Electoral College. Just why?

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

the minority have no say now ...unless yo mean the filthy rich minority.

And if the EC is removed then it will be none at all.

Well Im not for totally removing the EC....but the idea that it somehow gives representation to the minority, as set up now, is pure bunk.


Don't take my word for it, do some research on it yourself.
There are too many in this nation who do not understand it at all.


someone above gave some pretty interesting stats on how "battleground" states get more federal largess....and those aren't the flyover states....


2010 Census - State Population and the Distribution of Electoral Votes and Representatives
Notice that Texas gained 4
AZ gained 1
New York lost 2
Illinois lost 1
and so on.
The Electoral College - How It Works Today
Each state is given a set number of Electors, determined by the number of the its U.S. Congressmen. The number of Representatives in each state correlates with the state population and is amended every decade when the Census is taken.

This means that AZ gained 1 and could very well go blue for electoral college votes in 2016 because a large minority of Hispanics moved to AZ in the last 10 years.
Hispanics tend to vote for Dem's more than Repubs.
 
Last edited:
States rights are paramount in the constitution, period. All of this prattle about they gave their power to the feds is ridiculous. This is exactly why each state has 2 senators regardless of its size, and one of the reasons the EC has value. Were it not like this, the large states would just over run the small ones at every turn. Sure, California and New York would love this, but Montana, Utah, and Kansas would not. Lets face it, if senators were chosen the way the constitution says they should be, Washington would not be in the disaster it is today. Senators answer to nobody, and their main purpose originally was to protect the interest of the state they represented. Washington would love to get rid of the EC, because they would then only have to pander to the population centers since the senate is useless. Carry New York, LA, Frisco, Chicago, St Louis, and few others significantly, and the rest of the country does your bidding. Sorry, I don't think so!
 
Senators answer to nobody, and their main purpose originally was to protect the interest of the state they represented.

Wouldnt they answer to the state government then....
 
Senators answer to nobody, and their main purpose originally was to protect the interest of the state they represented.

Wouldnt they answer to the state government then....
They were suppose to answer to their state legislators, and be appointed by them too. If they voted against what the state legislators wanted, then they could be removed by that states legislators.

Were it that way today, Flake and Mcain would have been toast long ago, so would Cochran and few others. This was supposed to be how the states exerted their will upon the federal government; and in fact the constitution and the formation of the United States would not have happened if it had not come to pass. Trust me when I say------>the federal government was NOT supposed to have the power it has now, and slowly but surely, it continues to try and strip states rights away.

The states created the feds for the good of everyone, and now the feds seek to devour them. The states were smart enough to put safeguards in the constitution in case the feds tried to do this so as the people could prevent it. And what do we find today? That some people try and convince everyone it is a good idea to let a city far, far, from your home, dictate to you what is in your best interest. They are soooooooo smart, they have led us into a depression, wars, a financial collapse almost, a housing bubble, inflation, deflation, an oil crisis, some tried to keep black people slaves; but oh yeah, Washington knows better. NOT!!!!!!! Just everyone ask themselves------>if they are sooooo smart, why do they have to lie to you to get elected! And if they are soooo smart, why can they only convince 50 to 52% of the people to vote for them. Should make you wonder.
 
[QUOTE
States rights are paramount in the constitution, period. All of this prattle about they gave their power to the feds is ridiculous. This is exactly why each state has 2 senators regardless of its size, and one of the reasons the EC has value. Were it not like this, the large states would just over run the small ones at every turn. Sure, California and New York would love this, but Montana, Utah, and Kansas would not. Lets face it, if senators were chosen the way the constitution says they should be, Washington would not be in the disaster it is today. Senators answer to nobody, and their main purpose originally was to protect the interest of the state they represented. Washington would love to get rid of the EC, because they would then only have to pander to the population centers since the senate is useless. Carry New York, LA, Frisco, Chicago, St Louis, and few others significantly, and the rest of the country does your bidding. Sorry, I don't think so!
Of course, the states gave the national government much of their power with the Constitution. The national government had no power until the Constitution was ratified.
 
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure
 
States rights are paramount in the constitution, period. All of this prattle about they gave their power to the feds is ridiculous. This is exactly why each state has 2 senators regardless of its size, and one of the reasons the EC has value. Were it not like this, the large states would just over run the small ones at every turn. Sure, California and New York would love this, but Montana, Utah, and Kansas would not. Lets face it, if senators were chosen the way the constitution says they should be, Washington would not be in the disaster it is today. Senators answer to nobody, and their main purpose originally was to protect the interest of the state they represented. Washington would love to get rid of the EC, because they would then only have to pander to the population centers since the senate is useless. Carry New York, LA, Frisco, Chicago, St Louis, and few others significantly, and the rest of the country does your bidding. Sorry, I don't think so!

Actually I think Washington special interests love the Senate, its easier to bribe and cajole 100 senators than all the representatives.....and the ratio of representatives to citizens itself hasnt kept pace with population as for years it did.

If the Senate is to represent the states, then non-state interests should be barred from contributing money to Senate campaigns.
 
States rights are paramount in the constitution, period. All of this prattle about they gave their power to the feds is ridiculous. This is exactly why each state has 2 senators regardless of its size, and one of the reasons the EC has value. Were it not like this, the large states would just over run the small ones at every turn. Sure, California and New York would love this, but Montana, Utah, and Kansas would not. Lets face it, if senators were chosen the way the constitution says they should be, Washington would not be in the disaster it is today. Senators answer to nobody, and their main purpose originally was to protect the interest of the state they represented. Washington would love to get rid of the EC, because they would then only have to pander to the population centers since the senate is useless. Carry New York, LA, Frisco, Chicago, St Louis, and few others significantly, and the rest of the country does your bidding. Sorry, I don't think so!

Actually I think Washington special interests love the Senate, its easier to bribe and cajole 100 senators than all the representatives.....and the ratio of representatives to citizens itself hasnt kept pace with population as for years it did.

If the Senate is to represent the states, then non-state interests should be barred from contributing money to Senate campaigns.

So if you wanted to protect gun rights, free speech rights or any other right, you think you would NOT want to contribute to the campaigns of people outside of your state?

I doubt many pols are bribed.

like Yarddog , people like dcraelin just shit everywhere you go and complain that nobody is picking up after them
 
It's a check on the larger states.
As noted, I've noted, the current state-by-state winner-take-all electoral system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but later enacted by state laws) is NOT a guaranteed check on the larger states.

The 11 most populous states (with over 270 electoral votes), by themselves, containing 56% of the population of the United States, could determine the Presidency.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
 
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II.

Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012).

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
 
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II.

Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012).

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.
 
States rights are paramount in the constitution, period. All of this prattle about they gave their power to the feds is ridiculous. This is exactly why each state has 2 senators regardless of its size, and one of the reasons the EC has value. Were it not like this, the large states would just over run the small ones at every turn. Sure, California and New York would love this, but Montana, Utah, and Kansas would not. Lets face it, if senators were chosen the way the constitution says they should be, Washington would not be in the disaster it is today. Senators answer to nobody, and their main purpose originally was to protect the interest of the state they represented. Washington would love to get rid of the EC, because they would then only have to pander to the population centers since the senate is useless. Carry New York, LA, Frisco, Chicago, St Louis, and few others significantly, and the rest of the country does your bidding. Sorry, I don't think so!

Again,

National Popular Vote would not "get rid of the Electoral College."

The Electoral College
is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

With National Popular Vote, we would continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes.

With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America voted 60% Republican.
None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only
15% of the population of the United States.
16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities.
They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not Democratic in every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
 
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II.

Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012).

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

Yes, Obama won in nearly every of the only 12 contested states (while 80% of us were not politically relevant).

But, 2012 was not a landslide election.

"One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent." What Is a Landslide Election

% Popular Vote - Obama 51.1%, Romney 47.1%
# Popular Vote - Obama 65,915,796 - Romney 60,933,6000
# States won - Obama 26 + DC, Romney 24
Electoral Votes - Obama 332 - Romney 206
 
images
 
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II.

Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012).

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

Yes, Obama won in nearly every of the only 12 contested states (while 80% of us were not politically relevant).

But, 2012 was not a landslide election.

"One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent." What Is a Landslide Election

% Popular Vote - Obama 51.1%, Romney 47.1%
# Popular Vote - Obama 65,915,796 - Romney 60,933,6000
# States won - Obama 26 + DC, Romney 24
Electoral Votes - Obama 332 - Romney 206

Yeah...whatever.

When you compete in 10 events and win 9 of them; that's a landslide.
 
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II.

Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012).

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

Yes, Obama won in nearly every of the only 12 contested states (while 80% of us were not politically relevant).

But, 2012 was not a landslide election.

"One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent." What Is a Landslide Election

% Popular Vote - Obama 51.1%, Romney 47.1%
# Popular Vote - Obama 65,915,796 - Romney 60,933,6000
# States won - Obama 26 + DC, Romney 24
Electoral Votes - Obama 332 - Romney 206

Yeah...whatever.

When you compete in 10 events and win 9 of them; that's a landslide.

50 states plus DC vote in U.S. presidential elections.
Winning 9 of 51 is not a landslide.
 
It's a check on the larger states.
As noted, I've noted, the current state-by-state winner-take-all electoral system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but later enacted by state laws) is NOT a guaranteed check on the larger states.

The 11 most populous states (with over 270 electoral votes), by themselves, containing 56% of the population of the United States, could determine the Presidency.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

your talk of wasted votes gets me thinking that people should be more educated on that aspect as it could open the ground for third parties which the electorate say they want.

no democrat in Texas for example should waste their vote on a democrat if they can vote for a green....or, even help out a more rt-wing third party.

no republican in NewYork or California should vote for a republican...if they can vote for a constitutionalist or a libertarian, or even help out a more left-leaning party like the greens. .
 
it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II.

Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012).

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

Yes, Obama won in nearly every of the only 12 contested states (while 80% of us were not politically relevant).

But, 2012 was not a landslide election.

"One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent." What Is a Landslide Election

% Popular Vote - Obama 51.1%, Romney 47.1%
# Popular Vote - Obama 65,915,796 - Romney 60,933,6000
# States won - Obama 26 + DC, Romney 24
Electoral Votes - Obama 332 - Romney 206

Yeah...whatever.

When you compete in 10 events and win 9 of them; that's a landslide.

50 states plus DC vote in U.S. presidential elections.
Winning 9 of 51 is not a landslide.

Obama won almost every state he competed in. It was a landslide.
 

Forum List

Back
Top