• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Weighting electoral votes perfectly equally - Trump would still have won.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Trump is just not a legitimate president. Russian hacks, FBI interference. And most importantly he lacks the consent of the governed. That bothers him, but instead of trying to unite this country by reaching out to people who disagree with him, he is trying to establish a semblance of legitimacy by ramming policies the country hates down its throat. His thinking is that if he has the authority, he has the legitimacy.
 
fskimospy said:
Gallup had him previously polled during the transition at 44%, which is statistically indistinguishable from 45%. Rasmussen's poll was using their likely voter screen when other polls do not, meaning you can't compare results between the two.

So to recap one poll showed no change and the other one used a different methodology, yet you tried to draw from them an increasing trend line based on nothing more than wishful thinking. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Two polls showed him at 40% just prior to inauguration. I guess they don't count either when looking at trends.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ld-trump-approval-rating-40-article-1.2948095
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Two polls showed him at 40% just prior to inauguration. I guess they don't count either.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ld-trump-approval-rating-40-article-1.2948095
Click to expand...

So now that we're back to using polls from that time I assume you think his polling average is back to 42%? lol. If so, then Gallup's result is within the MOE for his polling average.

See what I mean when I say you don't know what you're talking about? Any chance you want to revise your conclusion that people 'like what they see'? Sure seems like you can't support it with the data you have.
 
senseamp said:
Trump is just not a legitimate president. Russian hacks, FBI interference. And most importantly he lacks the consent of the governed. That bothers him, but instead of trying to unite this country by reaching out to people who disagree with him, he is trying to establish a semblance of legitimacy by ramming policies the country hates down its throat. His thinking is that if he has the authority, he has the legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Rationalize this till the cows come home...but the fact of the matter here is that he IS our president. Calling him illegitimate is merely denial and accomplishes nothing in the scheme of reality.
 
fskimospy said:
So now that we're back to using polls from that time I assume you think his polling average is back to 42%? lol. If so, then Gallup's result is within the MOE for his polling average.

See what I mean when I say you don't know what you're talking about? Any chance you want to revise your conclusion that people 'like what they see'? Sure seems like you can't support it with the data you have.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with my conclusion right now...and will adjust my opinion (if necessary) when additional poll results become available.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Rationalize this till the cows come home...but the fact of the matter here is that he IS our president. Calling him illegitimate is merely denial and accomplishes nothing in the scheme of reality.
Click to expand...

LMAO It has already accomplished something according to reports of how Donny is taking it. People complaining about this are just being disingenuous and are afraid it'll derail Trump.

Edit: People also need to attack his presidency to get the feckless corporate Democrats to reconsider shoeing in Trump's extremist nominees to the Supreme court.
 
Maxima1 said:
Then you're an idiot. The majority of the population didn't want Trump. Period. Technically, the House cap is unconstitutional, and you could easily argue the WTA allocation of electoral votes violates the precedent set in Bush v. Gore.
Click to expand...
Actually we don't know that because Trump did not campaign for a popular vote win.

Trump strategically campaigned for an electoral win, and won.

Not sure what strategy Clinton campaigned for.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Actually we don't know that because Trump did not campaign for a popular vote win.

Trump strategically campaigned for an electoral win, and won.

Not sure what strategy Clinton campaigned for.
Click to expand...

A popular vote race is much more likely to help Democrats. Considering the views of his sons and Ivanka's husband, he would not have been able to court them because CA and some other big liberal states would not have fallen for that BS. It was so transparent.
 
Maxima1 said:
A popular vote race is much more likely to help Democrats. Considering the views of his sons and Ivanka's husband, he would not have been able to court them because CA and some other big liberal states would not have fallen for that BS. It was so transparent.
Click to expand...
California and New York mirror trends of the nation. There are "mini rust belt" areas in NY and CA. Anything inland of the beach cities and outside NY metro are ripe for a populist candidate. It would be interesting to see how things would play out if those in solid blue or red states had a voice.

Also, CA did vote for Arnold as governor, and another blue state elected Jesse Ventura, so I question what blue states would and would not fall for.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Actually we don't know that because Trump did not campaign for a popular vote win.

Trump strategically campaigned for an electoral win, and won.

Not sure what strategy Clinton campaigned for.
Click to expand...
It's hard to imagine what Clinton was thinking. She spent a ton of time and money in irrelevant States while pretty much ignoring key States that were strategic to a win. Apparently they were confident she would win the Electoral vote, but were afraid she wouldn't win the popular vote. This has got to be one of the worst managed presidential campaigns ever....snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. So sad...but, given her track record, competence was really never her strong suit imo.
 
Last edited:
Atreus21 said:
Legitimacy to me is predicated on whether or not someone cheated, or usurped. Trump followed the rules and won according to them. I don't know how else to define legitimate in this context. That many don't like the rules after the fact doesn't call the victor's legitimacy into question.
Click to expand...


It's an interesting analysis, thank you for posting.

As far as the legitimacy question, it's is opinion and perception.

I have no doubt that the EC win satisfies the standards of a large portion of the public. Another large percentage it does not.

An "improved" EC system, as shown here, may satisfy a few more, but it does demonstrate that it can still produce a winner who still represents a minority view of the voting public.

It's that last one is at the heart of the legitimacy question. How can a democratic process give power to the minority and 6 still be considered democratic?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Rationalize this till the cows come home...but the fact of the matter here is that he IS our president. Calling him illegitimate is merely denial and accomplishes nothing in the scheme of reality.
Click to expand...
You are whistling past the graveyard. And I have no idea why.

What is Trump going to do that will benefit you? Or do you think it will benefit the country as a whole regardless of your personal sacrifices?
 
California is home of Silicon Valley and Hollywood, places that educate and attract the best talent and produce goods, services, and intellectual property that successfully competes around the world.
Unlike Republican states that work hard to alienate all but their base demographics with bigotry, and are at best milking their natural resources, and at worst engaged in a race to the bottom trying to make their labor cheap. But with alternative energy and automation quickly emerging, those are both obvious dead ends, soon you won't be able to make your labor cheaper than robots, and your energy cheaper than solar, because the new technologies are on a completely different cost curve. And you have no plan B, except to elect demagogues and hope for the best. So instead of jealously bashing California, maybe it's time for Republican states to learn a thing or two about what California does right and imitate it.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Rationalize this till the cows come home...but the fact of the matter here is that he IS our president. Calling him illegitimate is merely denial and accomplishes nothing in the scheme of reality.
Click to expand...

He is illegitimate. Calling him that is nothing more than drawing a conclusion based on my observations, it's not meant to serve any other purpose.
 
Are you guys STILL talking about this? Okay. So I did the calculation after the election just to show myself that a REASONABLE compromise on the electoral college still would not have put Clinton in the White House. I refuse to leave everything up to the national popular vote, as it strips way too much power from the smaller states. So I did a calculation that allocates house votes (438) based on national popular vote (ignoring 3rd party), and awards Senate votes based on states won. Trump won 29 states, Clinton won 21. Of the votes those two candidates received, Clinton got 51.1% to Trump at 48.9% (based on CNN final popular vote numbers). Allocate 214 to Trump and 224 to Clinton for the House votes. This PERFECTLY reflects the popular vote between these two candidates. Then allocate Senate votes based on states won - 58 for Trump, 42 for Clinton. Final totals are 272 for Trump, and 266 for Clinton. Even in this scenario (in my opinion, the best solution to the current EC), Trump wins.
 
351Cleveland said:
I refuse to leave everything up to the national popular vote, as it strips way too much power from the smaller states.
Click to expand...

Small states already have tremendous power. See: the legislative branch, in particular the Senate.

Small states were also flatly ignored in the presidential race. How many candidates visited genuinely small states?
 
Brainonska511 said:
Small states already have tremendous power. See: the legislative branch, in particular the Senate.

Small states were also flatly ignored in the presidential race. How many candidates visited genuinely small states?
Click to expand...
Small like, Idaho, Wyoming, North/South Dakota, Montana? Yea they tend to get glossed over, Hell I think Cook County IL has a higher pop than those states combined.

Or small like Rhode Island 😉
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Actually we don't know that because Trump did not campaign for a popular vote win.

Trump strategically campaigned for an electoral win, and won.

Not sure what strategy Clinton campaigned for.
Click to expand...
Righties always like to claim trump could have done ok in CA if he'd campaigned there, are they forgetting the riots when he tried to go there at the start of his campaign?
 
soundforbjt said:
Righties always like to claim trump could have done ok in CA if he'd campaigned there, are they forgetting the riots when he tried to go there at the start of his campaign?
Click to expand...
Riots, the pinnacle of western democracy. I expect he would have campaigned in friendly territory...Orange County and rural areas. I would not expect a campaign stop in Berkeley or west Hollywood or Silver Lake
 
supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some left over from agrarian slavery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top