Electoral College

[Mail5398]

Can anyone else see a situation where Clinton beats the Republican nominee in the popular vote handily but loses the electoral college vote. She seems to be beloved on the east and west coast but in a lot of the U.S. she seems to be up there with the antichrist.

 

[glenn1]

Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.

 

[Moonbeam]

She'll probably lose both.

 

[Uhtrinity]

It happened in 2000, it could happen again.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.

Well, electoral college votes actually DO benefit the Republican party, but you're right in the sense that it's not like the rules aren't clear from the start.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.

Well, electoral college votes actually DO benefit the Republican party, but you're right in the sense that it's not like the rules aren't clear from the start.

How do electoral votes benefit GOP and not Dem's? Just curious.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.

Well, electoral college votes actually DO benefit the Republican party, but you're right in the sense that it's not like the rules aren't clear from the start.

How do electoral votes benefit GOP and not Dem's? Just curious.

They give a disproportional number of delegates to low population, read hick republican, states.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
It happened in 2000, it could happen again.

it also happened in 1824, 1876, and 1888

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.

Well, electoral college votes actually DO benefit the Republican party, but you're right in the sense that it's not like the rules aren't clear from the start.

How do electoral votes benefit GOP and not Dem's? Just curious.

They give a disproportional number of delegates to low population, read hick republican, states.

There's nothing wrong with that IMHO...it counters out the wacked out ultra liberal nutjob areas that have high amounts of population. Mix it all together and it's even.

Chuck

 

[nageov3t]

it could happen.

I don't think there's anything about Clinton that would make it more likely than for any other candidate, though.

all the dems have to do is win everything Horsehead won and pick up Ohio or Florida, neither of which I can see being swung by some kind of anti-Hillary crusade.

 

[ProfJohn]

She would have to rack up the numbers in Cali to do that.

Take away the Cali vote and Bush wins the popular vote.

The fact that three of the four largest states in the country get ignored in the general election is a problem. If we went to a district by district type of system it would really change the dynamic of the election.

Of course the gerrymander we would see after doing that would be insane.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.

Well, electoral college votes actually DO benefit the Republican party, but you're right in the sense that it's not like the rules aren't clear from the start.

How do electoral votes benefit GOP and not Dem's? Just curious.

They give a disproportional number of delegates to low population, read hick republican, states.

There's nothing wrong with that IMHO...it counters out the wacked out ultra liberal nutjob areas that have high amounts of population. Mix it all together and it's even.

Chuck

Why should AREAS receive equal votes?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.

Well, electoral college votes actually DO benefit the Republican party, but you're right in the sense that it's not like the rules aren't clear from the start.

How do electoral votes benefit GOP and not Dem's? Just curious.

They give a disproportional number of delegates to low population, read hick republican, states.

There's nothing wrong with that IMHO...it counters out the wacked out ultra liberal nutjob areas that have high amounts of population. Mix it all together and it's even.

Chuck

Why should AREAS receive equal votes?

Look, it's the same difference. Let's take Illinois, my home state. If you take the Chicagoland area away, say you make it the 52nd state (Northern Mexico being the 51st 🙂 ), the rest of the state is mostly Rep. until you get over towards the STL area.

I really think they should scrap the EC and get a better system, however there's disadvantages to each one it seems, so I guess the EC is what we've got.

Ideally we'd go to something like the zip code electoral system or something like that, or phone area code, etc. Each zip code gets a point, you add up all the points, whoever has the highest wins. Then you'd have to worry about additional zip code creation though just to artifially skew numbers...nothing is perfect it seems.

Chuck

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.

Well, electoral college votes actually DO benefit the Republican party, but you're right in the sense that it's not like the rules aren't clear from the start.

How do electoral votes benefit GOP and not Dem's? Just curious.

They give a disproportional number of delegates to low population, read hick republican, states.

There's nothing wrong with that IMHO...it counters out the wacked out ultra liberal nutjob areas that have high amounts of population. Mix it all together and it's even.

Chuck

Why should AREAS receive equal votes?

Look, it's the same difference. Let's take Illinois, my home state. If you take the Chicagoland area away, say you make it the 52nd state (Northern Mexico being the 51st 🙂 ), the rest of the state is mostly Rep. until you get over towards the STL area.

I really think they should scrap the EC and get a better system, however there's disadvantages to each one it seems, so I guess the EC is what we've got.

Ideally we'd go to something like the zip code electoral system or something like that, or phone area code, etc. Each zip code gets a point, you add up all the points, whoever has the highest wins. Then you'd have to worry about additional zip code creation though just to artifially skew numbers...nothing is perfect it seems.

Chuck

simply apportioning state electors based on vote percentage would be a better and simpler idea, and several states already do this.

BTW i thought i posted something in hear earlier (i even remember typing it) but alas, its not here.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.

Well, electoral college votes actually DO benefit the Republican party, but you're right in the sense that it's not like the rules aren't clear from the start.

How do electoral votes benefit GOP and not Dem's? Just curious.

They give a disproportional number of delegates to low population, read hick republican, states.

There's nothing wrong with that IMHO...it counters out the wacked out ultra liberal nutjob areas that have high amounts of population. Mix it all together and it's even.

Chuck

Why should AREAS receive equal votes?

Look, it's the same difference. Let's take Illinois, my home state. If you take the Chicagoland area away, say you make it the 52nd state (Northern Mexico being the 51st 🙂 ), the rest of the state is mostly Rep. until you get over towards the STL area.

I really think they should scrap the EC and get a better system, however there's disadvantages to each one it seems, so I guess the EC is what we've got.

Ideally we'd go to something like the zip code electoral system or something like that, or phone area code, etc. Each zip code gets a point, you add up all the points, whoever has the highest wins. Then you'd have to worry about additional zip code creation though just to artifially skew numbers...nothing is perfect it seems.

Chuck

simply apportioning state electors based on vote percentage would be a better and simpler idea, and several states already do this.

The only problem with that is that every state would have to agree to do that and implement it in the same year in order for it to continue to be fair. And AFAIK, the only two states that currently do this are Nebraska and Maine.

 

[Perknose]

The President is the leader of ALL the people. While I have no problem with the Senate favoring less populated states, for our President I say, ONE MAN ONE VOTE.

Why shoiuld one American citizen's presidential vote count for more than another?

ONE MAN ONE VOGTE.

(Watch the veritable tsunami of bleating, ad homs, and red-faced apoplexy now.) :roll:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


simply apportioning state electors based on vote percentage would be a better and simpler idea, and several states already do this.

The only problem with that is that every state would have to agree to do that and implement it in the same year in order for it to continue to be fair. And AFAIK, the only two states that currently do this are Nebraska and Maine.

i think that such a constitutional amendment would have a good shot at passing

Originally posted by: Perknose
The President is the leader of ALL the people. While I have no problem with the Senate favoring less populated states, for our President I say, ONE MAN ONE VOTE.

Why shoiuld one American citizen's presidential vote count for more than another?

ONE MAN ONE VOGTE.

(Watch the veritable tsunami of bleating, ad homs, and red-faced apoplexy now.) :roll:

ideally this would be the case, but unfortunately we have that bleating, ad homs and red-faced apoplexy thing going on. One step at a time.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.

Well, electoral college votes actually DO benefit the Republican party, but you're right in the sense that it's not like the rules aren't clear from the start.

How do electoral votes benefit GOP and not Dem's? Just curious.

They give a disproportional number of delegates to low population, read hick republican, states.

A necessity to prevent the interests of urban areas completely taking over and resulting in rural interests being ignored wholesale. Regardless of political orientation, one can easily see that it's a bad idea to give either urban or rural areas the ability to override the other's interests.

ZV

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
she seems to be up there with the antichrist.

yes, i would vote for the antichrist before hildebeast

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2

There's nothing wrong with that IMHO...it counters out the wacked out ultra liberal nutjob areas that have high amounts of population. Mix it all together and it's even.

Chuck

Strange that you would argue specifically that certain people's votes should count more then others.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

There's nothing wrong with that IMHO...it counters out the wacked out ultra liberal nutjob areas that have high amounts of population. Mix it all together and it's even.

Chuck

Strange that you would argue specifically that certain people's votes should count more then others.

Ideally they wouldn't, and we'd just tally all the individual votes and be done with it.

The reality though is group think permeates. So when you have large groups - like large metropolitan areas - start leaning waaaaayyy towards one side, there's a problem there when you can go 30 miles outside of that area, travel another 1800, and that whole time, be in the center side or slightl left/slightly right of center mentality.

In short: I don't want wacko's from San Fran being able to choose the next Pres. because there's @ssloads more of them...anymore than I want some backwoods rednecks being able to. The current system, while imperfect, at least makes some effort to even that out.

If we were all either at the center, or just slightly to the left or right of center, then I'd say go one vote per person...unfortunately there's way too many polar opposites to do that. 🙁

EDITS: Sorry, please re-read only after my last edit time.

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Ideally they wouldn't, and we'd just tally all the individual votes and be done with it.

The reality though is group think permeates. So when you have large groups - like large metropolitan areas - start leaning waaaaayyy towards one side, there's a problem there when you can go 30 miles outside of that area, travel another 1800, and that whole time, be over the center side the other way in mentality.

In short: I don't want wacko's from San Fran being able to choose the next Pres. because there's @ssloads more of them...anymore than I want some backwoods rednecks being able to. The current system, while perfect, at least makes some effort to even that out.

If we were all either at the center, or just slightly to the left or right of center, then I'd say go one vote per person...unfortunately there's way too many polar opposites to do that. 🙁

Chuck

America is a pretty centrist country... that's what happens with a two party system. I don't see any problem with the person who the most people support being the president. It just seems reasonable. That and San Francisco is one of the most successful and wealthy areas on earth. Maybe we should be taking some tips from them... haha.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

America is a pretty centrist country... that's what happens with a two party system. I don't see any problem with the person who the most people support being the president. It just seems reasonable. That and San Francisco is one of the most successful and wealthy areas on earth. Maybe we should be taking some tips from them... haha.

Maybe you're right, we are pretty centrist as a whole....look at the 2000 and 2004 elections, there weren't that many votes between them...

As far as looking at anything in CA as how we should model ourselves after, I'll pass thanks. A F'ing state that can't keep the lights on due to mismanagement isn't something I want our already inept and corrupt "Leadership" in Washington to emulate.

Chuck

 

[M0RPH]

Electoral college is an antiquated system that is no longer relevant. Everyone's vote should count equally... for someone to win the popular vote and lose the election is a travesty. The world laughed at us when this happened with Bush/Gore. Unfortunately not enough people in this country realize how elections work and that their vote may not even count, and the rest of people are just apathetic and figure that it should be this way because it's always been this way. Like most of the people in this thread. So unfortunately it'll probably never change.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

What about alternative systems of voting, like Approval Voting or The Condorcet Method? One of the things I don't like is that the Condorcet seems a little more complicated to understand for the average joe. but they do offer interesting alternatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method