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

[Atreus21]

303-235.

http://www.270towin.com/news/2017/0...pulation-alone-trump-303-clinton-235_442.html

Actual results:

Weighted results:

One of the objections after the election was that Wyoming citizens' votes count for more than California's owing to how they're weighted in the present EC system. 270towin experimented with that, weighting everyone's exactly the same and adjusting electoral votes accordingly. The difference was only slight:

Donald Trump would have received 303 electoral votes, a reduction of just three from the 306+ he actually won. That might seem surprising since Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. There's a second factor at work here, which is the margin of victory in each state. If we look at the states gaining the most using population, the ones Clinton won were by a much larger margin than those won by Trump. California gained 10 electoral votes, New York 5. Clinton won these by 30% and 23%, respectively. On the other hand, Trump won Texas, which gained 6, by 9%, and Florida, which gained 4, by just 1%.

In terms of electoral votes, winning a state by a huge margin is no better than winning by a very small one, and so, in a sense, all those extra actual votes cast for Clinton are not helpful in this framework. For those that favor a national popular vote, the methodology described on this page would likely not be a satisfactory alternative.

 

[fskimospy]

Then again under the system of weighting actual votes equally he would have lost.

 

[Maxima1]

Because of WTA this time.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yeah, no one objecting to the EC is saying keep the EC.
They'd simply use national popular vote totals.

 

[brycejones]

Ok cool story op. Feel better now?

 

[Blackjack200]

Then again under the system of weighting actual votes equally he would have lost.

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

 

[PokerGuy]

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

 

[Atreus21]

Then again under the system of weighting actual votes equally he would have lost.

I'm not debating the idea of the popular vote per se. I'm addressing the complaint about some states' votes being weighted more favorably than others because of the electoral college system.

 

[Atreus21]

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

Consider my eyes rolled.

It doesn't get under my skin. I just thought it was interesting.

 

[Maxima1]

Yeah, no one objecting to the EC is saying keep the EC.
They'd simply use national popular vote totals.

You could keep the EC. It's not only because of the small state bias. Another large reason why a minority candidate could win is the WTA allocation of electoral votes.

 

[K1052]

Yeah, no one objecting to the EC is saying keep the EC.
They'd simply use national popular vote totals.

This.

 

[Brainonska511]

Does this surprise you? The weighting of electoral votes by state popular vote still maintains the inherent bias that the EC has against places where people actually live.

 

[FIVR]

See? Totally legit.

 

[Blackjack200]

Consider my eyes rolled.

It doesn't get under my skin. I just thought it was interesting.

Yeah, fascinating. Reeally makes you think...

 

[Atreus21]

Does this surprise you? The weighting of electoral votes by state popular vote still maintains the inherent bias that the EC has against places where people actually live.

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

And people do actually live in Wyoming.

 

[Maxima1]

Does this surprise you? The weighting of electoral votes by state popular vote still maintains the inherent bias that the EC has against places where people actually live.

And even more ironic, where the jobs are.

 

[fskimospy]

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

Well it directly undermines Trump's legitimacy.

People want to think that their preferred policies have popular support. It's hard to act like what is happening is the will of the people when millions more people voted for the other person.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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

Sorta like those on the left constantly remind everyone that Clinton won the popular vote, guess it's must be so under their skin it's on their bones.

 

[Maxima1]

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

And people do actually live in Wyoming.

Al Gore would have won if the House electoral count was larger.

 

[Atreus21]

Well it directly undermines Trump's legitimacy.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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

Or put another way, the side with the most votes didn't get to have its way.

I mean it wasn't even close, liberalism won by millions.

 

[Brainonska511]

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

Like most of your other posts, this one is quite brain-dead. NY, CA, and IL alone cannot elect a president, even under a popular vote system. As it stands, those states registered voters only make up ~26% of the total number of registered voters in the US (146 million registered in the US, 18 million in CA, 8 million in IL, and 12.5 million in NY).

As it played out, the minority of this country is imposing its will on the majority. But I'm sure you'll find a way to conveniently ignore and dismiss that little fact.

 

[senseamp]

Trump lost the popular vote, and his approval starting out is at 40%.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

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.

 

[Atreus21]

You could keep the EC. It's not only because of the small state bias. Another large reason why a minority candidate could win is the WTA allocation of electoral votes.

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