The Electoral College
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2016, 02:09 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 02:13 PM by epronovost.)
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 12:50 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 08:53 AM)tomilay Wrote:  His Electoral College victory was borderline landslide though. Further evidence for how out of sync the Electoral College is with what actual voters want.


I think the Electoral College does serve a purpose. With all the haranguing about the popular vote, it is also worth noting that California alone comprises the entirety of Clinton's margin in the popular vote and then some. In other words, if California was not part of the union, Trump would have easily won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. One large state should matter more than a small state, but not in a way that it is the only state that matters in a national election.

Snopes had an interesting article on the subject. While completly true, if you remove Texas, Hillary would have won both the electoral college and the popular vote too. Saying that without this State or this one candidate X would have won is a bit ridiculous and tautological. Yes, without a massive suporter base, a candidate looses (shocking I admit). It's not rare to see a lot of division between States and political affiliation; the expression swing State applies to a very little number of State like Florida. This time, the division was only larger than usual. This could be very problematic for the new POTUS since a strong regionalism weaken all forms of federalism.

Here's a link to the article for the curious: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clintons-p...alifornia/

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
21-12-2016, 02:19 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 12:50 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 08:53 AM)tomilay Wrote:  His Electoral College victory was borderline landslide though. Further evidence for how out of sync the Electoral College is with what actual voters want.


I think the Electoral College does serve a purpose. With all the haranguing about the popular vote, it is also worth noting that California alone comprises the entirety of Clinton's margin in the popular vote and then some. In other words, if California was not part of the union, Trump would have easily won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. One large state should matter more than a small state, but not in a way that it is the only state that matters in a national election.

If its purpose is to dilute or outright nullify the votes of most Americans, I can't think of a better device. I also don't see why people would have a problem with an equal vote for everyone.

Most states, even so called red and blue, still have substantial numbers of votes going the other way. The winner takes all approach of the Electoral College ensures that these votes absolutely don't matter. It does not count for anything if the Republican Presidential candidate in Illinois, California, New York etc gets 49.999% of the vote.

If the Electoral College were to require distribution of the college votes in every state proportionally, that would be a step forward. In this scenario Trump would have carried about a third of California's Electoral College. A bit more for New York and Illinois. Given that the December vote is a waste of time, it can be eliminated and that way, one could even get a fraction of a single Electoral College vote. I don't know who wins in this scenario, but it is still a fairer one than the current setup.

But even that would not be full proof against a less popular candidate winning. And that is because they have it backwards. One option would be to retain the College, but only make it count as a requirement for a popular vote winner. So to win, you must

1) win the popular vote, and
2) carry a certain percentage of the electoral college.

The second option can also be a requirement that the winner gets a certain percentage of the popular vote in a certain minimum number of states.

If these 2 conditions are not met, you have no winner. In which case a runoff election decides the winner.

My hope is that Republicans get a taste losing the college while winning the popular vote in the near future. That way, more people will start to see the absurdity of this anachronism.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
21-12-2016, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 02:50 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 12:50 PM)BryanS Wrote:  I think the Electoral College does serve a purpose. With all the haranguing about the popular vote, it is also worth noting that California alone comprises the entirety of Clinton's margin in the popular vote and then some. In other words, if California was not part of the union, Trump would have easily won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. One large state should matter more than a small state, but not in a way that it is the only state that matters in a national election.

I do too. Think it is an attempt towards proportional geographical (not demographical like the popular vote) representation with the constraint that every State has at least some say in the operations of the Government. This is why Montana, with a population density of 1 igloo or refurbished nuclear launch tube for every 10000 acres, has 2 senators. Are the weights attached to each State appropriate? Beats the fuck outta me but the problem, apart from the intrinsic politics, seems easy enough to formulate to assume that the nerds that assign the weights know how to do the math. The electoral college vote actually seems more fair to me than the popular vote if properly implemented.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
21-12-2016, 02:28 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 08:53 AM)tomilay Wrote:  His Electoral College victory was borderline landslide though.

I've heard this many times and I don't understand how anyone can claim that #46 out of 58 on the electoral college vote % winning roster can conceivably qualify as a borderline landslide. The only way I could possibly see doing this is to disingenuously subsample the population to support their predetermined conclusion. ... Which now that I think of it is their modus operandi so I shouldn't be so surprised.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 02:48 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 02:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 08:53 AM)tomilay Wrote:  His Electoral College victory was borderline landslide though.

I've heard this many times and I don't understand how anyone can claim that #46 out of 58 on the electoral college vote % winning roster can conceivably qualify as a borderline landslide. The only way I could possibly see doing this is to disingenuously subsample the population to support their predetermined conclusion. ... Which now that I think of it is their modus operandi so I shouldn't be so surprised.

according to a recent poll of conservatives something like 56% believe that trump also won the popular vote. I'm sure since they polled conservatives LDH will agree with their findings.

Laugh out load


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 02:58 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 02:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 08:53 AM)tomilay Wrote:  His Electoral College victory was borderline landslide though.

I've heard this many times and I don't understand how anyone can claim that #46 out of 58 on the electoral college vote % winning roster can conceivably qualify as a borderline landslide. The only way I could possibly see doing this is to disingenuously subsample the population to support their predetermined conclusion. ... Which now that I think of it is their modus operandi so I shouldn't be so surprised.

I meant it in terms of 306(56%) to 232(44%). The gap that makes the landslide purely in Electoral College terms. This result is exaggerated by the winner-takes-all approach. It's entirely possible, I think even likely, that Clinton wins, if this Electoral College system were to apportion the votes proportionally instead of winner-takes-all. This minor reform of the system reduces the chances of a popular vote losing winner.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 03:01 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 02:09 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 12:50 PM)BryanS Wrote:  I think the Electoral College does serve a purpose. With all the haranguing about the popular vote, it is also worth noting that California alone comprises the entirety of Clinton's margin in the popular vote and then some. In other words, if California was not part of the union, Trump would have easily won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. One large state should matter more than a small state, but not in a way that it is the only state that matters in a national election.

Snopes had an interesting article on the subject. While completly true, if you remove Texas, Hillary would have won both the electoral college and the popular vote too. Saying that without this State or this one candidate X would have won is a bit ridiculous and tautological. Yes, without a massive suporter base, a candidate looses (shocking I admit). It's not rare to see a lot of division between States and political affiliation; the expression swing State applies to a very little number of State like Florida. This time, the division was only larger than usual. This could be very problematic for the new POTUS since a strong regionalism weaken all forms of federalism.

Here's a link to the article for the curious: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clintons-p...alifornia/

The idea that the popular vote win comes only from California is laughable. Why not Illinois and a handful of other smaller states? How does anyone decide this?

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
21-12-2016, 03:19 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 04:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  I'm not sure any more Vos. You're so goddamn aggro sometimes. It bugs the hell out of me. When you did the Trump bullshit dance your character seemed to change so radically that I felt like I hardly knew you any more, then you said your sorrys and carried on, but you seem to have retained your fascination with right-wing politics and other stuff such as your anti-abortion stance, as well as your ability to make snide remarks. It makes me think that you hid your real thoughts and just played liberal for a time, and that really you mostly think like Gilgamesh or the other far right weirdos. You were our friend and then you abused that trust. You think it's minor but I can't forget it easily.
Which do you think is more likely, that I've been pretending to be a liberal for the 4+ years I've been on this forum or that my general attitude and my views on certain issues have changed over the years? To put it into perspective, I was 17 years old when I made my first post on here, now I'm 21. It's completely normal for people to change as they grow up and while it's true that I'm less liberal now than I was when I first registered on TTA, I'm still a far cry from being politically right-wing. I'm an atheist, I'm pro-secularism, pro-abortion (as far as legislation is concerned), pro-gay marriage, pro-science, anti-war and so and so forth. The only notable right-wing positions I can think of are my stances on immigration, gun rights and SJW nonsense. As for that last part, I don't know what you expect me to do beyond apologizing; I moved on from that incident a long time ago. If you want to hold a grudge against me over it for years on end, that's your choice.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 03:22 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 03:01 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 02:09 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Snopes had an interesting article on the subject. While completly true, if you remove Texas, Hillary would have won both the electoral college and the popular vote too. Saying that without this State or this one candidate X would have won is a bit ridiculous and tautological. Yes, without a massive suporter base, a candidate looses (shocking I admit). It's not rare to see a lot of division between States and political affiliation; the expression swing State applies to a very little number of State like Florida. This time, the division was only larger than usual. This could be very problematic for the new POTUS since a strong regionalism weaken all forms of federalism.

Here's a link to the article for the curious: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clintons-p...alifornia/


The idea that the popular vote win comes only from California is laughable. Why not Illinois and a handful of other smaller states? How does anyone decide this?

My choice is in a way arbitrary, and chosen in part for political affect. However there is a good reason I would pick California. One reason for its selection is the tantrums coming from liberal voters in that state that they want to break away from the union because of Trump's election (similar to Texas when Obama became president). However the vote margin really is rather extreme in that state in particular. It's not just the size of that state. It's also the huge margin that provided the numbers. No other state comes anywhere even close.

Here is a useful chart to see the vote margin which can be sorted by margin:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data....=0&elect=0

The top states providing vote margin were:
1. California, 4,269,978 Clinton
2. New York, 1,732,872 Clinton
3. Illinois, 944,714 Clinton
4. Massachusetts, 904,303 Clinton
5. Texas, 807,179 Trump
6. Maryland, 734,759 Clinton
7. Tennessee, 652,230 Trump
8. Alabama, 588,708 Trump
9. Kentucky, 574,117 Trump
10. New Jersey, 546,345 Clinton

From this data, it is clear that in a popular vote system, California, both because of its size and propensity to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, would have an outsized influence in the presidential election that would be more than any other state by far. The vote was 61.48% Clinton to 31.49% Trump.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 03:26 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 02:09 PM)epronovost Wrote:  While completly true, if you remove Texas, Hillary would have won both the electoral college and the popular vote too.


If you remove all the other states and all the other voters except me, Hillary would have won. Yes

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: