(11-09-2016, 09:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: the NYT projects that she will win the popular vote by 1.1% once California is fully reported (currently only 65%).
Last night, when the election was called, she was down nearly 1 million. She's currently up 110k.
Nearly 1 million more Americans will likely have voted for Clinton and she will have still lost.
Exactly why the election process is flawed. How do you tell people every vote counts?
(11-09-2016, 09:55 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Exactly why the election process is flawed. How do you tell people every vote counts?
Because that is the gimmick they have used from the start to make people feel important. The reality is your vote doesn't count if you are in the minority party in a heavily leaning state. In today's world there is no reason it shouldn't be a simple popular vote election.
(11-09-2016, 09:55 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Exactly why the election process is flawed. How do you tell people every vote counts?
We have to keep in mind that the reason this system was put in place by the framers was because they didn't have faith in the population as a whole to do the right thing with an election. The general population was only intended to elect their state officials, their Representatives in the House, and electors to decide on the POTUS. Later on we made the Senate and POTUS elected by the people as things shifted.
We definitely need to rethink our electoral processes on a number of levels.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-09-2016, 09:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: the NYT projects that she will win the popular vote by 1.1% once California is fully reported (currently only 65%).
Last night, when the election was called, she was down nearly 1 million. She's currently up 110k.
Nearly 1 million more Americans will likely have voted for Clinton and she will have still lost.
The issue I see with a President winning 'By popular vote" is that even the "popular vote" isn't exactly entirely accurate. The "popular vote" doesn't actually account for who every American would want as president of the US in regard to the two top candidates. This is because the popular vote doesn't take into account all of the Americans who voted for parties that weren't republican or democratic. So while the "popular vote" might account for a lot of Americans, it doesn't account for all of them, and that's the issue I see with going by a popular vote because anyone who votes independently still has a vote that "doesn't count".
(11-09-2016, 10:34 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The issue I see with a President winning 'By popular vote" is that even the "popular vote" isn't exactly entirely accurate. The "popular vote" doesn't actually account for who every American would want as president of the US in regard to the two top candidates. This is because the popular vote doesn't take into account all of the Americans who voted for parties that weren't republican or democratic. So while the "popular vote" might account for a lot of Americans, it doesn't account for all of them, and that's the issue I see with going by a popular vote because anyone who votes independently still has a vote that "doesn't count".
This is why I am in favor of ranked or alternative voting systems. We need to move towards that as a method for elections that will eliminate the "spoiler effect" of third party/independent candidates and will give their supporters more of a voice (and potentially give those candidates more room to grow).
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
I'm fairly shocked by this. It'll be real interesting to see if Trump's victory was more a result of high Republican turnout, low Democratic turnout, or of Dems crossing party lines in swing states to support Trump. I seriously can't believe she won the popular vote with the way the electoral college went.
(11-09-2016, 10:49 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm fairly shocked by this. It'll be real interesting to see if Trump's victory was more a result of high Republican turnout, low Democratic turnout, or of Dems crossing party lines in swing states to support Trump. I seriously can't believe she won the popular vote with the way the electoral college went.
I heard some interviews this morning where there were regular Democrat voters that weren't motivated to go to the polls. They weren't excited about Clinton, they really disliked Trump, but they thought it was a foregone conclusion Clinton would win. So they didn't hit the polls in the numbers they did for Obama. This was something that was thought could be a potential problem, but not as significant.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-09-2016, 10:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I am in favor of ranked or alternative voting systems. We need to move towards that as a method for elections that will eliminate the "spoiler effect" of third party/independent candidates and will give their supporters more of a voice (and potentially give those candidates more room to grow).
One thing I think they could do to fix the issue I noted is to add a second ballot to the voting system. You first select the person you want to be President out of ALL of the candidates. You then submit that ballot. You are then given a second ballot that only lists the two top candidates that will most likely win the election based on projection and you HAVE to vote for one of them for the sake of counting ALL popular votes in regards to who everyone would rather have as President. That's the only way I can see a popular vote being meaningful.
(11-09-2016, 10:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I heard some interviews this morning where there were regular Democrat voters that weren't motivated to go to the polls. They weren't excited about Clinton, they really disliked Trump, but they thought it was a foregone conclusion Clinton would win. So they didn't hit the polls in the numbers they did for Obama. This was something that was thought could be a potential problem, but not as significant.
Dems are always susceptible to that. It happened here in Kentucky last year when we got a carpet-teabagger governor that nobody but the evangelicals seemed to like leading up to the contest. Thing is, those folks actually can be depended on to vote.
I honestly felt like the Comey announcement that the investigation was re-opened two Fridays ago would scare Dems into getting to the polls. I guess not.
I never thought trump would win the election, but I always found some of the polls a bit laughable. Huffpo was giving trump a 1.6% chance of winning. That's just straight arrogance and stupidity. It may have even hurt to spread that kind of message on a partisan liberal website. You'd have to be a complete fool to believe that number.
(11-09-2016, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: One thing I think they could do to fix the issue I noted is to add a second ballot to the voting system. You first select the person you want to be President out of ALL of the candidates. You then submit that ballot. You are then given a second ballot that only lists the two top candidates that will most likely win the election based on projection and you HAVE to vote for one of them for the sake of counting ALL popular votes in regards to who everyone would rather have as President. That's the only way I can see a popular vote being meaningful.
Why don't you think ranked/alternative/instant runoff would make a popular vote meaningful?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-09-2016, 11:21 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Oh sorry, I wasn't trying to sound like I was dismissing your idea. I guess I don't really know what your idea is. Could you explain?
Honestly, the best way to explain it is to rely on these videos:
I could type out an explanation, but someone has put in this work, so I will rely on them.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
This will be the 5th Presidential election in which the winner did not get the popular vote. The last time was in 2000 with Dubya & Gore, and the other 3 times were in the 1800's with Harrison, Hayes, and JQ Adams not getting the popular.
I think the electoral system has good merits about it, but at the same time definitely has it's flaws. For example, a candidate can win just 11 states while losing the other 39 and D.C. and still can win the election. I dont see how that is fair if that was to happen.
Everyone knows the rules beforehand, and they plan their campaigns based on them. Hillary will win a plurality rather than a majority I believe so it bothers me even less.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Matt is absolutely right in regards to the EC's original purpose. I'd also add that it is a mechanism that gives states some power in the national election process. This, IMO, is totally by design and the exact kind of compromise thinking common between the federalist and the anti-federalist framers. As for Hillary winning the popular vote, it won't change anything, doesn't mean much and will only give Clinton supporters something else to bemoan for the next few months.
(11-09-2016, 10:49 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm fairly shocked by this. It'll be real interesting to see if Trump's victory was more a result of high Republican turnout, low Democratic turnout, or of Dems crossing party lines in swing states to support Trump. I seriously can't believe she won the popular vote with the way the electoral college went.
The demographic breakdown will be interesting. While I think democratic complacency played a part, it's not the full story.
Trump, like the businessman he is, sold this idea of taking back America from the current president and Clinton. His target group, the working class, non-college-educated whites bought in and came out to vote for him.
I'm no statistician, but I imagine the group the Trump pandered to is one that is normally complacent/apathetic about elections. Trump spoke to em, and they responded, and I think the pollsters (and the DNC) grossly underestimated Trump's appeal to them.
(11-09-2016, 05:16 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Thanks white people....
Better thank Black People...for not voting. Many of them decided that Obama had not lived up to their expectations, and decided that 50+ years of voting Democrat still had them at the bottom of the ladder.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(11-09-2016, 09:55 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Exactly why the election process is flawed. How do you tell people every vote counts?
Because every vote does count.
The problem with going strictly by the popular is about 4 states would determine every election. For instance, taking only NY and California, Hills got approximately 4 million more votes that Trump. That is more than total voters in 44 states.
It is still slightly that way with the EC, but not as drastic. For instance with the states of NY and CA Clinton earned 84 electoral votes. Trump earned 67 in TX and FL, but only scored less than 1 million in the popular.
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
