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

[Maxima1]

No it doesn't. Trump won according to the rules of the election. Saying that he would've lost given a separate set of rules is to me a non sequitur.

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.

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't understand. That's precisely what 270towin controlled for in this.

And people do actually live in Wyoming.

What's not to get? On a per capita basis, small state electoral votes represent fewer people than large state electoral votes.

 

[Atreus21]

How is it a non sequitur? That doesn't make any sense.

What are you basing the idea that it doesn't undermine his legitimacy on? Legitimacy is what people perceive it to be and lots of people think the person who lost the popular vote shouldn't be the president. Ergo, legitimacy undermined.

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.

 

[Maxima1]

I'd be interested to see an electoral map that reflects proportionally-awarded electoral votes.

Why would you need to see it? Obviously she proportionally would get more, though she may have lost, if I remember correctly because of the allocation to third party. Though, that's still just an asinine flaw in the system.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It's been almost 3 months. He won under the system that was in place at the time of the election. It might be time to move beyond the EC vs. popular vote discussions and focus on the actual governance?

Maybe that's just me.

 

[Atreus21]

What's not to get? On a per capita basis, small state electoral votes represent fewer people than large state electoral votes.

According to the existing system, yes. In the scenario from 270towin, they control for that, awarding EC votes proportionally to the states, with very little difference in the vote counts for either Trump or Clinton.

 

[Maxima1]

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.

Are you stupid? Then you can't argue foreign countries have BS elections, etc. since, it's totally arbitrary what percentage of votes is needed to win.

 

[K1052]

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.

Trump has unquetionably undermined his own legitimacy though his repeated claims of illegal votes in an election he won. Oh the ironing.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Everyone is welcome to whatever definition they want. In the end though a leader is as legitimate as people think they are and someone's legitimacy definitely takes a hit in plenty of people's minds when they lose the popular vote as badly as he did.

 

[Maxima1]

If Bloomberg ran (to stop Sanders, which he indicated as his reasoning), and he effectively divided the liberal vote, so that Trump or him won, this guy would have to claim that it's legit. No, it's not. It would have been big BS, and this is probably a tactic they'll try to do if someone other than a corporate Democrat looks like they'll win the Democratic nomination.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can you imagine how badly it must get under their skin if they're still posting about it after the inauguration?

They're just trying to justify ruling as a minority. It's the same with gerrymandering & voter suppression. The Repub leadership has been shaping pseudo-democracy, voter apathy & the bunker mentality headsets among the faithful to support it for a long time. It's not like they believe in democracy at all, just that they have to create certain appearances to placate the plebes & be in power.

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

Legitimate to them is defined as whoever the leftist candidate was. Hey, he was taller than her, clearly he won by that metric! Meaningless metric is meaningless. Only the bitter idiots still cling to the popular vote as it actually means something.

 

[mect]

OP, good luck with that logic and reason crap. The queen did not get her crown, and the people of NY, CA and IL did not get to impose their decision on just about every other state in the country. Clearly the system is trash and needs to go 😉

Republicans love the concept of their own union separate from the population centers until it comes time to pay the bills. They want the money from NY, CA, and IL, but they don't want their input on how to use that money. Large population centers are so lucky! They get to subsidize the rest of the country with disproportionately small input on the nations politics.

 

[fskimospy]

It's been almost 3 months. He won under the system that was in place at the time of the election. It might be time to move beyond the EC vs. popular vote discussions and focus on the actual governance?

Maybe that's just me.

Considering the electoral college has given the US George W Bush and Donald Trump it seems like a pretty important thing to get rid of for next time, no?

The GOP has won the popular vote exactly once since 1988 (14% of the time) but has won almost half of the elections since then. That's a broken system.

 

[Maxima1]

They're just trying to justify ruling as a minority. It's the same with gerrymandering & voter suppression. The Repub leadership has been shaping pseudo-democracy, voter apathy & the bunker mentality headsets among the faithful to support it for a long time. It's not like they believe in democracy at all, just that they have to create certain appearances to placate the plebes & be in power.

The hilarious thing about it is that judicial deference is popular among conservative justices. It says that majorities should rule and courts should defer to the legislatures. Of course, the same justices will justify partisan gerrymandering, even though it allows minorities to win even if several percentages points behind.

 

[Atreus21]

Everyone is welcome to whatever definition they want. In the end though a leader is as legitimate as people think they are and someone's legitimacy definitely takes a hit in plenty of people's minds when they lose the popular vote as badly as he did.

Can't agree with that. Legitimate is a word with a definition, meaning following the law or the rules. Trump did that.

The word that is applicable to your description is unpopular. But legitimate he definitely remains.

 

[Atreus21]

Considering the electoral college has given the US George W Bush and Donald Trump it seems like a pretty important thing to get rid of for next time, no?

The GOP has won the popular vote exactly once since 1988 (14% of the time) but has won almost half of the elections since then. That's a broken system.

You're making assumptions here. You can't say with certainty that Al Gore or Hillary would've been president but for the EC. If the popular vote were the system, the candidates would've spent the bulk of their time in population centers, not swing states. And we can't be sure of the results.

 

[mect]

Can't agree with that. Legitimate is a word with a definition, meaning following the law or the rules. Trump did that.

The word that is applicable to your description is unpopular. But legitimate he definitely remains.

Legitimate has multiple definitions. One is what you put. Another is justified and reasonable.

 

[Blackjack200]

You're making assumptions here. You can't say with certainty that Al Gore or Hillary would've been president but for the EC. If the popular vote were the system, the candidates would've spent the bulk of their time in population centers, not swing states.

Yeah, imagine having to campaign to the entire country rather than a few brass-ring states. Sounds awful.

 

[Maxima1]

If the popular vote were the system, the candidates would've spent the bulk of their time in population centers, not swing states.

It's much more likely that this would have helped Hillary, since she would have more to court and Democrats can be helped more by higher turnout. Why do you think Republicans despise early voting and other initiatives that help increase turnout?

 

[Maxima1]

Republicans also like to put governor races at the midterms for obvious reasons.

 

[Atreus21]

Legitimate has multiple definitions. One is what you put. Another is justified and reasonable.

Dictionary.com lists 8 definitions:

1. according to law; lawful: Trump meets that.

2. in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards. Trump meets that.
3. born in wedlock or of legally married parents: Not applicable.
4. in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: Not applicable.

5. resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: Definitely not applicable.
6. not spurious or unjustified; genuine: Not applicable.
7. of the normal or regular type or kind. May or may not be. I'll not call Trump normal in the sense that he is conventional.
8. Theater. of or relating to professionally produced stage plays, asdistinguished from burlesque, vaudeville, television, motion pictures,etc.: Not applicable.

 

[Maxima1]

Dictionary.com lists 8 definitions:

1. according to law; lawful: Trump meets that.

2. in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards. Trump meets that.
3. born in wedlock or of legally married parents: Not applicable.
4. in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: Not applicable.

5. resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: Definitely not applicable.
6. not spurious or unjustified; genuine: Not applicable.
7. of the normal or regular type or kind. May or may not be. I'll not call Trump normal in the sense that he is conventional.
8. Theater. of or relating to professionally produced stage plays, asdistinguished from burlesque, vaudeville, television, motion pictures,etc.: Not applicable.

LOL You are unbelievable!

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah, imagine having to campaign to the entire country rather than a few brass-ring states. Sounds awful.

You're kidding right? Hillary only won the popular vote this past election mostly because of a single state.

 

[Atreus21]

LOL You are unbelievable!

...why. I posted definitions of the word legitimate.