using computerized analysis which to determine the candidate most favored by a majority. (Now I'm imagining some earnest person trying to rank all our 24 candidates. )

Third-party candidates should be a manifestation of a healthy democracy, but seems to me they're a lot more likely to "matter" in this era of very narrow margins. Small percentages of people, often operating on very questionable judgement, have the potential to throw the whole nation to someone they rejected voting for. But before that result, they're doing the same thing at the state level, affecting allocation of delegates to the EC.

Changing the EC itself would be a goal for so far in the future it mostly seems irrelevant. But we have great potential for improvement without that. If the states' delegates to the EC were a lot more representative, the final result would be significantly less undemocratic. GIGO.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Note that Nevada just failed to enact a similar measure...

See: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142322615

[Hortensis]

4. Yes. On the plus side, due to Las Vegas's population its electoral

college advantage is effectively little more than the 1 all our votes should count for. (I looked. )
It's a real effect but at least far less than some other western states.

[Voltaire2]

10. The governor vetoed it, unfortunately.

[Demsrule86]

5. This is so stupid. It gives the GOP other ways to win while we get none.

It should be all states or no states.

[Voltaire2]

11. Nope doesn't do that.

It effectively abolished the electoral college. Once it is effect there is only one way to win: the popular vote count.

[MurrayDelph]

14. This just incentivizes red states

to report more Republican votes than they have voters.

[CentralMass]

15. Article link: What Is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?

https://electoralvotemap.com/national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/