The electoral college and how it changes voting

[yiostheoy]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Were you paying attention in school when the teachers explained the large state / small state issue and debate ?! The bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House Of Reps deals with that issue at the legislative level.

At the Presidential level, the electoral college deals with this issue perfectly as well.

I understand the system. I just don't like how a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote anywhere else.

It is not really worth "more".

There is a proportionality issue involved related to the latest census.

 

[yiostheoy]

Did I vote? Did I accept the system?

Ever heard of the word "change"? It's like saying you elected a govt, therefore you shouldn't expect any change from that govt. Er... what kind of logic is that?

I'm saying IN FUTURE ELECTIONS I want a fairer system.

In school the teachers were also supposed to impress upon your supposedly impressionable mind that amending the Constitution was purposely made difficult for the sake of stability.

 

[yiostheoy]

The population of Texas to the electoral college votes it has, means a person is worth 3.8 times less than a person in Wyoming. California hardly has 30% of the population. They have a population of 39 million, 30% of 300 million is clearly not 39 million. 90 million is 30%. So someone was telling you porkies.

The problem with California (and NYS, and NJ, and Mass., and ILL) is that the Communist influence there is such that they simply ignore the Constitution in most cases.

Those kinds of nut cake are indeed a liability on the rest of the Nation and so when a Communist like Hillary runs against a Capitalist like Trump, you really want the Capitalist to win out over the Communist.

Plus, I love my dear assault weapon, it keeps me so warm, and if some thug or terrorist attacks me with their assault weapon, I can shoot the sh!t out of them first with my own.

 

[Slyhunter]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

um, it hasn't changed voting, it's always been that way.

 

[frigidweirdo]

More whining from the Left. A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years. I don't New York, California & Texas deciding each election.

"Worked well for over 220 years"?

Worked so well it kept slavery around, kept women down, nullifies the votes of tens of millions who don't happen to vote the way their state does, creates artificial barriers of "red" and "blue" states, discourages voting in those states at all, perpetuates the Duopoly, biases voting to the eastern time zones, and makes us dependent on polls to determine whether we may as well not even bother to vote because it's already decided regardless what we do.

That sure is "working well" ain't it.

It sure is. Keeps 3 states (or more precisely 2 cities on opposite coasts) from nullifying the wishes & votes of the other 47. Makes places like New Hampshire & North Dakota relevant. Lessens the likelihood of voter fraud by conducting 51 separate elections across the country.

The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College

That doesn't make much sense at all.

You think it's unfair that the majority of the country has the say, rather than some system which weighs everything in favor of the right.... I don't get it.

California is the largest state. Democrat.
Texas is the second largest. Republican.
Florida is the 3rd largest, mixes between the two.
New York is the 4th largest, Democrat.
6th and 7th are swing states, 8th and 9th are Republican.

59 million people, just over 1/6th of the US population, wouldn't decide an election.

Also, change would bring new parties. Have PR in Congress and you'd have four to eight parties in Congress, rather than two.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The population of Texas to the electoral college votes it has, means a person is worth 3.8 times less than a person in Wyoming. California hardly has 30% of the population. They have a population of 39 million, 30% of 300 million is clearly not 39 million. 90 million is 30%. So someone was telling you porkies.

The problem with California (and NYS, and NJ, and Mass., and ILL) is that the Communist influence there is such that they simply ignore the Constitution in most cases.

Those kinds of nut cake are indeed a liability on the rest of the Nation and so when a Communist like Hillary runs against a Capitalist like Trump, you really want the Capitalist to win out over the Communist.

Plus, I love my dear assault weapon, it is so warm, and if some thug or terrorist attacks me with their assault weapon I can shoot the sh!t out of them first with mine.

Wow, we're going off on one about Communism.

Come on then, prove this "communist influence".

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

um, it hasn't changed voting, it's always been that way.

No, it hasn't actually. Wyoming didn't vote in the first election, see?

 

[Missourian]

If it's a problem for ya...move to Wyoming. #simplesolutions

 

[candycorn]

Hillary and the Dems should be happy that she did so well in an election that has historically punished the party in control of the Oval.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Were you paying attention in school when the teachers explained the large state / small state issue and debate ?! The bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House Of Reps deals with that issue at the legislative level.

At the Presidential level, the electoral college deals with this issue perfectly as well.

I understand the system. I just don't like how a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote anywhere else.

It is not really worth "more".

There is a proportionality issue involved related to the latest census.

Er... you're wrong, but anyway.

Florida has 699,000 people per electoral college vote.
Alaska has 246,000 people per electoral college vote. (I found a mistake in my chart, and it's changed a bit. Alaska has a vote being worth 3 times higher, Wyoming 2.9 times higher.

 

[Lewdog]

My biggest problem is the fact that it does discourage the development of a third party. It's hard to fix a system that is clearly weighed in favor of a certain party.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hillary and the Dems should be happy that she did so well in an election that has historically punished the party in control of the Oval.

They should be happy more people voted for them and they lost? Er.... yeah, I'll kick you in the balls and tell you that you should be happy you don't have testicular cancer.

 

[Pogo]

Did I vote? Did I accept the system?

Ever heard of the word "change"? It's like saying you elected a govt, therefore you shouldn't expect any change from that govt. Er... what kind of logic is that?

I'm saying IN FUTURE ELECTIONS I want a fairer system.

In school the teachers were also supposed to impress upon your supposedly impressionable mind that amending the Constitution was purposely made difficult for the sake of stability.

Actually amending the Constitution isn't the only way around the status quo.

You see son, that same Constitution leaves it completely up to the states how they pick their electors and how they have them vote. This "winner take all" crapola isn't part of the Constitution at all. In fact two states already split their EV, and others have in the past. So you don't need a Constitution change. You can do it at the state level.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did I vote? Did I accept the system?

Ever heard of the word "change"? It's like saying you elected a govt, therefore you shouldn't expect any change from that govt. Er... what kind of logic is that?

I'm saying IN FUTURE ELECTIONS I want a fairer system.

In school the teachers were also supposed to impress upon your supposedly impressionable mind that amending the Constitution was purposely made difficult for the sake of stability.

Actually amending the Constitution isn't the only way around the status quo.

You see son, that same Constitution leaves it completely up to the states how they pick their electors and how they have them vote. This "winner take all" crapola isn't part of the Constitution at all. In fact two states already split their EV, and others have in the past. So you don't need a Constitution change. You can do it at the state level.

There is a campaign for this. However left wing states aren't willing to do it without right wing states doing it, and right wing states don't give a shit because it benefits them.

 

[GWV5903]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

It's sad how little you actually know...

Crawl back under that rock...

 

[SwimExpert]

A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years.

You're a fucking uneducated moron, as are most people on this subject. The intended purpose of the Electoral College was to provide influence for slave states, where the majority of people were disenfranchised. That's the fucking purpose. Essentially the same purpose as the 3/5s rule is what the Electoral College was intended to accomplish..

 

[BULLDOG]

Funny, it worked just fine when every Democrat was elected. Odd, very odd.

I recall that Gore got more than W. Bush as well.

I recall that Bush won that election.

Bush didn't win that election. He was given the election by the Supreme Court. Gore got more votes.

 

[OKTexas]

More whining from the Left. A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years. I don't New York, California & Texas deciding each election.

"Worked well for over 220 years"?

Worked so well it kept slavery around, kept women down, nullifies the votes of tens of millions who don't happen to vote the way their state does, creates artificial barriers of "red" and "blue" states, discourages voting in those states at all, perpetuates the Duopoly, biases voting to the eastern time zones, and makes us dependent on polls to determine whether we may as well not even bother to vote because it's already decided regardless what we do.

That sure is "working well" ain't it.

It sure is. Keeps 3 states (or more precisely 2 cities on opposite coasts) from nullifying the wishes & votes of the other 47. Makes places like New Hampshire & North Dakota relevant. Lessens the likelihood of voter fraud by conducting 51 separate elections across the country.

The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College

That doesn't make much sense at all.

You think it's unfair that the majority of the country has the say, rather than some system which weighs everything in favor of the right.... I don't get it.

California is the largest state. Democrat.
Texas is the second largest. Republican.
Florida is the 3rd largest, mixes between the two.
New York is the 4th largest, Democrat.
6th and 7th are swing states, 8th and 9th are Republican.

59 million people, just over 1/6th of the US population, wouldn't decide an election.

Also, change would bring new parties. Have PR in Congress and you'd have four to eight parties in Congress, rather than two.

PR isn't a State. I sincerely hope they remain a territory.

 

[Darkwind]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

 

[OKTexas]

Did I vote? Did I accept the system?

Ever heard of the word "change"? It's like saying you elected a govt, therefore you shouldn't expect any change from that govt. Er... what kind of logic is that?

I'm saying IN FUTURE ELECTIONS I want a fairer system.

In school the teachers were also supposed to impress upon your supposedly impressionable mind that amending the Constitution was purposely made difficult for the sake of stability.

Actually amending the Constitution isn't the only way around the status quo.

You see son, that same Constitution leaves it completely up to the states how they pick their electors and how they have them vote. This "winner take all" crapola isn't part of the Constitution at all. In fact two states already split their EV, and others have in the past. So you don't need a Constitution change. You can do it at the state level.

Yeah, I'd like to see them allocated by congressional district nation wide, the two representing the senators could go to the winner of the most districts. Of course States with only 1 congressional district would be winner take all. Of course you folks would cry about that because a State like CA where the State as a whole is reliably blue, they still have 13 republican districts. Dems wold never go for losing those 13 reliable ECVs.