Clinton’s popular vote lead surpasses two million.

[soulcougher73]

Did you determine who would be president in such a situation?

No, because that wasnt my goal. My goal is a fair democratic election process. But im sure you could use my spreadsheet (which is a tad outdated. done on Nov 16th) to figure out who would have won with the 1638 EC number total.

 

[buckshot24]

We are criticizing you for your incredibly tortured math. You are arbitrarily dividing the country up into groups in order to arrive at the outcome you want when it makes no sense. By your logic you could argue that in 2000 New Hampshire overrode the collected preference for the other 49 states in the election by awarding its electors to Bush.

Well yeah if there is a small majority in 49 states that is overtaken by a single state then I'd agree with you. But that wasn't the situation here. In your Hew Hampshire absurdity many states (basically all of them) would have flipped the results of the election. No other state but California could have done that this year.

 

[repoman0]

Except it would have this year. I'm making this argument because somebody said it wasn't the case. California would have "overridden" the collected preference of the other 49 states in this election. I'm not sure why you keep saying it isn't possible when it happened just a few weeks ago.

You are criticizing me for using a screwdriver to loosen a screw by assuming I'm using it to do calculus.

I'm saying it's a stupid meaningless metric, not that it isn't possible. I was responding to this:

Yup, we live in a United STATES where one state can't coalesce power and dictate to the rest of the states.

and started this exchange by pointing out that California has less than 15% of the population and therefore mathematically cannot dictate to the rest of the states ON ITS OWN.

In your convoluted metric, it will very frequently be possible that one state determines the outcome of the election ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE VOTES FOR THAT CANDIDATE. The popular vote is usually quite close, so it stands to reason that the state with the largest population will swing it one way or the other. I am pretty sure only you are saying that this is a problem.

 

[buckshot24]

No, because that wasnt my goal. My goal is a fair democratic election process.

Can you link me up to your spreadsheet again, that would be interesting to look at.

 

[soulcougher73]

Can you link me up to your spreadsheet again, that would be interesting to look at.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7bP56gpU6raX1BWQzVtYTZYd1k

Tonight when i get home ill update it with the ever changing current numbers lol. Will swing it more towards Clinton though (popular vote), but it is what it is.

 

[fskimospy]

Well yeah if there is a small majority in 49 states that is overtaken by a single state then I'd agree with you. But that wasn't the situation here. In your Hew Hampshire absurdity many states (basically all of them) would have flipped the results of the election. No other state but California could have done that this year.

lol, my example is an absurdity? I was using your logic. Now you're trying to say that the electoral college is a better system because LOTS of different states had the ability to have one state override the collective choice of the other 49? That's even worse!!!

 

[soulcougher73]

lol, my example is an absurdity? I was using your logic. Now you're trying to say that the electoral college is a better system because LOTS of different states had the ability to have one state override the collective choice of the other 49? That's even worse!!!

Impressive. How did you figure out his logic?

 

[buckshot24]

lol, my example is an absurdity? I was using your logic. Now you're trying to say that the electoral college is a better system because LOTS of different states had the ability to have one state override the collective choice of the other 49? That's even worse!!!

What you're doing is describing an amazingly close election. That is basically the definition. Small changes can have huge consequences.

 

[buckshot24]

Impressive. How did you figure out his logic?

He didn't or he lied.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If the popular vote count mattered for anything of substance i'm sure that President-elect Trump would have spent more time in the more populous states and won it. It didn't and it doesn't matter, so he didn't bother.

 

[IGBT]

Is it true Fidel Castro is now a registered democrat??

 

[repoman0]

If the popular vote count mattered for anything of substance i'm sure that President-elect Trump would have spent more time in the more populous states and won it. It didn't and it doesn't matter, so he didn't bother.

Clinton didn't bother either. Plus, people in the non-degenerate states wouldn't have changed their votes appreciably because they are smart enough to know a con man when they see him.

 

[soulcougher73]

Is it true Fidel Castro is now a registered democrat??

I dunno he was all about controlling people so id assume hes always been a life long republican.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm saying it's a stupid meaningless metric, not that it isn't possible. I was responding to this:

So you didn't mean "never"?

and started this exchange by pointing out that California has less than 15% of the population and therefore mathematically cannot dictate to the rest of the states ON ITS OWN.

California gave her a 3.8 million margin, of course it would have dictated to the rest of the nation who would be president. 1.7 million vote margin in the 49 states isn't insignificant.

 

[fskimospy]

What you're doing is describing an amazingly close election. That is basically the definition. Small changes can have huge consequences.

So in close elections you have no problem with one state overriding the collective preference of the other 49. Great! Since California's margin is not going to override the other 49 states' preference in anything other than a close election we've come to an agreement that it doesn't matter.

 

[repoman0]

So you didn't mean "never"?

Since you can't read:

If a simpleton like Trump managed to get this close to winning the popular vote despite California, then it shouldn't take much brain power to realize that California does not on its own determine any election, ever.

California had a lot of help from a lot of democratic votes in the rest of the country. So yes, I did mean California can never determine an election on its own, just like I said. Your metric is still idiotic and dishonest.

 

[buckshot24]

Clinton didn't bother either. Plus, people in the non-degenerate states wouldn't have changed their votes appreciably because they are smart enough to know a con man when they see him.

Can you list "non-degenerate" states?

 

[buckshot24]

Since you can't read:



California had a lot of help from a lot of democratic votes in the rest of the country. So yes, I did mean California can never determine an election on its own, just like I said. Your metric is still idiotic and dishonest.

Going by margins this is exactly what occurred in this cycle.

 

[OrByte]

If the popular vote count mattered for anything of substance i'm sure that President-elect Trump would have spent more time in the more populous states and won it. It didn't and it doesn't matter, so he didn't bother.

something I read earlier :

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/11/how-the-vote-broke-in-historical-perspective/508352/

The narrative on election night was all how Clinton turned victory to defeat, her campaign overconfident, her voters staying home, and her herself unable to best perhaps the least capable candidate ever nominated by a major party.

The numbers in Florida and California just do not support that evaluation. In both places, turnout was up over 8 percent. She pulled a 930K vote lead in counties covering 58 percent of the state’s voters, counties where Obama ran up a 770K margin that enabled him to win a 70K victory in 2012. Her lead failed because Trump himself ran up a million vote margin in the remaining rural counties, beating Romney’s numbers by 350K. Hilary lost Florida, but she and Trump engaged the voters.

In California, she will nearly double Trump's tally, and out-poll Obama (the 2008 and 2012 version) by about three percentage points. She will receive nine million plus votes in California. These are the votes pushing her national total two million and more votes past that of the President-elect.

My point is, you can't simply say that Trump would have won more populous states had he campaigned more. And you certainly can't say that the popular vote doesn't matter.

We need to spend more time conducting reviews of the election results. I'm sorry but I simply do not trust the outcome, I admit I probably never will, but I want to understand more about how exit polling and polls and forecasts got it so wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

So in close elections you have no problem with one state overriding the collective preference of the other 49. Great! Since California's margin is not going to override the other 49 states' preference in anything other than a close election we've come to an agreement that it doesn't matter.

Outside of California the election wasn't particularly close.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

lmao, i wonder why the vote was up 8% in Calif. I'm sure the new motor voting act, Pres. Obama's carte blanche and illegals voting had nothing to do with it.

 

[repoman0]

Going by margins this is exactly what occurred in this cycle.

Yeah, and I'm not talking about margins because going by margins is a pointless metric.

 

[fskimospy]

Outside of California the election wasn't particularly close.

Even using your outdated numbers (3.8 million margin in CA for a 1.7 million net win for Clinton) if you get rid of California then it was almost identically close in the other direction.

You just made a colossal error in saying that it was okay if the election was close. You've destroyed the entire basis for your argument.

 

[buckshot24]

Yeah, and I'm not talking about margins because going by margins is a pointless metric.

You're welcome to that opinion but margins are what decide elections.

 

[Zorba]

What does that have to do with anything? Somebody made a point and I refuted it with math. California would have overridden the rest of the country had we had a popular vote. There isn't a single other state that would have done that either way.

Let's just throw out two more. If you threw out Texas and Tennessee, along with California, Hillary win the popular vote in 47 states! Why are you for Texas and Tennessee overruling 47 (48 with Cali) other states.

We can play this all day, at the end of the day, with a popular vote no state would decide anything. Every vote across the country would actually count for something.