Do you understand the Electoral College vs. Popular vote?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Hey you! Why not include the thread you did (that I eventually got of my ass to contribute to) from before to give the rundown of how it works and the side effects! It actually is pretty comprehensive despite the lack interest.

kickass thread

a reply to: Xcathdra

Trust me even I was adamant and illiterate about the electoral college until I decided to do my homework.

This is a very important part of our nations way of govern that should be taught in schools for children to know how it works in elementary schools along with the pre amble of the constitution.

Various times I tried to explain the process here in some threads talking about scraping the electoral college, but reality is that is not that many do not understand the process but that learning about the process is not what they are really posting about.

a reply to: freetheworld

Yes the word is that Trump will have the popularity vote at the end of the total count.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The last numbers I saw were Trump had 62.9 million votes to HRC's 62.2
Trump received 306 electoral votes to HRC's 232
youtu.be...

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hey you! Why not include the thread you did (that I eventually got of my ass to contribute to) from before to give the rundown of how it works and the side effects! It actually is pretty comprehensive despite the lack interest.

kickass thread

To be honest I completely forgot about that thread. Thanks for reminding me and posting the link.

a reply to: crazyewok

The problem I see (and where it needs reform) is the fact that in a number of states the electors can ignore the popular vote in there state. The reform should be that in ALL states the electors have to vote the way their state voted.

But that my friend would be taking away the States' power and rights. The federal government is NOT supposed to have the powers that it wields today.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

I shake my head, the more you tried to explain the loser side will never get it, until the next time their winner find itself in the same end of the stick, then they will be screaming that electoral votes are fair.

In our nation is been a growing movement to undermine the Republic and is working, because no longer schools teach what it means to be a nation of 50 states.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: JDeLattre89

I shake my head, the more you tried to explain the loser side will never get it, until the next time their winner find itself in the same end of the stick, then they will be screaming that electoral votes are fair.

In our nation is been a growing movement to undermine the Republic and is working, because no longer schools teach what it means to be a nation of 50 states.

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

1) I was never in favour of Hillary....EVER. Just because I despise Trump does not mean I ever supported Hillary or wanted her to win. Trump was the lesser of two evils.

2). I agree with the EC system within the USA. It is the only way to allow representation in a country the size of the USA.

3) I was only talking about taking away the ability of unfaithful electors. That should not impact a Trump win. In fact it would likely safeguard it because there is a risk of pro establishment delegates throwing their support behind Clinton.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

Another reason our schools need to be evaluated and fixed. Good job professor.

look to Kansas, republican governor cut the education budgets, and gave the tax money to the wealthy, that's the "fix" that will be instituted

a reply to: Xcathdra

I doubt that 160 million people live in those handful of counties.

While the number of electoral college votes are supposed to be based on a state's population, what makes no sense is "winner takes all".

Take Colorado for example. The vote was about 55% Hillary to 45% Trump yet Hillary received ALL of the electoral votes.

Why?

In essence, it was absolutely pointless for almost half of the state to vote.

And that makes sense to people?


People are confusing a democracy with a representative republic.

People are elected via a direct democracy.

EVERY public servant is elected via a popular vote: Governors, Congressmen, Sheriffs etc. The ONLY exception is the POTUS.

However, when it comes to governing or legislating, we are a REPUBLIC. In other words, if 51% of the people want to ban all guns, there is a law which prevents that, its called the Second Amendment.

It protects the RIGHTS of the minority.

See how thats completely different?


Finally, its TRUMP who called for a "REVOLUTION, fighting like hell and marching on DC" when he thought that Romney had won the popular vote only to "lose" the election.

In 2012 Trump called for a revolution saying "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy".

As it stands now, Hillary leads by 600,000 votes:

Election results.

Everything thats happening right now is completely hypocritical.

Even Trump's Sheriff pal who wants to put his boot on the necks of protesters, was advocating the same thing last month:

Cue Trump’s police state. Pro Trump cop David Clarke says anti-Trumpers need to be put down.

SMH.

originally posted by: 38181
I still don't get it after all these years, shouldn't the number of votes to a party be relative to the number of delagates?

In other words, 15 people vote for Hillary, 14 people vote for Trump, yet Trump gets more delagates. How can be?

Because that's a simplistic way of looking at the issues. it's not just about you.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Every presidential season we go through the same thing. “Why is there an electoral college?” “The electoral college is not fair!” “We should elect by popular vote!” and on and on. There appears to be a woeful lack of understanding why this situation developed, with many members fabricating or misunderstanding the reasons for it.

IN THE BEGINNING

The “United States of America” was a collective noun. It meant the original thirteen colonies united for a common purpose. Each colony was separately governed and there were many issues of discontent between them, so many that the United States Constitution is a document of compromise that barely passed. Each colony had good reasons for not joining and none of them wanted to sacrifice their own self-governance to the new “federal” government.

The biggest state by far was Virginia, which included West Virginia at the time. It was big in terms of size, in terms of population, and in terms of influence. It dominated early American politics. Indeed, four of the first five presidents were from Virginia and, except for John Adams’ single term of four years, Virginians controlled the presidency for 32 of the 36 years until 1825. Many of the early issues revolved around slavery and, of course, Virginia was a slave state. Basically what happened with the slave issue was that they kicked the can down the road for the next generation to deal with, the result of which was the Civil War, which killed more people than all the other American wars combined.

The biggest issue, then, was states’ rights. Today we tend to think this meant the right of the southern states to keep slavery, but that’s not really true. It was the opposite. The southern states are large; the northern states generally are not. ‘States’ rights referred just as much to Rhode Island being smothered by the other states as it did Georgia. Of the original 13 colonies, half of them were tiny and they were all northern. Delaware and Rhode Island are smaller than many western counties.

And they all demanded their rights! And the biggest way they got them was through the biggest compromise in the US Constitution: The House of Representatives versus the Senate. The House, of course, is elected via popular vote according to the size of the population, so a populous state gets way more representatives than a non-populous state. But the Senate is composed of two senators for each state, no matter how large or small. So in the Senate Virginia was “no bigger” than Rhode Island.

Further, the Senate was elected NOT by a vote of the people, but by the State legislatures. Now you could say there was a connection to “the people” because the legislators themselves were elected by the people, but the message there was that the Senate represented the States themselves where the House represented the people directly. That was how the United States (plural) came to be.

THE EROSION OF STATES’ RIGHTS

When the next generation caught up with the can the issues were still smoldering, and this resulted in the Civil War. Today we think and even insist that the war was all about slavery. This is one of the biggest public relations coups in history that is still believed by the majority even today. But slavery as an institution was in a tailspin. It wasn’t economically viable. The old “plantation model” instituted by Great Britain was eroding.

The real reason was “states’ rights” and when the south seceded, Lincoln invaded and forced the south back into the fold. For the first time the “United States of America” became a singular noun. It was one country, not a collective of separate countries with a loose and limited federal government. This was the beginning of the end because the federalist weren’t finished.

Next on the list was the Senate. A campaign started to change the very idea of the Senate into another House with direct election of the Senators. The campaign painted the Senate as group of cronies chosen by corrupt legislatures which chose Senators because of vote buying and corruption. If we chose senators by popular vote, it was stated, this would eliminate that corruption and clean house. This whole issue started in the early 19th century and was later promoted by none other than William Randolph Hearst, who called senators every name in the book. Even by today’s low standards the politics of the situation were harsh. It was another PR coup as the 17th amendment was passed in 1914.

THE EFFECT OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The formula is straightforward. The number of electoral college members is s simple addition of the number of legislators in the House plus the number of Senators in the state, so Alaska, and Wyoming each have a single representative in the House plus two senators for a total of three Electoral College votes. California, on the other hand, has 53 legislators and two senators for a total of 55 votes.

One of the provisions of this process is the “winner take all” rule where if 50% +1 of the popular vote goes to candidate X, that candidate gets all the electoral college votes. This is a state-controlled issue. It is NOT an overall rule and there are a couple of states that do not allocate electoral college votes in this manner.

The overall result of this is that it gives a very slight edge to the less populous states. It’s enough of an edge that a candidate cannot get away with campaigning in New York, Pennsylvania, and California and calling it a wrap. And in a very tight campaign where both candidates are approaching the winning number of 270, any single state could provide the margin for victory.

The Electoral College was designed to prevent an all-powerful central government. That is, of course, what we already have. States’ rights have been eroded to the point where states by themselves are ineffectual and virtually powerless against the huge central government. The fears of the Founders have been realized. It took about 100 years to do it, but it’s just about done.

The amazing part of this story is that we actually have people who believe they are being disenfranchised BECAUSE of the Electoral College which, if it went away, would result in these very same voters being MORE disenfranchised than they are today. At least today there is a chance for a voter’s choice to have an effect, but without the Electoral College, people in the vast majority of states may as well not even vote, because the election will be decided by city dwellers in California, New York, and Pennsylvania, both coasts, where the fly-over states may as well be a different country.

a reply to: 38181

you have greater disparity between votes in populous states like cali and new York

so Whike one person wins many more states and electoral votes, they win those states by lesser margins than the other wins larger states. our even if you win by the same margins, the states are less populous so you're going to have a few extra votes in your favor.

jaden

a reply to: crazyewok

Do you even read my post, I never mention who I was talking about, my answer was a generalized one after reading many post in the boards.

If your name was on top of the post I didn't even noticed until it was too late.

Get a grip.

a reply to: gladtobehere
Points taken and food for thought.

As for Hillary and your link it does not reflect the fact MI went to trump a day ago. He has over 300 electoral votes now and the popular vote went from 60+/- million to 62 +/- million. Trump has 62.8 million and Clinton has 62.3 million.

Some might also argue that a benefit of the electoral college is to circumvent the will of the people (popular vote) should an unqualified, unfit candidate gets the majority of the popular vote on a per-state basis. While that is a catch 22 in itself, the electoral college can vote how it wishes; it has a duty to vote for the most qualified.

See Federalist 68.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.

a reply to: schuyler

You can say slavery and not try to hide it behind states rights. The founding fathers are very clear on why many of these are in the constitution. It was to appease slave states.

cgp grey has some really great youtube videos about the electoral college and voting in general. the electoral college was created because before the internet, tv, and phones, people in washington would have waited a long time for all those ponies to carry all the vote totals from all the states, and if a guy fell off a horse and died on the way.... well who knows what vermont would have wanted? it made a lot of sense at the time but it doesn't make sense anymore. but if we get the option to get rid of the electoral college, we should eliminate the "first past the post" voting system, too. i would love to see the voting system grey describes where you rank your choices for president, and the winner has to end up with a real majority, over 50%. i mean, if we're going to change it, let's really change it and make it work for more than just 2 parties.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Those counties are where the largest cities / metro reporting areas (megalopolis) are located, including their suburbs...

Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami, New York, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia etc etc..........