[POLL] If your "guy" had won the popular vote and lost because of the electoral vote,

[CLite]

Originally Posted by Jaskalas

I've been wondering about the electoral vote.

At first I had presumed it was in place to balance out state representation the way the Senate does. But of course the big states like CA, TX, and NY all have HUGE portions tied to their population. So the EC is a representation of the popular vote and blows my previous assumption out of the water.

So it's really just a per-state winner take all. Which creates some really stupid campaigning...

I need to be convinced what its purpose is again. I've lost sight of what it's good for.

??

It still serves that purpose.

California = 37,253,956 pop 55 EV = 677,344 per EV
Highest pop with 4 EV = Idaho = 1,567,582 pop 4 EV = 391,896 per EV
Highest pop with 3 EV = Montana = 989,415 pop 3 EV = 329,805 per EV
Wyoming (lowest pop) = 563,626 pop 3 EV = 187,875 per EV


etc/etc

[theevilsharpie]

Originally Posted by SearchMaster

So that the campaign process didn't consist of pandering to CA, TX, NY, and FL?

Because pandering to FL, OH, WI, and VA is so much better?

[randomrogue]

Originally Posted by theevilsharpie

Because pandering to FL, OH, WI, and VA is so much better?

This is a nice illustration of where they campaigned since the end of August:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...t-matters.html

Nevada
Colorado
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Florida
North Carolina
New Hampshire
Ohio
Indiana
Virginia
Kentucky
Pennsylvania

My list is misleading though so just look at the picture.

[SpatiallyAware]

Originally Posted by JEDIYoda

A bunch of crybabies..just suck it up....Romney lost that`s all there is to it!!

These types of posts come across as so childish... Step out of your narrow-minded group think mentality.

[DesiPower]

I oppose electoral vote system either way... its very outdated... small states have a say too... my ass..

[s0me0nesmind1]

Originally Posted by her209

would you be in support of getting rid of the electoral vote for the popular vote?

The entire original purpose of the electoral college isn't be used. So there truthfully is no point anymore.

[quest55720]

Originally Posted by DesiPower

I oppose electoral vote system either way... its very outdated... small states have a say too... my ass..

Could not agree more. The problem the system will always favor 1 side so it will never change. It was the Republicans and the souther strategy. Now it is the democrats and the blue firewall as it is being termed. It was on CNN it was mentioned by someone that silver said for romney to win he had to win the popular vote by 3%. The democrats have around 240 electoral votes to start making a path to victory easy. Just like the GOP had the same before that. The only chance at change would be the billion to 1 long shot of a tie and the house deciding the president.

[Jaskalas]

Retracted...

[Jaskalas]

Originally Posted by CLite

??

It still serves that purpose.

California = 37,253,956 pop 55 EV = 677,344 per EV
Highest pop with 4 EV = Idaho = 1,567,582 pop 4 EV = 391,896 per EV
Highest pop with 3 EV = Montana = 989,415 pop 3 EV = 329,805 per EV
Wyoming (lowest pop) = 563,626 pop 3 EV = 187,875 per EV


etc/etc

Just now got to the 2nd page. Guess it's not so simple as the top 4 states, though that does greatly concern me. Now you've convinced me to map out the difference in pop per EV in all 50 states.

I'll post again when I get that.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Jaskalas

I'm quite stunned.

I must now, after looking this up, strongly oppose the Electoral College.

Try dividing by 538 instead of 270.

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok

There is no way to know when that actually happens. The closer the "sum of 51 races popular vote", the less likely it actually indicates who would have won a real PV race.

I'm not sure I understand. If the EC is winner take all, then there's nothing to be said, however if you look at NY which I pointed out earlier, you'll see that we're not nearly as blue as all of our votes suggest. A better representation would be to have the number of EC votes divided up to reflect how we really voted. In the end it may not make a huge difference in the aggregate, but as I've pointed out, one vote difference eliminates the wishes of the others. Hardly equitable.

[Jaskalas]

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok

Try dividing by 538 instead of 270.

Sigh.. of course. My apologies for not catching that.

28% vs 32%. So it does help small states.

[Charles Kozierok]

Jaskalas: Happens to everyone. Yes, it helps small states. It's intended to be a compromise between states' rights and individual pariticipation, which is why the number of EC votes is the sum of the number of reps and senators.

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider

I'm not sure I understand. If the EC is winner take all, then there's nothing to be said, however if you look at NY which I pointed out earlier, you'll see that we're not nearly as blue as all of our votes suggest. A better representation would be to have the number of EC votes divided up to reflect how we really voted. In the end it may not make a huge difference in the aggregate, but as I've pointed out, one vote difference eliminates the wishes of the others. Hardly equitable.

The larger point is that you don't really know how blue NY is because presidential candidates make no effort to convince NY voters, and there is no turnout apparatus. That would change -- dramatically -- in a straight-up election.

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok

The larger point is that you don't really know how blue NY is because presidential candidates make no effort to convince NY voters, and there is no turnout apparatus. That would change -- dramatically -- in a straight-up election.

Ok, I'll admit I'm dense this AM. Whether or not a candidate appears in NY wasn't my point. It's that our state (and by extension others) have people voting for the national office of President. We aren't voting for a representative of NY in DC. We've voting for someone in DC itself. I'm talking about people within a state having representation without the state government getting in the mix. We, not the state government, are the one's voting. That may be a philosophical difference to some, but we're not being accurately represented by our EC voters if they are compelled to disregard the minority vote entirely. Neither Romney nor Obama coming to town changes that. We must be entirely blue or entirely red and that does not reflect who the people within the state are. This isn't a local or state election where the majority wins, this is an intermediate step where we lose before we even vote. Since the EC is mandated, there is no reason other than political expediency that we be compelled to have a winner take all system. If you know your state is going to go one color, why even vote? There's no purpose, even as an illusion.

[Charles Kozierok]

You're arguing for splitting the EC based on the state vote. NY can certainly do that, as ME and NE do. But there are serious implications.