The people did NOT vote for Trump

[Brainonska511]

Oh, you think an EC popular vote disagreement is a problem?

I think so. I think the winner-take-all model among the states exacerbates the raw feelings that are created when the popular vote greatly differs from the EC, especially as the role of the Federal government has vastly changed in the 250 years our country has been in existence. And as a secondary problem, it also promotes voter disengagement for those in uncontested states - why bother voting for X if your state always goes for Y.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

And as a secondary problem, it also promotes voter disengagement for those in uncontested states - why bother voting for X if your state always goes for Y.

Which is why only truly colossal morons try to use the popular vote as an ex post facto metric for who should have won. It most certainly does cause voter disengagement and the final popular vote number has as much meaning as the IQ of people who think it matters: hovering somewhere around zero. The campaigns are conducted differently and the voting patterns are different using the EC which is why the popular vote means jack shit and only sore losers try to claim otherwise when they don't get the result they want.

Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but neither is any other system. If you replace the EC with the popular vote you marginalize everyone that isn't in a major city as everything will be geared towards where the population density is highest. Everything will be Costco campaigning, promises made in bulk. The people who don't live in NY, LA and Chicago won't get addressed at all, won't have their concerns discussed and won't have any candidates paying attention to them which in turn causes their disengagement. What part of that don't you understand?

 

[Brainonska511]

Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but neither is any other system. If you replace the EC with the popular vote you marginalize everyone that isn't in a major city as everything will be geared towards where the population density is highest. Everything will be Costco campaigning, promises made in bulk. The people who don't live in NY, LA and Chicago won't get addressed at all, won't have their concerns discussed and won't have any candidates paying attention to them which in turn causes their disengagement. What part of that don't you understand?

I am well aware of the pitfalls more rural people would find in a strictly popular vote scheme. Hence my floating ideas to make electoral votes more proportional within a state. That way, you couldn't just run up the vote in Chicago, NYC, and LA and ignore the rest of the country. But as it stands now in the winner-take-all model, a few "swing states" have all the power and safe state are safely ignored (as well as minority party voters in those safe states).

We don't have to scrap the EC and we don't have to stick with winner-take-all for delegates.

 

[Double Trouble]

I am well aware of the pitfalls more rural people would find in a strictly popular vote scheme. Hence my floating ideas to make electoral votes more proportional within a state. That way, you couldn't just run up the vote in Chicago, NYC, and LA and ignore the rest of the country. But as it stands now in the winner-take-all model, a few "swing states" have all the power and safe state are safely ignored (as well as minority party voters in those safe states).

We don't have to scrap the EC and we don't have to stick with winner-take-all for delegates.

Your idea seems rational and well thought out, but you're still starting with the assumption that there's a problem with the EC as is. I don't see it being an issue at all. The current screaming is just butt-hurt democrats complaining that Hillary didn't win. If it had gone the other way around, I'm sure the butt-hurt would be the same and it would be the republicans complaining. Either way, I don't see a problem. The system works just fine.

 

[Hulk]

Hillary Clinton is democratic for the majority of social equality.

By social equity you mean equal outcomes not equal opportunity right? Or by social equity you mean everybody pays the same tax rate? Not the progressive rate we pay now.

Hillary Clinton is (was) for herself. Power, money, and any corruption required to get there. At least crazy Bernie was an admitted socialist.

 

[MrSquished]

Which is why only truly colossal morons try to use the popular vote as an ex post facto metric for who should have won. It most certainly does cause voter disengagement and the final popular vote number has as much meaning as the IQ of people who think it matters: hovering somewhere around zero. The campaigns are conducted differently and the voting patterns are different using the EC which is why the popular vote means jack shit and only sore losers try to claim otherwise when they don't get the result they want.

Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but neither is any other system. If you replace the EC with the popular vote you marginalize everyone that isn't in a major city as everything will be geared towards where the population density is highest. Everything will be Costco campaigning, promises made in bulk. The people who don't live in NY, LA and Chicago won't get addressed at all, won't have their concerns discussed and won't have any candidates paying attention to them which in turn causes their disengagement. What part of that don't you understand?

why your arguments are a bunch of horseshit

I've read a ton of analysis on the creation of the EC and there is a lot of bs going around. That this is meant to really protect small states. This came down to Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Those flip, it's going the other way. Forget the rust belt and forget Nevada. That's where the campaigning was focusing. All those are top 10 states in population with the exception of NC being number 11. How is that helping small states when the campaigning is in big states? It's not. You are wrong.

The primary reasons the founding fathers came up with the EC after considering a couple other systems was to 'protect' the possible tyranny of the masses if they voted in some criminal or despot. That and to prevent the highest populated states from instilling a 'favorite' son as president. Back then it was 13 states, now we have 50. The odds of one state installing a favorite son have severely diminished. Regardless, it just hasn't happened. If that was a worry we'd have many more instances of the popular vote and EC not jiving in our history. It just doesn't happen much at all.

And look at the popular vote in the 2 instances in modern history the EC overrode the popular vote. Gore in 2000 and Hillary in 2016. They won the popular vote but lost the EC but the margin of popular vote victory compared to the overall popular vote count, it wasn't by all that much. Enough for it to be a victory but by no means some sort of repudiation by the masses. The EC didn't prevent some massive tyranny of the masses, not even fucking close. Those were close races.

And in elections where the Electoral count victory was massive, often times the victors popular vote count was not nearly as large ratio wise as was their Electoral count. That just goes to show that it's more often the EC who gives us lopsided victories while the popular vote can keep it closer:

"Even in the vast majority of U.S. elections, in which the same candidate won both the popular and the electoral vote, the system usually makes the winner’s victory margin in the former a lot wider than in the latter. In 2012, for example, Barack Obama won 51% of the nationwide popular vote but nearly 62% of the electoral votes, or 332 out of 538. Looking back at all presidential elections since 1828 (when presidential campaigns began to resemble those of today), the winner’s electoral vote share has, on average, been 1.36 times his popular vote share – what we’ll call the electoral vote (EV) inflation factor."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...des-are-easier-to-win-than-popular-vote-ones/

 

[Victorian Gray]

We live in a republic of sovereign states. We do not live in a full on mob rule democracy.

Go back to school.

 

[buckshot24]

Go back to school.

I'm correct.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'm correct.

Go back to school.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Hey, what's the official policy about fund-raising promotions through AT forums? I'd like to start a GoFundMe campaign to buy a Play-Doh fun factory set and a giant towel for the people here who think that the popular vote should count even though neither side campaigned with that in mind. They can gather together, make some pretty colored shapes and share a good cry.

Would that be allowed? Is it's a go would one of you be willing to act as a host so that I can ship you the Play-Doh and everyone can go to your place for the whine-in?

 

[Bird222]

Which is why only truly colossal morons try to use the popular vote as an ex post facto metric for who should have won. It most certainly does cause voter disengagement and the final popular vote number has as much meaning as the IQ of people who think it matters: hovering somewhere around zero. The campaigns are conducted differently and the voting patterns are different using the EC which is why the popular vote means jack shit and only sore losers try to claim otherwise when they don't get the result they want.

Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but neither is any other system. If you replace the EC with the popular vote you marginalize everyone that isn't in a major city as everything will be geared towards where the population density is highest. Everything will be Costco campaigning, promises made in bulk. The people who don't live in NY, LA and Chicago won't get addressed at all, won't have their concerns discussed and won't have any candidates paying attention to them which in turn causes their disengagement. What part of that don't you understand?

To me this is all the more reason to go popular vote. I want a system that encourages everyone to vote and for their vote to matter. I would think it would encourage candidates even visit states they haven't won in the past because they know that any votes they get can help them get elected instead of just concentrating on the 'swing states'.

 

[Caveman]

To me this is all the more reason to go popular vote. I want a system that encourages everyone to vote and for their vote to matter. I would think it would encourage candidates even visit states they haven't won in the past because they know that any votes they get can help them get elected instead of just concentrating on the 'swing states'.

Those who believe in the EC also want everyone's vote to matter. And why? To protect a democratic principle called diversity. Do you want people in population centers to be the only ones who have a vote that matters? That's not really fair. Think of the EC as a popular vote with just a sprinkling of "political affirmative action" to make it better.

BTW, I have zero bias for or against either candidate. The same arguments for (or against the EC) can be made no matter where your political thoughts reside.

 

[flexy]

This is the election map 2016 of IL, just an example.
Explain to me how the EC "helps" to make the vote of the people in the red zones matter. (12.5M people in IL, 10M in Chicagoland, so there's maybe one million or so people in those red zones)
IL being a state which is as D as it even gets, explain to me the sense of voting for anyone in the red zones.

Would a Rep, anyone among those people living in red IL even vote, and if so, why? Please explain. With the popular vote, they would actually have a real vote since in fact every vote would count. In the case of IL, rather than already knowing, each and every 4 years, that IL will be blue.

 

[Torn Mind]

You can't have it both ways that just because you agree with the result this time, it's better. But if it doesn't jive with you, the other could be better. You are deciding on what would be the best election system for your country based upon your personal satisfaction with what the results are.

It's one or the other

I'm satisfied? I never would have voted "for Trump" based on what he supposedly stands for; only a morbid curiosity or "experiment" to what how the chips fall, but even that died and I left the ballot blank when it came to voting for a President. At least half the stuff he promises will NEVER happen and he "epiphany" is unlikely to be truly genuine. He has remained an ASSHOLE and perhaps a tad anti-Hispanic given his comments about that former Miss Universe, but he was a liberal at heart and Clinton friend. Despite remaining an asshole, he suddenly takes a Republican twist to his usual demeanor. That mere change of alignment and suddenly his asshole behavior is much more severely reprimanded.

The ones who are dissatisfied and railing against the college are likely Democrats, because twice their candidate lost due to the "system". While the Gore election can have some more justifiable sour grapes for Democrats due to the fact that the race was close, this is not so for this election. Hillary's margin of victory was even slimmer and the reliably blue states the Democrats have held with an iron grip turned such that Trump won in a landslide.

Having taken a four year sabbatical from anything politics and even up until the Election itself, not bothering to vote for candidates but rather the much more mundane matters of bonds and Maryland's Question 1, I can't say I wanted Trump in. Indeed, I expect an easy win for Hillary, and perhaps I lament the fact that no Slick Willy back in the White House jokes will be forthcoming. lol
In fact, if it wasn't a strong to urge to vote no against more bonds to improve police and Fire stations in the county I live, I might have just sat at home.

You would do well not to assume I have political leanings, because I have come to the point in which I will not allow a political party to shape my paradigm of the world. Those who do are absolute fools.

Now as for the Electoral College, it is better because certain issues that could be swept under the table by sheer domination of a majority cannot be. For the Democrats, it means that they cannot turn a blind eye to three of the states that was considered reliably theirs. We see what Wisconsin, Michigan, and Penn voters wanted to say; these states are not southern states and hence no overly simplistic "they're racist rednecks that talk funny" analysis can explain why they were flipped. 56 Electoral votes that Clinton and her party lost. Three states that the Dems could simply "discard" if California's huge population had their way. The millions in Calfornia have already created a fine Democratic bastion for their ideals (and suffocating the Republican minority there completely when it comes to giving out electoral votes), but they should not be allowed to shoe-in a party just because they are bigger than the rest. It actually is about Democrats turning on their own party because they didn't get the welfare they voted for and Trump was the contrarian vote who did things they could not express themselves, such as criticizing Ford, and the promise that Trump would provide those favors. The lack of enthusiasm from Dems that voted for Obama in areas where they were strong also helped cost them their "firewall".
Accountability is what keeps government in a relatively good shape. And the Democrat's own have spoken in three of their major contributing states. Florida and Ohio will always be a battle, but losing three of their reliable own is something they should not ignore. The Dems have to work for those votes four years from now rather than living off the luxury of California's huge population centers.

 

[Maxima1]

Which is why only truly colossal morons try to use the popular vote as an ex post facto metric for who should have won. It most certainly does cause voter disengagement and the final popular vote number has as much meaning as the IQ of people who think it matters: hovering somewhere around zero. The campaigns are conducted differently and the voting patterns are different using the EC which is why the popular vote means jack shit and only sore losers try to claim otherwise when they don't get the result they want.

A popular vote would help Democrats. That's why Republican states don't want to do the Interstate Compact. Duh. Democrats would turn out in large numbers in the urban areas and are more easily discouraged from voting than Republicans who are generally older.

Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but neither is any other system. If you replace the EC with the popular vote you marginalize everyone that isn't in a major city as everything will be geared towards where the population density is highest. Everything will be Costco campaigning, promises made in bulk. The people who don't live in NY, LA and Chicago won't get addressed at all, won't have their concerns discussed and won't have any candidates paying attention to them which in turn causes their disengagement. What part of that don't you understand?

Are you dense? Why should the minority be allowed to hold all branches of government, and if more than one justice leaves the bench, we have a conservative SC for decades when they are clearly a minority and more represent the interests of the top 1%.

Madison wanted a popular vote. When the Constitution was ratified, we got the EC with the 3/5ths Compromise. It was a compromise to protect the evil institution of slavery in the South as the North had a greater population and a majority interest. You don't want to enable minority interests for the most part. That generally leads to the fringe and the quacks.

Hillary's margin of victory was even slimmer and the reliably blue states the Democrats have held with an iron grip turned such that Trump won in a landslide.

WTF are you talking about? His win is razor thin. WI, PA, and MI are all 1% or less from being flipped. That's all she needed, and the third party hurt the Democrats more this time.

 

[Bird222]

This is the election map 2016 of IL, just an example.
Explain to me how the EC "helps" to make the vote of the people in the red zones matter. (12.5M people in IL, 10M in Chicagoland, so there's maybe one million or so people in those red zones)
IL being a state which is as D as it even gets, explain to me the sense of voting for anyone in the red zones.

Would a Rep, anyone among those people living in red IL even vote, and if so, why? Please explain. With the popular vote, they would actually have a real vote since in fact every vote would count. In the case of IL, rather than already knowing, each and every 4 years, that IL will be blue.

Exactly! Why would anybody want a system that actually discourages people from voting?

 

[buckshot24]

Go back to school.

Go ride a moose.

 

[buckshot24]

If I were a Democrat (in a popular vote wins scenario) I would spend most of my time just getting out the vote in all the big cities of the country. You'd be 80% of the way home doing this.

 

[LegendKiller]

This is the election map 2016 of IL, just an example.
Explain to me how the EC "helps" to make the vote of the people in the red zones matter. (12.5M people in IL, 10M in Chicagoland, so there's maybe one million or so people in those red zones)
IL being a state which is as D as it even gets, explain to me the sense of voting for anyone in the red zones.

Would a Rep, anyone among those people living in red IL even vote, and if so, why? Please explain. With the popular vote, they would actually have a real vote since in fact every vote would count. In the case of IL, rather than already knowing, each and every 4 years, that IL will be blue.

Again, is this the United Counties of the United States of America, or the United States of America? This is a Republic of individual states. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Go ride a moose.

Haven't you left yet?

 

[buckshot24]

Haven't you left yet?

Obviously not.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Obviously not.

Too bad. I heard that Trump needs his swamp drained again and Texashiker wasn't around to give him a hand. Thought that might be where you were heading.

 

[MrSquished]

I'm satisfied? I never would have voted "for Trump" based on what he supposedly stands for; only a morbid curiosity or "experiment" to what how the chips fall, but even that died and I left the ballot blank when it came to voting for a President. At least half the stuff he promises will NEVER happen and he "epiphany" is unlikely to be truly genuine. He has remained an ASSHOLE and perhaps a tad anti-Hispanic given his comments about that former Miss Universe, but he was a liberal at heart and Clinton friend. Despite remaining an asshole, he suddenly takes a Republican twist to his usual demeanor. That mere change of alignment and suddenly his asshole behavior is much more severely reprimanded.

Yes satisfied. I don't really care what you say about who you like or don't like or say you did. You stated:

"In this case, the current system was better. In another case, it could go the other way."

Something about this election has convinced you it turned out for the better. Yes you. You state that this result 'WAS BETTER' vs any other result judged by a different system, aka you are the judge jury and executioner. Aka this is your opinion.

But another election could possibly go another way, according to you and be ok, this time if it was a popular vote win. Again, you are the judge jury and executioner. Aka your political leanings are the deciding factor. However they move about. So really at the end of the day we are talking about your personal preferences. Which is fine. Just admit that since this is a better result, to you, on some level you are satisfied.

 

[NostaSeronx]

I weighted the electoral vote against the statewide popular vote. This would allow Trump to get electoral votes from states that he had lost. It also better represents what the people want with the added weight-bias of the electoral vote.

I am calling these Elective Popular Credits; A -> W, Alphabetical

1. 5.67 T / 3.15 H
2. 1.59 T / 1.14 H
3. 5.39 T / 4.95 H
4. 3.6 T / 2.04 H
5. 18.15 T / 33.55 H
6. 3.96 T / 4.23 H
7. 2.87 T / 3.78 H
8. 1.26 T / 1.59 H
9. 0.12 T / 2.79 H
10. 14.21 T / 13.92 H
11. 8.16 T / 7.36 H
12. 1.2 T / 2.48 H
13. 2.36 T / 1.12 H
14. 7.8 T / 11 H
15. 6.27 T / 4.18 H
16. 3.12 T / 2.52 H
17. 3.42 T / 2.16 H
18. 5.04 T / 2.64 H
19. 4.64 T / 3.04 H
20. 1.8 T / 1.92 H
21. 3.5 T / 6.1 H
22. 3.74 T / 6.71 H
23. 7.68 T / 7.52 H
24. 4.5 T / 4.7 H
25. 3.48 T / 2.4 H
26. 5.7 T / 3.8 H
27. 1.71 T / 1.08 H
28. 3 T / 1.7 H
29. 2.76 T / 2.88 H
30. 1.88 T / 1.92 H
31. 5.88 / 7.7 H
32. 2 T / 2.4 H
33. 10.73 T / 17.11 H
34. 7.65 T / 7.05 H
35. 1.92 T / 0.84 H
36. 9.36 T / 7.92 H
37. 4.55 T / 2.03 H
38. 2.87 T / 3.64 H
39. 9.8 T / 9.6 H
40. 1.6 T / 2.2 H
41. 4.95 T / 3.69 H
42. 1.86 T / 0.96 H
43. 6.71 T / 3.85 H
44. 20.14 T / 16.34 H
45. 2.82 T / 1.68 H
46. 0.99 T / 1.83 H
47. 5.85 T / 6.5 H
48. 4.56 T / 6.6 H
49. 3.45 T / 1.3 H
50. 4.8 T / 4.7 H
51. 2.1 T / 0.66 H

256.97 for Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton.
251.97 for Donald John Trump.

Electorally weighted by statewide popular vote HRC wins the race, following the nationwide popular vote. So at the end of the day, winner-takes-all; 538 votes for HRC in the nationwide electoral vote.

 

[buckshot24]

I weighted the electoral vote against the statewide popular vote. This would allow Trump to get electoral votes from states that he had lost. It also better represents what the people want with the added weight-bias of the electoral vote.

I am calling these Elective Popular Credits; A -> W, Alphabetical

1. 5.67 T / 3.15 H
2. 1.59 T / 1.14 H
3. 5.39 T / 4.95 H
4. 3.6 T / 2.04 H
5. 18.15 T / 33.55 H
6. 3.96 T / 4.23 H
7. 2.87 T / 3.78 H
8. 1.26 T / 1.59 H
9. 0.12 T / 2.79 H
10. 14.21 T / 13.92 H
11. 8.16 T / 7.36 H
12. 1.2 T / 2.48 H
13. 2.36 T / 1.12 H
14. 7.8 T / 11 H
15. 6.27 T / 4.18 H
16. 3.12 T / 2.52 H
17. 3.42 T / 2.16 H
18. 5.04 T / 2.64 H
19. 4.64 T / 3.04 H
20. 1.8 T / 1.92 H
21. 3.5 T / 6.1 H
22. 3.74 T / 6.71 H
23. 7.68 T / 7.52 H
24. 4.5 T / 4.7 H
25. 3.48 T / 2.4 H
26. 5.7 T / 3.8 H
27. 1.71 T / 1.08 H
28. 3 T / 1.7 H
29. 2.76 T / 2.88 H
30. 1.88 T / 1.92 H
31. 5.88 / 7.7 H
32. 2 T / 2.4 H
33. 10.73 T / 17.11 H
34. 7.65 T / 7.05 H
35. 1.92 T / 0.84 H
36. 9.36 T / 7.92 H
37. 4.55 T / 2.03 H
38. 2.87 T / 3.64 H
39. 9.8 T / 9.6 H
40. 1.6 T / 2.2 H
41. 4.95 T / 3.69 H
42. 1.86 T / 0.96 H
43. 6.71 T / 3.85 H
44. 20.14 T / 16.34 H
45. 2.82 T / 1.68 H
46. 0.99 T / 1.83 H
47. 5.85 T / 6.5 H
48. 4.56 T / 6.6 H
49. 3.45 T / 1.3 H
50. 4.8 T / 4.7 H
51. 2.1 T / 0.66 H

256.97 for Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton.
251.97 for Donald John Trump.

Electorally weighted by statewide popular vote HRC wins the race, following the nationwide popular vote. So at the end of the day, winner-takes-all; 538 votes for HRC in the nationwide electoral vote.

She lost the race that was actually run. These aren't the rules they agreed upon. This is fantasy land.

Actually though, nobody got 270 so it goes to the house.