The electoral college and how it changes voting

[Pop23]

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.

Whining? I stated the facts.

North Korea's system also "works as intended".

The intention in this country is to insure minority populations representation. It's one of the checks and balances that the founding fathers put in place to stop the tyranny of the majority.

By all means, try to change it with a constitutional amendment, but be assured, those tiny little states will fight it and possibly amend it further. Like making all USSC decisions open to being overturned via referendum.

Now that's democracy at its finest.

You want that?

Didn't think so.

 

[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.

Whining? I stated the facts.

North Korea's system also "works as intended".

The intention in this country is to insure minority populations representation. It's one of the checks and balances that the founding fathers put in place to stop the tyranny of the majority.

By all means, try to change it with a constitutional amendment, but be assured, those tiny little states will fight it and possibly amend it further. Like making all USSC decisions open to being overturned via referendum.

Now that's democracy at its finest.

You want that?

Didn't think so.

So, which minority populations are represented?

Oh, the minority populations of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Question: Who gave a **** about Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota? Really? How much time did the candidates put into each of these states?

Clearly the system ISN'T representing minority populations.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Whining? I stated the facts.

North Korea's system also "works as intended".

The intention in this country is to insure minority populations representation. It's one of the checks and balances that the founding fathers put in place to stop the tyranny of the majority.

By all means, try to change it with a constitutional amendment, but be assured, those tiny little states will fight it and possibly amend it further. Like making all USSC decisions open to being overturned via referendum.

Now that's democracy at its finest.

You want that?

Didn't think so.

So, which minority populations are represented?

Oh, the minority populations of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Question: Who gave a **** about Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota? Really? How much time did the candidates put into each of these states?

Clearly the system ISN'T representing minority populations.

You really are a simpleton, aren't you?

Wow, insults.

How is telling someone who refuses to see the reality of dumping the electoral college a simpleton an idiot an insult?

Open that door, see what happens. I'm not sure you'd like it much.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Whining? I stated the facts.

North Korea's system also "works as intended".

The intention in this country is to insure minority populations representation. It's one of the checks and balances that the founding fathers put in place to stop the tyranny of the majority.

By all means, try to change it with a constitutional amendment, but be assured, those tiny little states will fight it and possibly amend it further. Like making all USSC decisions open to being overturned via referendum.

Now that's democracy at its finest.

You want that?

Didn't think so.

So, which minority populations are represented?

Oh, the minority populations of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Question: Who gave a **** about Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota? Really? How much time did the candidates put into each of these states?

Clearly the system ISN'T representing minority populations.

You really are a simpleton, aren't you?

Wow, insults.

How is telling someone who refuses to see the reality of dumping the electoral college a simpleton an idiot an insult?

Open that door, see what happens. I'm not sure you'd like it much.

Wow, insults.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You can't really whine about the electoral college if you KNEW where this apportionment came from . Ever consider that the 538 TOTAL college electors mirrors near EXACTLY the total representation in Congress???

What couldn't be more unfair is each state getting 2 senators. Clearly by your standards, unfair. It's not magical.

A Federal issue affecting any ONE state could look like Tyranny with full "democratic" representation.
If a SMALL state musters more than the normal 60% in any Federal election -- it makes little diff. But if a LARGE state turns out on any "state right" issue or partisan basis --- it would SWAMP the question being voted upon.

It's a wise and considered plan. Just look at the electoral district map. We have about 20 major urban centers making up most of the Blue power. The rest of the country is Red. If you're really for inclusiveness and unity rather than wielding Federal power from less than 10% of the land mass --- you'd understand.

 

[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.

You can't really whine about the electoral college if you KNEW where this apportionment came from . Ever consider that the 538 TOTAL college electors mirrors near EXACTLY the total representation in Congress???

What couldn't be more unfair is each state getting 2 senators. Clearly by your standards, unfair. It's not magical.

A Federal issue affecting any ONE state could look like Tyranny with full "democratic" representation.
If a SMALL state musters more than the normal 60% in any Federal election -- it makes little diff. But if a LARGE state turns out on any "state right" issue or partisan basis --- it would SWAMP the question being voted upon.

It's a wise and considered plan. Just look at the electoral district map. We have about 20 major urban centers making up most of the Blue power. The rest of the country is Red. If you're really for inclusiveness and unity rather than wielding Federal power from less than 10% of the land mass --- you'd understand.

2 Senators per state is state representation.

In the House Wyoming has one representative. In the EC they have 3.
Vermont is the same as are North Dakota and South Dakota.

California has 53, Texas has 35. That down from 55 and 38. So, clearly it is a lot fairer than the system of the EC where small states have 3 times power with one vote, whereas the House is more along fair lines.

That said, I'd still like Proportional Representation in the House.

Fair can mean many things. If each state gets 2 votes, you'd have to say that's fair. If each state gets representatives based on their population, that's fair.

But for the EC there isn't any one binding thing that states what is happening. States neither have the same power, from 3 to 55 is not the same, the vote of one individual is not worth the same, some votes are worth 3 times more. It just seems like a system that isn't well put together. Like just drawing a card out of a hat.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You can't really whine about the electoral college if you KNEW where this apportionment came from . Ever consider that the 538 TOTAL college electors mirrors near EXACTLY the total representation in Congress???

What couldn't be more unfair is each state getting 2 senators. Clearly by your standards, unfair. It's not magical.

A Federal issue affecting any ONE state could look like Tyranny with full "democratic" representation.
If a SMALL state musters more than the normal 60% in any Federal election -- it makes little diff. But if a LARGE state turns out on any "state right" issue or partisan basis --- it would SWAMP the question being voted upon.

It's a wise and considered plan. Just look at the electoral district map. We have about 20 major urban centers making up most of the Blue power. The rest of the country is Red. If you're really for inclusiveness and unity rather than wielding Federal power from less than 10% of the land mass --- you'd understand.

2 Senators per state is state representation.

In the House Wyoming has one representative. In the EC they have 3.
Vermont is the same as are North Dakota and South Dakota.

California has 53, Texas has 35. That down from 55 and 38. So, clearly it is a lot fairer than the system of the EC where small states have 3 times power with one vote, whereas the House is more along fair lines.

That said, I'd still like Proportional Representation in the House.

Fair can mean many things. If each state gets 2 votes, you'd have to say that's fair. If each state gets representatives based on their population, that's fair.

But for the EC there isn't any one binding thing that states what is happening. States neither have the same power, from 3 to 55 is not the same, the vote of one individual is not worth the same, some votes are worth 3 times more. It just seems like a system that isn't well put together. Like just drawing a card out of a hat.

You're not quite with me here yet. The EC TOTAL is roughly the mirror of House + Senate number. So if you whine about the EC being unfair -- what about the SENATE -- where EVERY state gets 2 votes on every bill? CLEARLY a more DISProportionate fairness issue than the EC.

So the EC is more democratic than the Senate. Senate is 1/3 of the legislation/enforcement power. The EC determines another 1/3 in the Prez. LESS democratic than the House -- which is pretty damn democratic with close to TRUE proportional representation. Checks and balances mate. The only thing that keeps the HOUSE from TRUE proportional democracy are 7 states that would end up with a fractional representative.

Not a barn burner of problem to give those 7 states a WHOLE representative with all their appendages intact.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Time for this again...

 

[g5000]

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.

This is a crock of innumerate bullshit.

A Wyoming voter is voting for a slate of only 3 electors, while a Texas voter is voting for a slate of 38. So don't give us this crap that a Wyoming vote is worth more than a Texas vote.

 

[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.

You can't really whine about the electoral college if you KNEW where this apportionment came from . Ever consider that the 538 TOTAL college electors mirrors near EXACTLY the total representation in Congress???

What couldn't be more unfair is each state getting 2 senators. Clearly by your standards, unfair. It's not magical.

A Federal issue affecting any ONE state could look like Tyranny with full "democratic" representation.
If a SMALL state musters more than the normal 60% in any Federal election -- it makes little diff. But if a LARGE state turns out on any "state right" issue or partisan basis --- it would SWAMP the question being voted upon.

It's a wise and considered plan. Just look at the electoral district map. We have about 20 major urban centers making up most of the Blue power. The rest of the country is Red. If you're really for inclusiveness and unity rather than wielding Federal power from less than 10% of the land mass --- you'd understand.

2 Senators per state is state representation.

In the House Wyoming has one representative. In the EC they have 3.
Vermont is the same as are North Dakota and South Dakota.

California has 53, Texas has 35. That down from 55 and 38. So, clearly it is a lot fairer than the system of the EC where small states have 3 times power with one vote, whereas the House is more along fair lines.

That said, I'd still like Proportional Representation in the House.

Fair can mean many things. If each state gets 2 votes, you'd have to say that's fair. If each state gets representatives based on their population, that's fair.

But for the EC there isn't any one binding thing that states what is happening. States neither have the same power, from 3 to 55 is not the same, the vote of one individual is not worth the same, some votes are worth 3 times more. It just seems like a system that isn't well put together. Like just drawing a card out of a hat.

You're not quite with me here yet. The EC TOTAL is roughly the mirror of House + Senate number. So if you whine about the EC being unfair -- what about the SENATE -- where EVERY state gets 2 votes on every bill? CLEARLY a more DISProportionate fairness issue than the EC.

So the EC is more democratic than the Senate. Senate is 1/3 of the legislation/enforcement power. The EC determines another 1/3 in the Prez. LESS democratic than the House -- which is pretty damn democratic with close to TRUE proportional representation. Checks and balances mate. The only thing that keeps the HOUSE from TRUE proportional democracy are 7 states that would end up with a fractional representative.

Not a barn burner of problem to give those 7 states a WHOLE representative with all their appendages intact.

But the Senate and the House are two different bodies. The EC is electing one body.

Fine, you what me to state that I think the Senate has had its day and should not be elected in the manner it is elected. Okay. I think that. However it works on a system that was designed for something that currently is kind of ridiculous.

The Senate is "democratic" because every state gets one vote.
I might not agree with it, but it at least has some reason.

But again, I still think change is necessary.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

This is a crock of innumerate bullshit.

A Wyoming voter is voting for a slate of only 3 electors, while a Texas voter is voting for a slate of 38. So don't give us this crap that a Wyoming vote is worth more than a Texas vote.

But then again one vote in Texas gets swamped by the votes by 8.9 million votes. Your one vote counts for 1/8.9 millionth of those 38. In Wyoming is one of 243,000 votes.

Who gets more of a chance of saying who ends up in the White House?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You can't really whine about the electoral college if you KNEW where this apportionment came from . Ever consider that the 538 TOTAL college electors mirrors near EXACTLY the total representation in Congress???

What couldn't be more unfair is each state getting 2 senators. Clearly by your standards, unfair. It's not magical.

A Federal issue affecting any ONE state could look like Tyranny with full "democratic" representation.
If a SMALL state musters more than the normal 60% in any Federal election -- it makes little diff. But if a LARGE state turns out on any "state right" issue or partisan basis --- it would SWAMP the question being voted upon.

It's a wise and considered plan. Just look at the electoral district map. We have about 20 major urban centers making up most of the Blue power. The rest of the country is Red. If you're really for inclusiveness and unity rather than wielding Federal power from less than 10% of the land mass --- you'd understand.

2 Senators per state is state representation.

In the House Wyoming has one representative. In the EC they have 3.
Vermont is the same as are North Dakota and South Dakota.

California has 53, Texas has 35. That down from 55 and 38. So, clearly it is a lot fairer than the system of the EC where small states have 3 times power with one vote, whereas the House is more along fair lines.

That said, I'd still like Proportional Representation in the House.

Fair can mean many things. If each state gets 2 votes, you'd have to say that's fair. If each state gets representatives based on their population, that's fair.

But for the EC there isn't any one binding thing that states what is happening. States neither have the same power, from 3 to 55 is not the same, the vote of one individual is not worth the same, some votes are worth 3 times more. It just seems like a system that isn't well put together. Like just drawing a card out of a hat.

You're not quite with me here yet. The EC TOTAL is roughly the mirror of House + Senate number. So if you whine about the EC being unfair -- what about the SENATE -- where EVERY state gets 2 votes on every bill? CLEARLY a more DISProportionate fairness issue than the EC.

So the EC is more democratic than the Senate. Senate is 1/3 of the legislation/enforcement power. The EC determines another 1/3 in the Prez. LESS democratic than the House -- which is pretty damn democratic with close to TRUE proportional representation. Checks and balances mate. The only thing that keeps the HOUSE from TRUE proportional democracy are 7 states that would end up with a fractional representative.

Not a barn burner of problem to give those 7 states a WHOLE representative with all their appendages intact.

But the Senate and the House are two different bodies. The EC is electing one body.

Fine, you what me to state that I think the Senate has had its day and should not be elected in the manner it is elected. Okay. I think that. However it works on a system that was designed for something that currently is kind of ridiculous.

The Senate is "democratic" because every state gets one vote.
I might not agree with it, but it at least has some reason.

But again, I still think change is necessary.

Not sure you're there yet. The Senate is EXTREMELY UNdemocratic when you look at how many popular votes each Senator represents. It's 10 times worse than the EC problem. I hope you get that.

You got one body in House that is almost perfectly democratic. One body that is equal on a STATE by state level and the EC which is somewhere CLOSER to the democracy of the House.

That's just the difference between a Democracy and a Representative govt. Not many democracies in the world at all. . There are reasons for that.

What we NEED are parties that truly REPRESENT our views and principles. THAT right there is the bigger issue. Parties that aren't into making dynasties and winning at all cost..

I want THAT problem solved first.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

Well Bernie got more votes than Hillary but the super deligates chose her. So she can just cry a river

 

[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.

You can't really whine about the electoral college if you KNEW where this apportionment came from . Ever consider that the 538 TOTAL college electors mirrors near EXACTLY the total representation in Congress???

What couldn't be more unfair is each state getting 2 senators. Clearly by your standards, unfair. It's not magical.

A Federal issue affecting any ONE state could look like Tyranny with full "democratic" representation.
If a SMALL state musters more than the normal 60% in any Federal election -- it makes little diff. But if a LARGE state turns out on any "state right" issue or partisan basis --- it would SWAMP the question being voted upon.

It's a wise and considered plan. Just look at the electoral district map. We have about 20 major urban centers making up most of the Blue power. The rest of the country is Red. If you're really for inclusiveness and unity rather than wielding Federal power from less than 10% of the land mass --- you'd understand.

2 Senators per state is state representation.

In the House Wyoming has one representative. In the EC they have 3.
Vermont is the same as are North Dakota and South Dakota.

California has 53, Texas has 35. That down from 55 and 38. So, clearly it is a lot fairer than the system of the EC where small states have 3 times power with one vote, whereas the House is more along fair lines.

That said, I'd still like Proportional Representation in the House.

Fair can mean many things. If each state gets 2 votes, you'd have to say that's fair. If each state gets representatives based on their population, that's fair.

But for the EC there isn't any one binding thing that states what is happening. States neither have the same power, from 3 to 55 is not the same, the vote of one individual is not worth the same, some votes are worth 3 times more. It just seems like a system that isn't well put together. Like just drawing a card out of a hat.

You're not quite with me here yet. The EC TOTAL is roughly the mirror of House + Senate number. So if you whine about the EC being unfair -- what about the SENATE -- where EVERY state gets 2 votes on every bill? CLEARLY a more DISProportionate fairness issue than the EC.

So the EC is more democratic than the Senate. Senate is 1/3 of the legislation/enforcement power. The EC determines another 1/3 in the Prez. LESS democratic than the House -- which is pretty damn democratic with close to TRUE proportional representation. Checks and balances mate. The only thing that keeps the HOUSE from TRUE proportional democracy are 7 states that would end up with a fractional representative.

Not a barn burner of problem to give those 7 states a WHOLE representative with all their appendages intact.

But the Senate and the House are two different bodies. The EC is electing one body.

Fine, you what me to state that I think the Senate has had its day and should not be elected in the manner it is elected. Okay. I think that. However it works on a system that was designed for something that currently is kind of ridiculous.

The Senate is "democratic" because every state gets one vote.
I might not agree with it, but it at least has some reason.

But again, I still think change is necessary.

Not sure you're there yet. The Senate is EXTREMELY UNdemocratic when you look at how many popular votes each Senator represents. It's 10 times worse than the EC problem. I hope you get that.

You got one body in House that is almost perfectly democratic. One body that is equal on a STATE by state level and the EC which is somewhere CLOSER to the democracy of the House.

That's just the difference between a Democracy and a Representative govt. Not many democracies in the world at all. . There are reasons for that.

I know. However it's extremely democratic when you see that each state has 2 votes. It depends on the point of view that you're looking at it from. Again, I didn't say I agreed with it, but it has rhyme and reason.
Again, I've said I'd like to see PR in the US Congress.

 

[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.

Well Bernie got more votes than Hillary but the super deligates chose her. So she can just cry a river

There's a BIG difference between electing a person to hold and office to represent the whole of the country, and electing someone to represent your party.

Personally I'd like to see PR so that more parties get involved in US politics so each party can choose who they like, and if you don't like it, you have plenty of choice. The US political system is like a Soviet supermarket. "We have bread and potatoes" "I'd like some cake" "We have bread and potatoes" "But..." "We have BREAD and POTATOES" "I don't like bread" "Then have some ******* potatoes" "But your potatoes are bad" "Then go outside and starve to death". (all done in fact Russian accent, of course).

 

[keepitreal]

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.

You can't really whine about the electoral college if you KNEW where this apportionment came from . Ever consider that the 538 TOTAL college electors mirrors near EXACTLY the total representation in Congress???

What couldn't be more unfair is each state getting 2 senators. Clearly by your standards, unfair. It's not magical.

A Federal issue affecting any ONE state could look like Tyranny with full "democratic" representation.
If a SMALL state musters more than the normal 60% in any Federal election -- it makes little diff. But if a LARGE state turns out on any "state right" issue or partisan basis --- it would SWAMP the question being voted upon.

It's a wise and considered plan. Just look at the electoral district map. We have about 20 major urban centers making up most of the Blue power. The rest of the country is Red. If you're really for inclusiveness and unity rather than wielding Federal power from less than 10% of the land mass --- you'd understand.

2 Senators per state is state representation.

In the House Wyoming has one representative. In the EC they have 3.
Vermont is the same as are North Dakota and South Dakota.

California has 53, Texas has 35. That down from 55 and 38. So, clearly it is a lot fairer than the system of the EC where small states have 3 times power with one vote, whereas the House is more along fair lines.

That said, I'd still like Proportional Representation in the House.

Fair can mean many things. If each state gets 2 votes, you'd have to say that's fair. If each state gets representatives based on their population, that's fair.

But for the EC there isn't any one binding thing that states what is happening. States neither have the same power, from 3 to 55 is not the same, the vote of one individual is not worth the same, some votes are worth 3 times more. It just seems like a system that isn't well put together. Like just drawing a card out of a hat.

You're not quite with me here yet. The EC TOTAL is roughly the mirror of House + Senate number. So if you whine about the EC being unfair -- what about the SENATE -- where EVERY state gets 2 votes on every bill? CLEARLY a more DISProportionate fairness issue than the EC.

So the EC is more democratic than the Senate. Senate is 1/3 of the legislation/enforcement power. The EC determines another 1/3 in the Prez. LESS democratic than the House -- which is pretty damn democratic with close to TRUE proportional representation. Checks and balances mate. The only thing that keeps the HOUSE from TRUE proportional democracy are 7 states that would end up with a fractional representative.

Not a barn burner of problem to give those 7 states a WHOLE representative with all their appendages intact.

Is there a simplified version of this exchange?

 

[tyroneweaver]

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.

Dang dude this was all like 200 years ago.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

If the election was a tie it would have went to to house of representatives and Bush Still would have won so please Learn about how the country actually works you ignorant regressive.

But it wasn't a tie. Gore got more votes.

Popular votes dont elect a president. Electoral votes do. Gore Lost Florida. Even is he didn't Bush still would have been president. Gore lost. He Lost the moment he lost Virginia.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

I get you're not happy with the results. Neither am I. Trump simply ran a better campaign than Hillary and she never made the connection with the voter that Trump did. I feel that the way he made that connection was wholly dishonest but there is no penalty for that which is enforceable without another election.

I learned something this election.Hillary Clinton would NEVER have won no matter what she did. She was not trusted by people in the majority of states. She couldn't beat a man child with orange skin a comb over and a perchant for tweeting stupidity at night.

I don't often get to say this but for once I agree with you --- if you can't easily take down a flaming-orange narcissist with the emotional maturity of twelve-year-old, the place to look for answers is in the mirror. How can you lose a match where your opponent is doing everything he can think of to throw the game?

Responsibility must be shared though by the gullibility of the electorate on the other side to buy Kevin Trudeau just because he tells them to. It's been said nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. There's no doubt of it now.

If the American public was stupid Hillary would have won. You see Trump WAS the better choice. You regressives were to stupid to see that and still allowed yourselves to be manipulated into nominating her.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

I get you're not happy with the results. Neither am I. Trump simply ran a better campaign than Hillary and she never made the connection with the voter that Trump did. I feel that the way he made that connection was wholly dishonest but there is no penalty for that which is enforceable without another election.

I learned something this election.Hillary Clinton would NEVER have won no matter what she did. She was not trusted by people in the majority of states. She couldn't beat a man child with orange skin a comb over and a perchant for tweeting stupidity at night.

And yet she got more votes than the orange skinned one.

I doubt that. You see she won with so little votes that her illegal votes would far exceed it. So truth is she didn't win the popular vote ether. But you go right a head and believe she did. The regressive left needs morons like you to survive. While you are at it call more people sexist and racists as well since that seems to be working wonders for you idiots.