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

[351Cleveland]

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?

Small states as in not California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. I know Trump visited quite a few. Nevada (5), Indiana (11), West Virginia (5), South Carolina (9), New Hampshire (4), Iowa (6) come to mind. I cant say that anyone visited the Dakotas or Montana.

If it were pure popular vote, then there would be states that might as well not even bother. They would have no influence on the outcome, and effectively no participation in the executive branch. That is why I suggest the system that I... suggested. Split the House votes up by popular vote (or even congressional district, as that is what they really represent), and award the Senate votes to state winners. This last election shows the importance of carrying not just votes, but states. It gives meaning to winning those states with next to no population. Otherwise the time spent campaigning would be limited to 5-7 states, where we probably see candidates in half of states now.

Electoral college isn't going away without a constitutional amendment. States decide how they award electoral votes. I'd like to see states allocate votes differently as I said, but even in the last election (no idea on elections previous to that, but the Bush elections would be interesting to look at), it would not have mattered.

 

[Brainonska511]

Small states as in not California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. I know Trump visited quite a few. Nevada (5), Indiana (11), West Virginia (5), South Carolina (9), New Hampshire (4), Iowa (6) come to mind. I cant say that anyone visited the Dakotas or Montana.

If it were pure popular vote, then there would be states that might as well not even bother. They would have no influence on the outcome, and effectively no participation in the executive branch. That is why I suggest the system that I... suggested. Split the House votes up by popular vote (or even congressional district, as that is what they really represent), and award the Senate votes to state winners. This last election shows the importance of carrying not just votes, but states. It gives meaning to winning those states with next to no population. Otherwise the time spent campaigning would be limited to 5-7 states, where we probably see candidates in half of states now.

Electoral college isn't going away without a constitutional amendment. States decide how they award electoral votes. I'd like to see states allocate votes differently as I said, but even in the last election (no idea on elections previous to that, but the Bush elections would be interesting to look at), it would not have mattered.

There are already states that shouldn't even bother - How about half the western states? Campaigns are already limited to a few "swing" states and everything else is practically ignored. Your mistake is to believe that "big states" have some uniform population and would 100% go towards one party under a popular vote system.

And the popular vote can take hold sans constitutional amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

With the nature of gerrymandering, I would loathe to live under system that splits any electoral votes based on Congressional districting.

 

[fskimospy]

Small states as in not California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. I know Trump visited quite a few. Nevada (5), Indiana (11), West Virginia (5), South Carolina (9), New Hampshire (4), Iowa (6) come to mind. I cant say that anyone visited the Dakotas or Montana.

If it were pure popular vote, then there would be states that might as well not even bother. They would have no influence on the outcome, and effectively no participation in the executive branch. That is why I suggest the system that I... suggested. Split the House votes up by popular vote (or even congressional district, as that is what they really represent), and award the Senate votes to state winners. This last election shows the importance of carrying not just votes, but states. It gives meaning to winning those states with next to no population. Otherwise the time spent campaigning would be limited to 5-7 states, where we probably see candidates in half of states now.

Electoral college isn't going away without a constitutional amendment. States decide how they award electoral votes. I'd like to see states allocate votes differently as I said, but even in the last election (no idea on elections previous to that, but the Bush elections would be interesting to look at), it would not have mattered.

The electoral college can be effectively eliminated without a constitutional amendment.

More importantly though, why is visiting more areas based on arbitrarily drawn borders more important than visiting more citizens? Also, you realize this allows the presidency to be gerrymandered, right? Think of how skewed the House is right now.

 

[IronWing]

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.

Then why did you bother making this thread predicated on a different metric? It seems like a desperate attempt argue against that fact that Trump lost the popular vote, period. Just as he won the EC vote, period.

If that wasn't your intent then what was your intent?

 

[PokerGuy]

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?

Just because the lefties like to riot and loot when they don't get their way doesn't mean other more reasonable people would not have voted. As it stands, people in many states don't have an incentive to vote because the outcome of the vote in their state is already pre-determined.

 

[PokerGuy]

The electoral college can be effectively eliminated without a constitutional amendment.

You've said this numerous times, but the reality is that it just can't and won't happen. The only states that would sign on to the idiotic agreement are the ones that were voting democrat anyway. No sane state would do it.

More importantly though, why is visiting more areas based on arbitrarily drawn borders more important than visiting more citizens?

Because not everyone in the entire country wants to be ruled by what a bunch of idiots in two or three highly populated areas think. That is why balance is important.

 

[fskimospy]

You've said this numerous times, but the reality is that it just can't and won't happen. The only states that would sign on to the idiotic agreement are the ones that were voting democrat anyway. No sane state would do it.

Because not everyone in the entire country wants to be ruled by what a bunch of idiots in two or three highly populated areas think. That is why balance is important.

Lol, that's what we basically have now, just in a few closely divided areas. I always enjoy watching you twist yourself into knots trying to think of a reason why the president of all Americans shouldn't be the person the most Americans wanted to be president.

It's simplicity itself and it's by far the most logical choice. Your preferred ideology doesn't get special privileges then though, and you can't stomach that.

 

[Lash444]

All I know is that Alaska is getting screwed here. 3 Electoral votes when they have 17% of the land mass of the U.S.? Rhode island with more electoral votes? This is ridiculous. Trump should have won in a landslide. Alaska is 4 times as big as California!

 

[fskimospy]

All I know is that Alaska is getting screwed here. 3 Electoral votes when they have 17% of the land mass of the U.S.? Rhode island with more electoral votes? This is ridiculous. Trump should have won in a landslide. Alaska is 4 times as big as California!

We should just draw some more imaginary lines through Alaska and give it 40 to 50 more electoral votes and a whole bunch of senators.

For far too long this huge portion of the United States has been under the tyrannical yoke of other states, all for the illogical reason that people actually live in them.

 

[IronWing]

If acres voted, Ted Turner would be king of New Mexico and maybe Wyoming.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I'm glad for the ec. We don't need overpopulated states like California or NY determining the election. California is in such a mess that the people can't leave fast enough. My state and others are dealing with increasing population due to so many coming from Cali. I really don't even recognize my hometown anymore. So many people are moving in. I've heard Colorado is dealing with the same thing.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

All I know is that Alaska is getting screwed here. 3 Electoral votes when they have 17% of the land mass of the U.S.? Rhode island with more electoral votes? This is ridiculous. Trump should have won in a landslide. Alaska is 4 times as big as California!

Not exactly. Alsakan votes are worth more than just about anywhere else. Your one vote carries 2.5 times what my one vote does.

https://mistergone.github.io/electoral-charts/

 

[thraashman]

If acres voted, Ted Turner would be king of New Mexico and maybe Wyoming.

It seems that Wyoming isn't one of the states he owns a lot of land in, Wikipedia indicates he owns ranches in Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Also, I didn't know this one, but he's no longer the largest private land own in the US, John C. Malone is. Most of his land is in Maine.

I'm glad for the ec. We don't need overpopulated states like California or NY determining the election. California is in such a mess that the people can't leave fast enough. My state and others are dealing with increasing population due to so many coming from Cali. I really don't even recognize my hometown anymore. So many people are moving in. I've heard Colorado is dealing with the same thing.

Actually based on the EC, states ARE determining the election now. If we moved to a popular vote, PEOPLE would determine the election instead. How many times have I heard conservatives scream about WE THE PEOPLE? Well more of us voted for Hillary so We The People are not getting represented.

 

[IronWing]

It seems that Wyoming isn't one of the states he owns a lot of land in, Wikipedia indicates he owns ranches in Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Also, I didn't know this one, but he's no longer the largest private land own in the US, John C. Malone is. Most of his land is in Maine.

I wonder if he either sold off land in Wyoming or if he never owned much there. When I lived there ~2000AD, folks were certain he was buying up the place.

 

[bshole]

Then why did you bother making this thread predicated on a different metric? It seems like a desperate attempt argue against that fact that Trump lost the popular vote, period. Just as he won the EC vote, period.

If that wasn't your intent then what was your intent?

That was my impression as well. The fact that Trump lost the popular vote apparently bothers some of his supporters. It is somewhat amusing to watch the mental gymnastics they use to convince themselves of a truth that does not exist.

 

[IronWing]

That was my impression as well. The fact that Trump lost the popular vote apparently bothers some of his supporters. It is somewhat amusing to watching the mental gymnastics they use to convince themselves of a truth that does not exist.

Oops, could you know, sort of, maybe change that first won to lost?

 

[JockoJohnson]

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.

It's actually quite sad to see you arguing this point. You are certainly one of the most informed posters on this forum. However, the candidates did not campaign to win popular vote. You are giving the popular vote for president too much credit. If they campaigned on popular vote, it would be a completely different number and perhaps Hillary would still win. Are you assuming that all people who would vote actually did come out to vote? You don't think some people stayed home because they figured their vote won't count because their state is either a solid blue or solid red? It certainly didn't in CA but I will give it to CA, they take their right to vote seriously. I wish everyone that could vote would come out and vote.

And just because people think something, that makes it true? Is that like Republican's alternate facts? If they think it is not legitimate then it must not be legitimate.

The reason Rs/conservatives are so triggered by discussions of popular vote is because it does not matter as much as people make it out because of how campaigns were run. It is how liberals react to some of the stupidity that shows up with Rs/conservatives and their beliefs. You know you are right but they just won't listen to logic and reason.

If you are convinced that you are correct with respect to the power of the popular vote vs. EC, please convince me. I am open to understanding why people are putting so much weight on popular vote when BOTH candidates did not campaign to win popular vote.

 

[fskimospy]

It's actually quite sad to see you arguing this point. You are certainly one of the most informed posters on this forum. However, the candidates did not campaign to win popular vote. You are giving the popular vote for president too much credit. If they campaigned on popular vote, it would be a completely different number and perhaps Hillary would still win. Are you assuming that all people who would vote actually did come out to vote? You don't think some people stayed home because they figured their vote won't count because their state is either a solid blue or solid red? It certainly didn't in CA but I will give it to CA, they take their right to vote seriously. I wish everyone that could vote would come out and vote.

This has already been gone over, there's little reason to think that higher turnout would help Republicans as they have higher turnout to begin with. There's simply fewer voters to 'mine'. By far the most likely answer is a Clinton victory, probably by a larger margin than it was this time.

And just because people think something, that makes it true? Is that like Republican's alternate facts? If they think it is not legitimate then it must not be legitimate.

It has nothing to do with what is 'true', I'm saying that in a practical sense legitimacy is what people think it is. How did almost every royal dynasty start in the past? By killing/usurping the throne from someone else. When did they become legitimate? When people decided they were legitimate. Leaders are legitimate if people accept they are and no amount of waving of legal documents will save them if people think otherwise. That's my point.

The reason Rs/conservatives are so triggered by discussions of popular vote is because it does not matter as much as people make it out because of how campaigns were run. It is how liberals react to some of the stupidity that shows up with Rs/conservatives and their beliefs. You know you are right but they just won't listen to logic and reason.

If you are convinced that you are correct with respect to the power of the popular vote vs. EC, please convince me. I am open to understanding why people are putting so much weight on popular vote when BOTH candidates did not campaign to win popular vote.

Because:
1) There's not a lot of evidence that campaigns matter very much.
2) As mentioned above, higher turnout is likely to disproportionately benefit Democrats as they simply have more targets to turn out.
3) So if the campaign doesn't matter, then how they campaigned doesn't matter. If it does matter, it's probably beneficial to Democrats. Ergo: popular vote win.
4) All that aside, popular vote of their constituents is how we elect literally every other office in the country and it makes sense to do that here.

 

[bshole]

Oops, could you know, sort of, maybe change that first won to lost?

LoL, done! I knew what your saying anyways.

 

[JockoJohnson]

This has already been gone over, there's little reason to think that higher turnout would help Republicans as they have higher turnout to begin with. There's simply fewer voters to 'mine'. By far the most likely answer is a Clinton victory, probably by a larger margin than it was this time.



It has nothing to do with what is 'true', I'm saying that in a practical sense legitimacy is what people think it is. How did almost every royal dynasty start in the past? By killing/usurping the throne from someone else. When did they become legitimate? When people decided they were legitimate. Leaders are legitimate if people accept they are and no amount of waving of legal documents will save them if people think otherwise. That's my point.



Because:
1) There's not a lot of evidence that campaigns matter very much.
2) As mentioned above, higher turnout is likely to disproportionately benefit Democrats as they simply have more targets to turn out.
3) So if the campaign doesn't matter, then how they campaigned doesn't matter. If it does matter, it's probably beneficial to Democrats. Ergo: popular vote win.
4) All that aside, popular vote of their constituents is how we elect literally every other office in the country and it makes sense to do that here.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I will mull over the information but do need to assert that point #1 states that there is not a lot of evidence that campaigns matter very much which allows for point #3 to be stated. Not something I entirely agree with but will research if it is accurate. Point #4 does get to the heart of the issue. However, I do not see the EC being changed any time in the near future even with the results of an election that we just went through.

 

[sdifox]

I wish we (Canadians) can move to proportional representation quickly. I am tired of party politics.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I wish we (Canadians) can move to proportional representation quickly. I am tired of party politics.

I think you guys are automatically approved for Statehood if you ask. I remember reading that somewhere.

 

[sdifox]

I think you guys are automatically approved for Statehood if you ask. I remember reading that somewhere.

Yeah no. No way are we assuming your debt. And your crazy gun right.

 

[dainthomas]

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

That's why Trump and his minions are still droning on about it. It's not enough that he won the electoral vote, he has to win in ways that don't even matter for the sole purpose of humiliating his political enemies.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I wish we (Canadians) can move to proportional representation quickly. I am tired of party politics.

Somehow I don't think that's what we'll end up with. If the govt. follows through on their vote reform plans it will most likely end up being some type of ranked ballot system.