The people did NOT vote for Trump

[rudder]

I'm still waiting for a single good argument in favor of the electoral college. I've thought it should be abolished a long time before this election.

Now that this has happened though I imagine Republicans will fight tooth and nail to keep it. Why wouldn't they? They've won two out of the last five presidential elections where they lost the actual vote.

Well I think the resident of smaller and less populous states might have a few reasons.

 

[fskimospy]

Well I think the resident of smaller and less populous states might have a few reasons.

Do you view 'I should get extra voting power based on my home address' to be a good argument?

 

[Zaap]

The smaller states don't get extra voting power. They simply don't get completely overlooked. People act like the results of elections are always the same, where the EC somehow puts one side or the other at a disadvantage on some consistent basis.

I see no evidence of that. Democrats have been able to win with this system (including Hillary's husband... twice even!) and Republicans have as well.

If you think the EC process isn't fair... don't run for President of the US. But plenty have, the results don't follow any predictable pattern that the EC skews in some unfair way to either side ... get over it.

Don't personally care if someone hasn't heard a reason they like or not. It ain't up to anyone to convince you.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, many of them did exactly what you stated, so I completely agree with you on that point. I'm on the late side of the boomers, so I was too young to get in on the 60s stuff. But at least my wife and I didn't raise our millennials to be delicate little snowflakes.

Shitty parenting leads to shitty parenting, news at eleven!

 

[Brainonska511]

It's interesting to see how everyone is talking past each other. Calling Trump voters racists (even if some are, I'm sure many are good people too) and ignoring their concerns, calling protesters babies and ignoring their concerns, etc... The cycle goes on.

New The smaller states don't get extra voting power. They simply don't get completely overlooked. People act like the results of elections are always the same, where the EC somehow puts one side or the other at a disadvantage on some consistent basis.

They do have extra voting power based simply on numbers. The ratio of electoral votes per person is much higher in smaller states over larger states. The notion that small states are overlooked is kind of mind boggling anyway given that they already have disproportionate representation in the legislature.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I guess hippies and the sixties never happened.
Speaking of wet diapers, the boomers should be a boon to the diaper industry!

The hippies didn't cry. The hippies attempted to effect change. The hippies organized to a degree and worked to make the world what they wanted it to be rather than crying that the world they wanted wasn't handed to them.

Yes they did have a backbone, unfortunately they became exactly what they hated. Boomers, the generation of hypocrites.

Bullshit. The hippies grew up and faced reality. It's great to sit around grooving and getting high all day when mommy and daddy are paying for your pot and your Country Joe and the Fish albums. Then, you eventually get shut off from the easy living teat and need a source of income. And whining about the system might feel good, but nobody pays you to do it. Getting a job to support yourself doesn't make you a hypocrite, it makes you a grown up. You might even get there yourself some day.

What makes a person a hypocrite is taking their parents money that is earned from having a grown up job while simultaneously bitching about how anyone with a job is a sell-out.

 

[Zaap]

They do have extra voting power based simply on numbers. The ratio of electoral votes per person is much higher in smaller states over larger states. The notion that small states are overlooked is kind of mind boggling anyway given that they already have disproportionate representation in the legislature.

I disagree with the more voting power argument, simply because it doesn't seem to be predicable or exploitable.

In 2000 for example it was a vote in FL that had disprotionate 'power' for voters there... but no one predicted it with any certainty, nor can it be exploited consistently.

This time it was the rust belt. No one saw that coming.

I believe the EC system forces candidates to consider a much wider swath of voters than just the population centers. Meanwhile, the population centers already have plenty of benefits and 'power' based on larger numbers.

I'm not jealous of say West Virginia compared to my living in CA because someone there may delude themselves their vote counts more than mine. CA isn't lacking any political power. Same time.. I don't consider WV (or any other state) unworthy of their views being considered just as important as anyone else's.

Anyway... you do make a good argument and you're rational about the subject, so its an interesting conversation not just a shouting match. I agree, there are benefits to be cited about direct vote count.

 

[soulcougher73]

LOL Good luck with this. Ive been trying to tell people the EC is retarded and hampers voting but i just get called an idiot here. Ive talked about it a good 8 years ago or so on this very forum even with my own thread on it as you have. But i have a spreadsheet to make showing the numbers since i agreed to do so in another thread a month or so ago. Why did i do that? lol

For fun at work today i used Wyoming and California as test subjects for equal representation of the people. Based on Wyomings 3 EC points, CA should have 200 based on population. Just sayin lol

 

[interchange]

I'm more pointing out the notion that the EC gives so much power dispropotionately to small states, that small focal swings in population can completely throw the election to another. The margins of victory in a lot of states is ridiculously tiny. Even texas (38 million people I believe) which trump won by 10 percent only meant he won by a little above 800,000 votes (or about a 0.5 percent of the population)

In fact there was a libertarian movement that I believe is ongoing to capture NH. Apparently to win every race on every level for the libertarian party they would need about 400,000 people voting as a bloc, and they have a movement/program encouraging libertarians from other states to relocate to NH as a means of totally dominating the state and having a bigger say on the national stage. That is insane to me, that so few people can have such a huge national impact.


I disagree. First of all, as an outsider but still US citizen, I don't have the same mythical worship of the US constitution far too many here have. Its seen almost as a holy document on some levels and the founding fathers (even that term is a bit of hero worship but whatever) as infallible.

I've seen some extensive discussions about the EC. A lot of scholars argue that it was never about keeping power away from the people (or that was only a minor focus). A lot of it was the lack of technology at the time for rapidly counting votes, delivering news and communication, voting, traveling across the country, etc etc. It just made more sense to have a few people travel and represent the group states in a focal setting because there really was no other way to on a national stage discuss an election results. Today we have twitter and airplanes and cars.

Heck just look at the Amendment about quartering soldiers. Really what relevance does that have today? Our mystically intelligent founding fathers totally nailed that one. They could have put amendments about so much more (term limits, power checks on the supreme court, etc etc). I still find the second amendment totally ridiculous in its lack of qualifiers given the extremes they went to to qualify so much else in the qualification.

A lot of countries mostly in latin america have tried the US constitution as a model. It doesn't really work for them. Its not a universally good system. Its only good if you protect it and constantly adjust it to fit changing times.

Where in my response did I imply that I felt the founding fathers were right? (On this or any other issue)

What you say is part of the truth, but they could have easily done an electoral college with one vote per representative in the house only. They intended to give extra representation to smaller states on purpose.

Your comment about the 3rd amendment made me chuckle. My forensic psych attending in residency offered a "quartering prize". The supreme court has never heard a 3rd amendment case. You would win the prize if you came up with a case in today's world that would challenge the amendment. The caveat being a case he hadn't heard before. The prize of course was a shiny quarter.

 

[werepossum]

Apparently there is a movement to eliminate the popular vote.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

They have gotten 10 states to sign up and 160 electoral votes. Basically, this is how it works.
1) States sign up and promise to pledge all electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote
2) Get 270 EC votes worth of states to sign up

I implore you to check out the website and pester your representatives with emails (there is a pre-filled and pre-destined letter you can send on the website) and maybe your state will sign on!

If we were stupid enough to cede our states' votes to New York, Florida, Texas and California, then Hillary would already be our President-elect and this would be a non-issue.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The Trump campaign bombarded me with phone calls and I never received the first one from Hillary even though I'm a Democrat. Their grass roots canvasing efforts were not of the same caliber as previous elections. I'm curious as to who will get fielded next cycle.

 

[NostaSeronx]

If we were stupid enough to cede our states' votes to New York, Florida, Texas and California, then Hillary would already be our President-elect and this would be a non-issue.

The stupid part is that Electoral College is for gerrymandering. Just because the popular votes has high potential in high-density states. Doesn't mean it can't be competitive to low-potential low-density states. 337,636 people want Hillary, over Trump. 337,636 people are shafted because states are gerrymandered. Candidates don't need to visit every part of the state to win it. They just need to visit high potential districts in that state.

 

[werepossum]

Adult coloring books are actually pretty popular right now. You might be surprised how fun they are! And what's wrong with crying? The whole 'crying is for babies' thing is a sign of an emotionally stunted society.

You may not realize it but every generation comes up with a reason to hate their kids. As I've said many times before there's even a quote from Socrates about how shitty the kids were in his day. Here's a hint: kids haven't changed, you've changed.

lol I suppose even weepy little snowflakes who never grow up need cheerleaders.

Kids have definitely changed. We've had coloring books since the 1880s. We've had adult coloring books since the 1960s, sure - but they were political commentary. Nobody colored them because they weren't for coloring. Coloring books as therapy and comfort for "adults", that's a new thing.

 

[werepossum]

The stupid part is that Electoral College is for gerrymandering. Just because the popular votes has high potential in high-density states. Doesn't mean it can't be competitive to low-potential low-density states. 337,636 people want Hillary, over Trump. 337,636 people are shafted because states are gerrymandered. Candidates don't need to visit every part of the state to win it. They just need to visit high potential districts in that state.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[shady28]

The Trump campaign bombarded me with phone calls and I never received the first one from Hillary even though I'm a Democrat. Their grass roots canvasing efforts were not of the same caliber as previous elections. I'm curious as to who will get fielded next cycle.

OMG!!! YOU MEAN THE MEDIA LIED ABOUT TRUMPS COMPETENCY IN RUNNING HIS CAMPAIGN!!!

SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!!

The Trump campaign 'looks incompetent'

THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IS IN FULL NUCLEAR MELTDOWN MODE

 

[rudder]

 

[rudder]

Do you view 'I should get extra voting power based on my home address' to be a good argument?

That is why we have the electoral college. How would people in rural America. Be served by politicians who only campaigned in California and New York.

 

[MrSquished]

The stupid part is that Electoral College is for gerrymandering. Just because the popular votes has high potential in high-density states. Doesn't mean it can't be competitive to low-potential low-density states. 337,636 people want Hillary, over Trump. 337,636 people are shafted because states are gerrymandered. Candidates don't need to visit every part of the state to win it. They just need to visit high potential districts in that state.

Gerrymandering primarily effects races like those for the House of Representatives, and possibly other smaller local elections. It doesn't affect the presidential race. No matter what district you are in, your vote counts just as much as anybody else in your state in any other district. Votes are counted on the state level, so no re-districting can affect that. Voter suppression laws can affect voting in a presidential race, but not gerrymandering.

 

[OutHouse]

For those of you who need a 8th grade civics lesson on the EC

https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU

 

[Brainonska511]

That is why we have the electoral college. How would people in rural America. Be served by politicians who only campaigned in California and New York.

If only there was some other body of the government that represented people from individual states. Perhaps it could have representatives from each state...

 

[OutHouse]

For fun at work today i used Wyoming and California as test subjects for equal representation of the people. Based on Wyomings 3 EC points, CA should have 200 based on population. Just sayin lol

I hope they laughed at you for not knowing how the number of electors is calculated. its in the Constitution have you ever read it? Just sayin lol.

here let me help you with another video.

https://youtu.be/W9H3gvnN468

 

[Svnla]

So where were the OP and folks like him the last 8 years when Democrats won the WH? Not a beep against EC but suddenly now....oh no..it is bad.


Heck, not even a freaking word against EC right before the election but now HC and Democrats crashed and burned....let make changes you can believe in. LOL.

Do you guys need a safe space from the big bad EC?

 

[sportage]

The people did not vote for Trump.
And they also did not give Obama his US Supreme Court justice.
That, they also stole away.
And they dare call Hillary the crook?
Give us a break.....
Republicans not only stole the election, but the US Supreme Court as well.
And no one will investigate that.

 

[SP33Demon]

Nice. Is that an AK? Looks just like my VEPR12.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Heck, not even a freaking word against EC right before the election but now HC and Democrats crashed and burned....let make changes you can believe in. LOL.

EC has a low failure chance, it was 5% and now 7%;

-= Democrat vs Republican =-
2008: 69,498,516-365 vs 59,948,323-173
2012: 65,915,795-332 vs 60,933,504-206
2016: 60,278,606-232 vs 59,907,356-306

The popular vote worked for Hillary in the primaries as well.

Hillary vs Sanders;
16,849,779 vs 13,167,848