The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Pogo]

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

You didn't read what he said accurately

I don't think we'll ever amend the const to do something like reverse Roe or Citizens United or Equal Rts for Women. But I don't think the EC is so sacrosanct. You already have Maine and Neb allocating ... because it's the right thing to do. Everyone's vote should count. We aren't going to elect someone who will refuse to leave office, and if someone tried that, it wouldn't go well. The only reason for states not to allocate are partisan, and here in Miss that breaks on racial lines. You have to be a pretty small person to deny voting. If ten or so states would allocate the EVs, we might see some change.

Zackly -- Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to Congressional districts, simply because they choose to, nor are they limited to that alternative in doing so. All the Constitution says is that the several states will send however many electors they're allocated. How each state picks those electors and how they vote is still up to each state.

In my case if Carolina chose proportional electors it would be sending 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton. The idea that everybody in North Cackalackee voted unanimously for the same candidate is insane. Somebody way back jest didn't think that one through.

You did the math for NC if they had chosen proportional electors. I believe California and New York are winner take all states. Tell me how many electoral votes Hillary would have LOST if those two states were proportional.

I don't live in those states and I don't know their vote (and California's at least is still being counted). I cited Carolina because I know both what the vote was and how many EVs we have.

But it's not hard to do the math. You get the percentage for each candy, multiply that by 55, and you get California's total. Do the same for New York.

I don't know if anyone has figured that out for all the states but it's not hard to do.

 

[TooTall]

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

You didn't read what he said accurately

I don't think we'll ever amend the const to do something like reverse Roe or Citizens United or Equal Rts for Women. But I don't think the EC is so sacrosanct. You already have Maine and Neb allocating ... because it's the right thing to do. Everyone's vote should count. We aren't going to elect someone who will refuse to leave office, and if someone tried that, it wouldn't go well. The only reason for states not to allocate are partisan, and here in Miss that breaks on racial lines. You have to be a pretty small person to deny voting. If ten or so states would allocate the EVs, we might see some change.

Zackly -- Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to Congressional districts, simply because they choose to, nor are they limited to that alternative in doing so. All the Constitution says is that the several states will send however many electors they're allocated. How each state picks those electors and how they vote is still up to each state.

In my case if Carolina chose proportional electors it would be sending 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton. The idea that everybody in North Cackalackee voted unanimously for the same candidate is insane. Somebody way back jest didn't think that one through.

You did the math for NC if they had chosen proportional electors. I believe California and New York are winner take all states. Tell me how many electoral votes Hillary would have LOST if those two states were proportional.

I don't live in those states and I don't know their vote (and California's at least is still being counted). I cited Carolina because I know both what the vote was and how many EVs we have.

But it's not hard to do the math. You get the percentage for each candy, multiply that by 55, and you get California's total. Do the same for New York.

I don't know if anyone has figured that out for all the states but it's not hard to do.

You can look it up, but common sense tells me Hillary got ALL of the EC votes in those two states and would have lost a large percentage (less than half) of the votes to Trump.

 

[Pogo]

You didn't read what he said accurately

I don't think we'll ever amend the const to do something like reverse Roe or Citizens United or Equal Rts for Women. But I don't think the EC is so sacrosanct. You already have Maine and Neb allocating ... because it's the right thing to do. Everyone's vote should count. We aren't going to elect someone who will refuse to leave office, and if someone tried that, it wouldn't go well. The only reason for states not to allocate are partisan, and here in Miss that breaks on racial lines. You have to be a pretty small person to deny voting. If ten or so states would allocate the EVs, we might see some change.

Zackly -- Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to Congressional districts, simply because they choose to, nor are they limited to that alternative in doing so. All the Constitution says is that the several states will send however many electors they're allocated. How each state picks those electors and how they vote is still up to each state.

In my case if Carolina chose proportional electors it would be sending 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton. The idea that everybody in North Cackalackee voted unanimously for the same candidate is insane. Somebody way back jest didn't think that one through.

You did the math for NC if they had chosen proportional electors. I believe California and New York are winner take all states. Tell me how many electoral votes Hillary would have LOST if those two states were proportional.

I don't live in those states and I don't know their vote (and California's at least is still being counted). I cited Carolina because I know both what the vote was and how many EVs we have.

But it's not hard to do the math. You get the percentage for each candy, multiply that by 55, and you get California's total. Do the same for New York.

I don't know if anyone has figured that out for all the states but it's not hard to do.

You can look it up, but common sense tells me Hillary got ALL of the EC votes in those two states and would have lost a large percentage (less than half) of the votes to Trump.

You can look it up yourself --- it's your question, not mine. I quoted the example I know, the point is made.

And what you're flailing at here is the main complaint I've been articulating all year --- the way the EC nullifies votes. I had a vote, because Carolina was close. My friends and relatives in Mississippi and California and Texas and Washington...did not have a vote, because their state had already dictated their vote for them, regardless whether they agreed or disagreed. Didn't matter -- there was no reason to even show up. Nor was there a reason for the candidates to show up either because in both cases what's the point?

And that's how the EC discourages voting in those states, and makes the rest of us dependent on polls to find out if it's worth going to the ballot box at all, that yea verily the Electrical College gods might deign to smile upon us and in their benevolence grant us the Vote we thought we were supposed to have from the start, until the next round when we again grovel before the same grotesque institution murmuring "yes master, may we have another?".

 

[TooTall]

I don't think we'll ever amend the const to do something like reverse Roe or Citizens United or Equal Rts for Women. But I don't think the EC is so sacrosanct. You already have Maine and Neb allocating ... because it's the right thing to do. Everyone's vote should count. We aren't going to elect someone who will refuse to leave office, and if someone tried that, it wouldn't go well. The only reason for states not to allocate are partisan, and here in Miss that breaks on racial lines. You have to be a pretty small person to deny voting. If ten or so states would allocate the EVs, we might see some change.

Zackly -- Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to Congressional districts, simply because they choose to, nor are they limited to that alternative in doing so. All the Constitution says is that the several states will send however many electors they're allocated. How each state picks those electors and how they vote is still up to each state.

In my case if Carolina chose proportional electors it would be sending 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton. The idea that everybody in North Cackalackee voted unanimously for the same candidate is insane. Somebody way back jest didn't think that one through.

You did the math for NC if they had chosen proportional electors. I believe California and New York are winner take all states. Tell me how many electoral votes Hillary would have LOST if those two states were proportional.

I don't live in those states and I don't know their vote (and California's at least is still being counted). I cited Carolina because I know both what the vote was and how many EVs we have.

But it's not hard to do the math. You get the percentage for each candy, multiply that by 55, and you get California's total. Do the same for New York.

I don't know if anyone has figured that out for all the states but it's not hard to do.

You can look it up, but common sense tells me Hillary got ALL of the EC votes in those two states and would have lost a large percentage (less than half) of the votes to Trump.

You can look it up yourself --- it's your question, not mine. I quoted the example I know, the point is made.

And what you're flailing at here is the main complaint I've been articulating all year --- the way the EC nullifies votes. I had a vote, because Carolina was close. My friends and relatives in Mississippi and California and Texas and Washington...did not have a vote, because their state had already dictated their vote for them, regardless whether they agreed or disagreed. Didn't matter -- there was no reason to even show up. Nor was there a reason for the candidates to show up either because in both cases what's the point?

And that's how the EC discourages voting in those states, and makes the rest of us dependent on polls to find out if it's worth going to the ballot box at all, that yea verily the Electrical College gods might deign to smile upon us and in their benevolence grant us the Vote we thought we were supposed to have from the start, until the next round when we again grovel before the same grotesque institution murmuring "yes master, may we have another?".

My point is if CA and NY were proportional, Trump would have got a lot more EC votes, and that would have made it a landslide.

Just for grins, I did look it up and if NY and CA were proportional, Hillary would have got 34 EC votes in CA instead if the 55 that she did get, and 17 in NY instead of the 29 she did get. That would be a net loss of 33 EC votes that would have gone to Trump. Perhaps you better hope you don't get what you wish for.

 

[kaz]

I don't think we'll ever amend the const to do something like reverse Roe or Citizens United or Equal Rts for Women. But I don't think the EC is so sacrosanct. You already have Maine and Neb allocating ... because it's the right thing to do. Everyone's vote should count. We aren't going to elect someone who will refuse to leave office, and if someone tried that, it wouldn't go well. The only reason for states not to allocate are partisan, and here in Miss that breaks on racial lines. You have to be a pretty small person to deny voting. If ten or so states would allocate the EVs, we might see some change.

Zackly -- Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to Congressional districts, simply because they choose to, nor are they limited to that alternative in doing so. All the Constitution says is that the several states will send however many electors they're allocated. How each state picks those electors and how they vote is still up to each state.

In my case if Carolina chose proportional electors it would be sending 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton. The idea that everybody in North Cackalackee voted unanimously for the same candidate is insane. Somebody way back jest didn't think that one through.

You did the math for NC if they had chosen proportional electors. I believe California and New York are winner take all states. Tell me how many electoral votes Hillary would have LOST if those two states were proportional.

I don't live in those states and I don't know their vote (and California's at least is still being counted). I cited Carolina because I know both what the vote was and how many EVs we have.

But it's not hard to do the math. You get the percentage for each candy, multiply that by 55, and you get California's total. Do the same for New York.

I don't know if anyone has figured that out for all the states but it's not hard to do.

You can look it up, but common sense tells me Hillary got ALL of the EC votes in those two states and would have lost a large percentage (less than half) of the votes to Trump.

You can look it up yourself --- it's your question, not mine. I quoted the example I know, the point is made.

And what you're flailing at here is the main complaint I've been articulating all year --- the way the EC nullifies votes. I had a vote, because Carolina was close. My friends and relatives in Mississippi and California and Texas and Washington...did not have a vote, because their state had already dictated their vote for them, regardless whether they agreed or disagreed. Didn't matter -- there was no reason to even show up. Nor was there a reason for the candidates to show up either because in both cases what's the point?

And that's how the EC discourages voting in those states, and makes the rest of us dependent on polls to find out if it's worth going to the ballot box at all, that yea verily the Electrical College gods might deign to smile upon us and in their benevolence grant us the Vote we thought we were supposed to have from the start, until the next round when we again grovel before the same grotesque institution murmuring "yes master, may we have another?".

Please, you're a socialist who wants tyranny of the majority. Stop pretending you have some sort of point of integrity

 

[Pogo]

Zackly -- Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to Congressional districts, simply because they choose to, nor are they limited to that alternative in doing so. All the Constitution says is that the several states will send however many electors they're allocated. How each state picks those electors and how they vote is still up to each state.

In my case if Carolina chose proportional electors it would be sending 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton. The idea that everybody in North Cackalackee voted unanimously for the same candidate is insane. Somebody way back jest didn't think that one through.

You did the math for NC if they had chosen proportional electors. I believe California and New York are winner take all states. Tell me how many electoral votes Hillary would have LOST if those two states were proportional.

I don't live in those states and I don't know their vote (and California's at least is still being counted). I cited Carolina because I know both what the vote was and how many EVs we have.

But it's not hard to do the math. You get the percentage for each candy, multiply that by 55, and you get California's total. Do the same for New York.

I don't know if anyone has figured that out for all the states but it's not hard to do.

You can look it up, but common sense tells me Hillary got ALL of the EC votes in those two states and would have lost a large percentage (less than half) of the votes to Trump.

You can look it up yourself --- it's your question, not mine. I quoted the example I know, the point is made.

And what you're flailing at here is the main complaint I've been articulating all year --- the way the EC nullifies votes. I had a vote, because Carolina was close. My friends and relatives in Mississippi and California and Texas and Washington...did not have a vote, because their state had already dictated their vote for them, regardless whether they agreed or disagreed. Didn't matter -- there was no reason to even show up. Nor was there a reason for the candidates to show up either because in both cases what's the point?

And that's how the EC discourages voting in those states, and makes the rest of us dependent on polls to find out if it's worth going to the ballot box at all, that yea verily the Electrical College gods might deign to smile upon us and in their benevolence grant us the Vote we thought we were supposed to have from the start, until the next round when we again grovel before the same grotesque institution murmuring "yes master, may we have another?".

My point is if CA and NY were proportional, Trump would have got a lot more EC votes, and that would have made it a landslide.

Whatever. If Texas and West Virginia were proportional, the opposite applies as well. But at least their voters would have had a reason to leave the house.

--- Or are you suggesting that only locked-blue states should be proportional?

 

[Pogo]

Zackly -- Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to Congressional districts, simply because they choose to, nor are they limited to that alternative in doing so. All the Constitution says is that the several states will send however many electors they're allocated. How each state picks those electors and how they vote is still up to each state.

In my case if Carolina chose proportional electors it would be sending 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton. The idea that everybody in North Cackalackee voted unanimously for the same candidate is insane. Somebody way back jest didn't think that one through.

You did the math for NC if they had chosen proportional electors. I believe California and New York are winner take all states. Tell me how many electoral votes Hillary would have LOST if those two states were proportional.

I don't live in those states and I don't know their vote (and California's at least is still being counted). I cited Carolina because I know both what the vote was and how many EVs we have.

But it's not hard to do the math. You get the percentage for each candy, multiply that by 55, and you get California's total. Do the same for New York.

I don't know if anyone has figured that out for all the states but it's not hard to do.

You can look it up, but common sense tells me Hillary got ALL of the EC votes in those two states and would have lost a large percentage (less than half) of the votes to Trump.

You can look it up yourself --- it's your question, not mine. I quoted the example I know, the point is made.

And what you're flailing at here is the main complaint I've been articulating all year --- the way the EC nullifies votes. I had a vote, because Carolina was close. My friends and relatives in Mississippi and California and Texas and Washington...did not have a vote, because their state had already dictated their vote for them, regardless whether they agreed or disagreed. Didn't matter -- there was no reason to even show up. Nor was there a reason for the candidates to show up either because in both cases what's the point?

And that's how the EC discourages voting in those states, and makes the rest of us dependent on polls to find out if it's worth going to the ballot box at all, that yea verily the Electrical College gods might deign to smile upon us and in their benevolence grant us the Vote we thought we were supposed to have from the start, until the next round when we again grovel before the same grotesque institution murmuring "yes master, may we have another?".

Please, you're a socialist who wants tyranny of the majority. Stop pretending you have some sort of point of integrity

I've got a long track record, Sprinkles. It's all out there.

 

[TooTall]

You did the math for NC if they had chosen proportional electors. I believe California and New York are winner take all states. Tell me how many electoral votes Hillary would have LOST if those two states were proportional.

I don't live in those states and I don't know their vote (and California's at least is still being counted). I cited Carolina because I know both what the vote was and how many EVs we have.

But it's not hard to do the math. You get the percentage for each candy, multiply that by 55, and you get California's total. Do the same for New York.

I don't know if anyone has figured that out for all the states but it's not hard to do.

You can look it up, but common sense tells me Hillary got ALL of the EC votes in those two states and would have lost a large percentage (less than half) of the votes to Trump.

You can look it up yourself --- it's your question, not mine. I quoted the example I know, the point is made.

And what you're flailing at here is the main complaint I've been articulating all year --- the way the EC nullifies votes. I had a vote, because Carolina was close. My friends and relatives in Mississippi and California and Texas and Washington...did not have a vote, because their state had already dictated their vote for them, regardless whether they agreed or disagreed. Didn't matter -- there was no reason to even show up. Nor was there a reason for the candidates to show up either because in both cases what's the point?

And that's how the EC discourages voting in those states, and makes the rest of us dependent on polls to find out if it's worth going to the ballot box at all, that yea verily the Electrical College gods might deign to smile upon us and in their benevolence grant us the Vote we thought we were supposed to have from the start, until the next round when we again grovel before the same grotesque institution murmuring "yes master, may we have another?".

My point is if CA and NY were proportional, Trump would have got a lot more EC votes, and that would have made it a landslide.

Whatever. If Texas and West Virginia were proportional, the opposite applies as well. But at least their voters would have had a reason to leave the house.

--- Or are you suggesting that only locked-blue states should be proportional?

I only picked the two biggest states for my example with a total of 84 EC votes. Texas has 38 and W VA 5 for a total of 43. And, you are the one wanting the states to go proportional, not me.

 

[Pogo]

I don't live in those states and I don't know their vote (and California's at least is still being counted). I cited Carolina because I know both what the vote was and how many EVs we have.

But it's not hard to do the math. You get the percentage for each candy, multiply that by 55, and you get California's total. Do the same for New York.

I don't know if anyone has figured that out for all the states but it's not hard to do.

You can look it up, but common sense tells me Hillary got ALL of the EC votes in those two states and would have lost a large percentage (less than half) of the votes to Trump.

You can look it up yourself --- it's your question, not mine. I quoted the example I know, the point is made.

And what you're flailing at here is the main complaint I've been articulating all year --- the way the EC nullifies votes. I had a vote, because Carolina was close. My friends and relatives in Mississippi and California and Texas and Washington...did not have a vote, because their state had already dictated their vote for them, regardless whether they agreed or disagreed. Didn't matter -- there was no reason to even show up. Nor was there a reason for the candidates to show up either because in both cases what's the point?

And that's how the EC discourages voting in those states, and makes the rest of us dependent on polls to find out if it's worth going to the ballot box at all, that yea verily the Electrical College gods might deign to smile upon us and in their benevolence grant us the Vote we thought we were supposed to have from the start, until the next round when we again grovel before the same grotesque institution murmuring "yes master, may we have another?".

My point is if CA and NY were proportional, Trump would have got a lot more EC votes, and that would have made it a landslide.

Whatever. If Texas and West Virginia were proportional, the opposite applies as well. But at least their voters would have had a reason to leave the house.

--- Or are you suggesting that only locked-blue states should be proportional?

I only picked the two biggest states for my example with a total of 84 EC votes. Texas has 38 and W VA 5 for a total of 43. And, you are the one wanting the states to go proportional, not me.

Actually I didn't bring it up, though others did. In lieu of abolishing the EC some want it to just vote proportionally to what the vote was. At that point I ask, 'what's the difference between that and a straight PV?'

That would give and take to and from both sides. The overall results would be whatever they would be. But at least everybody's vote would mean something instead of a handful of bullshit "battleground states".

The Constitution doesn't say a popular vote needs to exist at all, and for a long time and in various places, it didn't. But if we're going to pretend we have a vote, let's actually do it and dispense with the sham.

 

[kaz]

You did the math for NC if they had chosen proportional electors. I believe California and New York are winner take all states. Tell me how many electoral votes Hillary would have LOST if those two states were proportional.

I don't live in those states and I don't know their vote (and California's at least is still being counted). I cited Carolina because I know both what the vote was and how many EVs we have.

But it's not hard to do the math. You get the percentage for each candy, multiply that by 55, and you get California's total. Do the same for New York.

I don't know if anyone has figured that out for all the states but it's not hard to do.

You can look it up, but common sense tells me Hillary got ALL of the EC votes in those two states and would have lost a large percentage (less than half) of the votes to Trump.

You can look it up yourself --- it's your question, not mine. I quoted the example I know, the point is made.

And what you're flailing at here is the main complaint I've been articulating all year --- the way the EC nullifies votes. I had a vote, because Carolina was close. My friends and relatives in Mississippi and California and Texas and Washington...did not have a vote, because their state had already dictated their vote for them, regardless whether they agreed or disagreed. Didn't matter -- there was no reason to even show up. Nor was there a reason for the candidates to show up either because in both cases what's the point?

And that's how the EC discourages voting in those states, and makes the rest of us dependent on polls to find out if it's worth going to the ballot box at all, that yea verily the Electrical College gods might deign to smile upon us and in their benevolence grant us the Vote we thought we were supposed to have from the start, until the next round when we again grovel before the same grotesque institution murmuring "yes master, may we have another?".

Please, you're a socialist who wants tyranny of the majority. Stop pretending you have some sort of point of integrity

I've got a long track record, Sprinkles. It's all out there.

Exactly, you do have a long track record. You're a socialist who wants tyranny of the majority. Stop pretending you have some sort of point of integrity

 

[Pogo]

Apparently the Mal-Wart store in Philadelphia North Carolina is having a sale on Doublethink.

 

[Pogo]

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

 

[hadit]

[

They don't need to. Know why?
Because PEOPLE all have the same population size: "one".

Needs are regional, retard. Voters in Los Angeles care about water and about bringing the rest of their family in from Mexico. This has nothing to do with people in Iowa or Texas.

Look, you're a Soros hack, but the founding fathers were so much smarter than you, and grasp that each state had it's own agenda, hence needed a voice in the executive branch.

If we did as your master commands, then only California and New York would matter, no one else in the nation would have any voice. Radical left rulers with an urban agenda would by default win in every case, since the great urban centers would be all that would matter in elections.

Yes, this is what you of the left seek, it furthers your goal of a 1% ruling elite in the central authority using and iron fist on the impoverished masses of the 99%.

Leftism is simply feudalism repackaged for consumption by the stupid.

If the presidency was still restricted to its original scope and intent, that wouldn't really be a problem.

 

[kaz]

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Pogo the Huffer doesn't care. He wants Hillary in office and will throw a fit until he gets his way. Huffer is a typical leftist.

 

[paulitician]

Is it really? Think on it a bit more.

 

[Pogo]

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Never said they did.
Did reading comprehension class turn you away again? Those meanies.

Since yet another point has deftly eluded you it's once again up to me to explain. You see Grasshopper, in the example above you have one set of states translating into 75 Electoral Votes, which were won by a collective margin of 224k (or if you like an average of 56,000 per state). In the other set you have the same number of EVs, won by a collective margin of over five million (or about 1.3 million avg/state) --- for the same return.

So in set two, a level of 22.7 times more voters chose the winning candidate than chose the winner of set one --- yet both sets won exactly the same number of EVs.

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Are you going to make the case that it's the same dollar and should be worth a dollar everywhere?

Why not?

 

[Pogo]

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Pogo the Huffer doesn't care. He wants Hillary in office and will throw a fit until he gets his way. Huffer is a typical leftist.

I've made a total of exactly zero (0) posts about "who I want in office". This is all about the process called the Electoral College, and it always has been, and in fact it will continue to be.

But it's instructive that you can't handle that topic so you try to pervert it into something else. That's so cute.

 

[Spare_change]

No, should your vote count more because you live in a big city? The EC was designed to give all areas of the country proportional value in selecting our presidents. Its not perfect by a long shot, we do not live in a pure democracy. Electing presidents using PV would virtually give no say to anyone except the big city dwellers.

Is that how it works in every other country in the world where voters who elect a head of state do it with a direct popular vote? Hm?

Oh wait, not every other country does that; there's one that does it indirectly like we do. Pakistan.
They know what they're doin' huh? Damn Karachi-Democrats, they want to run everything.

But this is nothing but an academic discussion. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC would never get 38 states to ratify it.

That's (a) a self-fulfilling prophecy fallacy; declare something "will never work", therefore throw up one's hands and make no attempt. It's ghey.

And (b) it isn't necessary to eliminate the EC anyway -- how the EC votes is up to the several states. There's no part of the Constitution anywhere that dictates they have to vote "winner take all". None. Zero. Two states already don't; they happen to subdivide by Congresscritter district but they could do it any way they like including proportional to the state's PV.

So changing how the shitstem works doesn't require 38 states. It just requires one at a time.

'
bullshit, it would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states. allocating EC votes is not the same as doing away with it. But since you like the state by state idea, how about allocating California's EC votes based on how all of the voters in that state vote?
Why should Trump voters in California have no voice?

NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's what I've been saying all year about this shit. Including all over this thread.



I just wanna reach into the screen and SHAKE some of you cretins....

I get it, since you have been destroyed by facts and knowledge, you change sides. Now you agree with us. Have you ever had an original thought?

Holy SHIT -- read my posts on this for the last eight months, ya flaming moron.

FINALLY you get my point, and now you don't have the balls to admit it, concocting this twisted Doublethink Bizarro world where you can "win".

Whatever. You're pathetic but the important thing is you're coming around. Baby steps.

The democrats are dedicated to disenfranchising voters in 48 states.

Without the EC, New York and California alone would decide EVERY presidential election. The rest of the nation may as well stay home, their votes no longer matter.

This is what the democrats want, to disenfranchise most of the nation.

That's an exaggeration. Only 4 times has the party with less votes won the presidential election.
We are tipping the scales toward less populous states in 2 ways. The allocation of 2 senators regardless of state size gives more representation to those living in less populous states. The number of votes needed to earn an electoral vote in the presidential elections is substantially higher in larger states, again giving more representation to those living in less populous states. The bottom line is the tail is wagging the dog.

The lets allocate the EC votes in each state based on how the people of that state vote. Why should Trump voters in California and New York have no voice in the presidential elections?

Indeed that's what JustAnotherNut was suggesting in her thread -- proportional EC voting. And there's no Constitutional reason they can't do it (Maine and Nebraska already hint at it).

At that point I pointed out to her that yes that's a step in the right direction but by doing it you're effectively observing the PV anyway so it amounts to the same thing -- using a popular vote.

At that point she accused me of sedition and gave me the finger, so she's got some of the same growing up to do as you have.

As we've been noting there's NO prescript anywhere that declares they MUST vote winner-take-all. My state for example has 15 EVs and they will all go (traditionally) to Rump. Were they allocated proportionally according to actual PV, they'd go 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton --- clearly this state did not vote unanimously, and such a state has never existed. And THAT is the main complaint and why I've been posting on these pages since last Spring that voters in a locked-red or locked-blue state in effect have no vote if their Electors are going to ignore the minority and vote against their interests.

Good to see that point finally start to sink in.

"At that point she accused me of sedition and gave me the finger,..."

Sounds to me like she's an astute judge of character.

 

[Spare_change]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.