2024 Election

[Mori Chu]

I guess some recent poll numbers show Kamala being within a few points of tied in Florida. This has some folks salivating at the thought of going after this giant and normally red state as a way to crush Trump in the election. Personally I think chasing after Florida (or Texas for that matter) is a fool's errand for any Dem candidate. They seem purplish in some of these polls, but pretty consistently their voters come back home and vote red and it's never usually a close call. Spending much valuable time and money in these states is just a waste that would be better used in states that actually have a chance to tip blue.

[Mori Chu]

Montana Senate race polling. The incumbent senator Jon Tester is ahead. Pretty surprising to have such good numbers for a blue senator in that state.

[Cap]

Yeah, I was right. PA is the tipping point state by exact count. If Harris wins PA and all the states above it, that’s 270 exactly.

Basically, she has to win MI, WI, and PA.

There are few other paths to victory. If she wins AZ, she can miss on WI. If she wins AZ, NV and WI, she can miss on MI or PA.

Actually I was mistaken. AZ and NV would not be enough to make up for losing PA. Unless NC or GA is in play, PA is absolutely must-win.

[Nodack]

PA is the biggest fish.

[Mori Chu]

It's really too bad, for both/all parties and candidates. It should not be the case that 1-2 states determine the whole election. If, say, Trump does a lot of nice work to attract more voters in suburban Texas, or Kamala goes to Colorado and runs up her share there, that should matter just as much as winning 50+% in precious Pennsylvania. Voters in the minority in deep-blue or deep-red states like Washington or Mississippi or wherever, their votes are basically worthless. It shouldn't be this way.

I really hope we revamp the Electoral College and adopt the National Popular Vote pact or else at the very least, start to divide up electoral votes by vote percentage. As in, if say Kamala wins 60% of the votes in Colorado and Trump wins 40%, Kamala should get 60% of their electoral votes and Trump should get 40% of them. That way, no candidate would decide to just ignore a given state because they couldn't get to 50% there. It would make Trump less likely to bash a state like Minnesota as a "failed state" just because Walz is from there, because getting 30% vs 42% of Minnesota's vote would matter for him. It would make Kamala more likely to visit southern states and red states she cannot win a majority in. It would make both candidates more moderate and inclusive.

[BigLewy]

It's really too bad, for both/all parties and candidates. It should not be the case that 1-2 states determine the whole election. If, say, Trump does a lot of nice work to attract more voters in suburban Texas, or Kamala goes to Colorado and runs up her share there, that should matter just as much as winning 50+% in precious Pennsylvania. Voters in the minority in deep-blue or deep-red states like Washington or Mississippi or wherever, their votes are basically worthless. It shouldn't be this way.

I really hope we revamp the Electoral College and adopt the National Popular Vote pact or else at the very least, start to divide up electoral votes by vote percentage. As in, if say Kamala wins 60% of the votes in Colorado and Trump wins 40%, Kamala should get 60% of their electoral votes and Trump should get 40% of them. That way, no candidate would decide to just ignore a given state because they couldn't get to 50% there. It would make Trump less likely to bash a state like Minnesota as a "failed state" just because Walz is from there, because getting 30% vs 42% of Minnesota's vote would matter for him. It would make Kamala more likely to visit southern states and red states she cannot win a majority in. It would make both candidates more moderate and inclusive.

There's not a lot that I agree with you on politically, but this is spot on. Any Republican campaigning in CA or NY is a waste of time, and the same for a Dem in Texas or Mississippi, etc. It has to be extremely frustrating to be a voter in these states of the underdog party, because your vote really is worthless. It's the same way here in CT, I can't remember the last time it went red for a presidential election. My vote is worthless too, and I didn't even bother to start voting until 2012 or so, and it's mainly so that I can feel entitled to complain about things I don't like and if somebody says well get out and vote, I can reply with I do, but my vote doesn't matter here. It would be fascinating to see how candidates would campaign in each state if they could get a portion of the electoral votes.

I'd even go further and say that I'd imagine the same is true for state elections, where most votes are worthless. Here in CT, we have 3-4 major cities that vote deep blue, so any attempt to vote red is completely pointless. Obviously not the same as the Electoral College, but the numbers get skewed by the large cities. I looked up our last gubernatorial election stats by town, and the top 4 cities that had the most overall votes cast all voted 75%+ blue. To give some context, the red part of the state averaged about 2-3k votes per town in total, and the 4 large cities that deep blue averaged about 20-22k total voters each. It also is ironic that these cities are the ones that are full of crime and in poor condition, and all people do online is bitch and moan about our taxes and costs of living, and yet every election is the exact same thing, with these main cities making up such a large portion of the votes that unless other areas turn decidedly red, there's no real doubt of the outcome.

[JeremyG]

It's really too bad, for both/all parties and candidates. It should not be the case that 1-2 states determine the whole election. If, say, Trump does a lot of nice work to attract more voters in suburban Texas, or Kamala goes to Colorado and runs up her share there, that should matter just as much as winning 50+% in precious Pennsylvania. Voters in the minority in deep-blue or deep-red states like Washington or Mississippi or wherever, their votes are basically worthless. It shouldn't be this way.

I really hope we revamp the Electoral College and adopt the National Popular Vote pact or else at the very least, start to divide up electoral votes by vote percentage. As in, if say Kamala wins 60% of the votes in Colorado and Trump wins 40%, Kamala should get 60% of their electoral votes and Trump should get 40% of them. That way, no candidate would decide to just ignore a given state because they couldn't get to 50% there. It would make Trump less likely to bash a state like Minnesota as a "failed state" just because Walz is from there, because getting 30% vs 42% of Minnesota's vote would matter for him. It would make Kamala more likely to visit southern states and red states she cannot win a majority in. It would make both candidates more moderate and inclusive.

Well under the Constitution as currently constructed, the states can select or divide their electors however they decide to (a couple of states choose them by Congressional district instead of winner-take-all). However, electoral votes = one vote per elector, and electors are actual human beings, so it might be difficult to do it based on a percentage, as you can’t have half an elector.

Let’s take your example of Colorado, which has 10 electoral votes. If Harris gets 52%, Trump gets 43%, and Kennedy gets 5%, how do you divide up the electors? Would you round down to 5 and 4 for Harris and Trump, respectively, and round up to 1 for Kennedy?

Perhaps that could work, but let’s say the state has 11 electoral votes. .52 * 11 = 5.72, .43 * 11 = 4.73, .05 * 11 = 0.55. So if you round them all up, you would have 12 electors which is not legal.

[Split T]

Two options…you can just give it to whoever is closest to the next whole number…so in your last example…

So Trump at .73 gets his 5th elector first, then Kamala at .72 takes the final elector to get to 6. RFK gets 0


Or give the leftovers to whoever won the majority…so start by giving Kamala 5, Trump 4, and Kennedy 0…then give Kamala the final 2 for winning the majority vote.

[Mori Chu]

Yeah it's a solvable problem; you just agree on a rounding scheme. I think the best way is to just give the partial EVs to the winner of the state.

[Mori Chu]

More poll numbers, these from NYT/Siena. These are good for Kamala.

[Nodack]

I do think our voting system is in need of an overhaul. I don’t think things are fake or fraudulent. I just think they need some tweaks like what you proposed mori and not a coup where one side just claims all power like the Cons seem to be trying. A bigger problem in government to me is big money in our elections and lobbying. Trump has taken it to a new level actively asking for a billion dollars from big oil in return for Trumps endorsement of anything they want. That is soliciting a bribe and should be totally illegal but, I guess it’s not.

[Mori Chu]

RFK with another gem.

[Mori Chu]

New AZ numbers.

[virtual9mm]

This is incredible. Let's see if it holds up.

[Cap]

Harris’ lead on Polymarket is down to 0.3¢. It was as high as 9.6¢ just a few days ago.

[Mori Chu]

Harris’ lead on Polymarket is down to 0.3¢. It was as high as 9.6¢ just a few days ago.

But why? There's been no significant negative news for Kamala lately, nor any significant positive news for Trump.

[JeremyG]

So RFK is considering dropping out and endorsing Trump, as admitted publicly by his running mate Nicole Shanahan. Alex Jones says it’s a done deal, and will happen on Friday at an event in LA.

[specialsauce]

So RFK is considering dropping out and endorsing Trump, as admitted publicly by his running mate Nicole Shanahan. Alex Jones says it’s a done deal, and will happen on Friday at an event in LA.

Well his candidacy was intended to divert votes away from the democratic candidate, so he was "endorsing" Trump all along. A total waste of time.

[JeremyG]

He was actually diverting more votes from Trump. It was a pretty stupid move by the Democrats to try to force RFK out of the race! Now all of the Trumper portion of his supporters will just vote for Trump, while only a few of his supporters will vote for Harris.

They shouldn’t have sued to stop him from gaining ballot access, they shouldn’t have used the media to try to discredit him and marginalize him, and they should have let him in the debates. He was about to be one of the biggest assets in stopping Trump from winning that the Dems could hope for, before they totally blew it, started tanking his poll numbers via the aforementioned methods, and pushed him out of the race! How incredibly foolish!

People should not be scared of choice. This is America!

[Superbone]

The fact that RFK was selling himself to endorse both sides tells you everything you need to know about him.