Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I'd be curious to see a recap of the last 10 or 15 elections where the EC would be assigned proportionally based on the PV in each state.

A candidate gets 40% of the PV, they get 40% of the EC. Even the other parties ... if they get a 1/2% of the PV, they get 1/2% of the EC.

Would it have changed any results?

 

[brycejones]

I'd be curious to see a recap of the last 10 or 15 elections where the EC would be assigned proportionally based on the PV in each state.

A candidate gets 40% of the PV, they get 40% of the EC. Even the other parties ... if they get a 1/2% of the PV, they get 1/2% of the EC.

Would it have changed any results?

Then you're giving more impact to 3rd parties especially in large states where a small percentage of the vote could prove meaningful in preventing any candidate from reaching 270 thus throwing the election to the house.

2016 as an example:

Who would have won the 2016 presidency if all states' electors were allocated proportionally?

Hypothetically, if all states were to allocate their electors proportionally to the votes in their state, who would have won the last election? That is, let's say that there was a constitutional

politics.stackexchange.com

 

[fskimospy]

I'd be curious to see a recap of the last 10 or 15 elections where the EC would be assigned proportionally based on the PV in each state.

A candidate gets 40% of the PV, they get 40% of the EC. Even the other parties ... if they get a 1/2% of the PV, they get 1/2% of the EC.

Would it have changed any results?

So that’s essentially a popular vote situation which means the Democrats would have won every one other than 2004, although without incumbency advantage they might have won 2004 too.

 

[fskimospy]

If people want to make arguments about how the founders wanted to blah blah blah that’s fine but the majority of Americans have wanted Democratic presidents since 1988.

 

[pmv]

So that’s essentially a popular vote situation which means the Democrats would have won every one other than 2004, although without incumbency advantage they might have won 2004 too.

It is, though I would have thought, without working out the numbers, that for it to work out exactly that way, you'd need a larger electoral college overall (such that each EC elector represents a smaller number of people) , in order to avoid substantial 'rounding errors' accumulating?

Simpler to just go with the popular vote, I'd have thought. The EC isn't just a 'representative democracy' it's a 'representative representative democracy' - you vote for the people to vote for the person to take the decisions on your behalf, i.e. two steps removed from direct democracy. Which seems unnecessarily complicated, like having a pointer-to-a-pointer in C++.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

So that’s essentially a popular vote situation ...

That may be one way to describe it, but a change to that would not require an Amendment the way scrapping it would.

As for the 270 mark, change that to 'most EC votes'.

Why shouldn't third/fourth parties be represented?

No electors anywhere to be 'faked' Automatically assigned.

 

[fskimospy]

It is, though I would have thought, without working out the numbers, that for it to work out exactly that way, you'd need a larger electoral college overall (such that each EC elector represents a smaller number of people) , in order to avoid substantial 'rounding errors' accumulating?

Simpler to just go with the popular vote, I'd have thought. The EC isn't just a 'representative democracy' it's a 'representative representative democracy' - you vote for the people to vote for the person to take the decisions on your behalf, i.e. two steps removed from direct democracy. Which seems unnecessarily complicated, like having a pointer-to-a-pointer in C++.

I think the electoral college should be abolished as it’s stupid, evil, and a system designed to protect the right to enslave people.

I was just commenting on the proposed measure.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'd be curious to see a recap of the last 10 or 15 elections where the EC would be assigned proportionally based on the PV in each state.

A candidate gets 40% of the PV, they get 40% of the EC. Even the other parties ... if they get a 1/2% of the PV, they get 1/2% of the EC.

Would it have changed any results?

Hard to determine because as our system stands we reward candidates that choose to represent very specific groups of people’s interest in very specific places. I cannot imagine a popular vote system tailoring candidates that narrow because to win they need to get the most votes.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Then you're giving more impact to 3rd parties especially in large states where a small percentage of the vote could prove meaningful in preventing any candidate from reaching 270 thus throwing the election to the house.

2016 as an example:

Too complicated. I'm not talking about voting per district or for electors. I'm not talking about any change at all OTHER than how the EC votes are assigned. That would be by sheer numbers of the PV, 40% PV, 40% EC, no other calculations needed.

Mentioned over there was another idea I had:

"In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote of that state,"

But how would that work in states with small numbers of EC votes?

 

[brycejones]

That may be one way to describe it, but a change to that would not require an Amendment the way scrapping it would.

As for the 270 mark, change that to 'most EC votes'.

Why shouldn't third/fourth parties be represented?

No electors anywhere to be 'faked' Automatically assigned.

A majority of electors is required, so you can't change 270 without an amendment.

 

[brycejones]

Too complicated. I'm not talking about voting per district or for electors. I'm not talking about any change at all OTHER than how the EC votes are assigned. That would be by sheer numbers of the PV, 40% PV, 40% EC, no other calculations needed.

Mentioned over there was another idea I had:

"In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote of that state,"

But how would that work in states with small numbers of EC votes?

Have you researched this like at all?

 

[APU_Fusion]

I think the electoral college should be abolished as it’s stupid, evil, and a system designed to protect the right to enslave people.

I was just commenting on the proposed measure.

Can you imagine republicans ever agreeing to that. They know they would probably never hold presidency.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

A majority of electors is required, so you can't change 270 without an amendment.

From the other site above:

"I calculated the vote allocation using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method (based on results as of November 9, 2016) applied to each individual state:

• Clinton 263
• Trump 262
• Johnson 10
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote of that state, and the remainder allocated via Webster/Sainte-Laguë:

• Trump 269
• Clinton 259
• Johnson 7
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

For comparison, here I applied Webster/Sainte-Laguë to the entire United States population without splitting them based on state:

• Clinton 256
• Trump 255
• Johnson 17
• Stein 1
• McMullin 1
• Other 8 (these were not separated in the data source) "

In each case, one candidate gets 'a majority of the electors', even though none get 270.

 

[brycejones]

From the other site above:

"I calculated the vote allocation using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method (based on results as of November 9, 2016) applied to each individual state:

• Clinton 263
• Trump 262
• Johnson 10
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote of that state, and the remainder allocated via Webster/Sainte-Laguë:

• Trump 269
• Clinton 259
• Johnson 7
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

For comparison, here I applied Webster/Sainte-Laguë to the entire United States population without splitting them based on state:

• Clinton 256
• Trump 255
• Johnson 17
• Stein 1
• McMullin 1
• Other 8 (these were not separated in the data source) "

In each case, one candidate gets 'a majority of the electors', even though none get 270.

No in each case a candidate gets a plurality of electors. A majority is larger than half of the total. 270 is a majority of 538 votes, 269 with the rest split between 2 or more other players is a plurality of 538 votes. It’s the largest share yes but it is not a majority.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you imagine republicans ever agreeing to that. They know they would probably never hold presidency.

You would find republicans hating that the exact moment it didn’t provide them an electoral advantage.

 

[pmv]

No in each case a candidate gets a plurality of electors. A majority is larger than half of the total. 270 is a majority of 538 votes, 269 with the rest split between 2 or more other players is a plurality of 538 votes. It’s the largest share yes but it is not a majority.

That confused me, till I looked it up, and discovered that what in the US is called a plurality is in the UK called a 'relative majority' (as opposed to an 'absolute majority').

 

[pmv]

Yeah I'm sure 'plurality' is the more technically-correct word. The US usage makes more sense in this case.

Occurs to me that here "majority" is used in two quite different ways. In parliament it means more MPs than all the other parties put together, but in a constituency it means more votes than the next-highest candidate. I suppose the latter is a 'relative majority', but everyone just says 'majority'. Hence, confusing.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Supposedly there is a 'bigly' announcement coming in AZ this week.

Could it possibly be another indictment for someone?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Supposedly there is a 'bigly' announcement coming in AZ this week.

Could it possibly be another indictment for someone?

Link? We can only hope. Though it's not like it would go to trial before election. But maybe it hurts Trump's chances a bit. And certainly will make him more unhinged as the number of indictments increases. He will be that much more desperate to win the presidency to stay out of jail

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Like ... we don't really know yet.

Arizona attorney general: First 'fake elector' agreed to flip in MAGA election plot case​

The Raw Story on MSN.com|20 hours ago
One of the "fake electors" indicted in Arizona for the plot to overturn the election results in that state has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors, state Attorney General Kris Mayes said Friday."We are going to have a very significant announcement to make early next week,

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

It's Jenna that flipped.

Jenna Ellis Now Cooperating in Trump Fake Electors Case​

The former Donald Trump attorney agreed to work with Arizona state prosecutors in exchange for her charges in the case being dropped.

 

[Fenixgoon]

It's Jenna that flipped.

Jenna Ellis Now Cooperating in Trump Fake Electors Case​

The former Donald Trump attorney agreed to work with Arizona state prosecutors in exchange for her charges in the case being dropped.

getting the lawyers is always good. RIP attorney-client privilege. can't use those to crime.