Clinton projected to win popular vote

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2016, 10:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

In the EC system, not every vote counts. A conservative living in California or a liberal in Mississippi cast pointless votes for POTUS. Relying on the popular vote would require at least the person with the most votes to win, but someone could win the EC race with only 22% of the popular vote. It would take winning the plurality of the votes in 8 states, whereas the minimum states needed to win based on popular with ranked voting would be 9, and that is with winning 100% of the popular vote (assuming the percentage of voters in a state to the federal number is roughly the same as population percentages).

Edit: My math was wrong, not sure what I did. 11 states minimum for EC. Still allows for winning the EC with only 22% of the popular vote.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 10:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In the EC system, not every vote counts. A conservative living in California or a liberal in Mississippi cast pointless votes for POTUS. Relying on the popular vote would require at least the person with the most votes to win, but someone could win the EC race with only 22% of the popular vote. It would take winning the plurality of the votes in 8 states, whereas the minimum states needed to win based on popular with ranked voting would be 9, and that is with winning 100% of the popular vote (assuming the percentage of voters in a state to the federal number is roughly the same as population percentages).

Using the logic at the beginning is similar to saying whenever you vote for the non-winner, your vote doesn't count. As to the rest, it's fun with numbers. The EC is the best thing we have to ensure the wishes of each state of the Union "counts". 

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2016, 10:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Using the logic at the beginning is similar to saying whenever you vote for the non-winner, your vote doesn't count. As to the rest, it's fun with numbers. The EC is the best thing we have to ensure the wishes of each state of the Union "counts". 

Why should the states matter if it is not what the people want?

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 10:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why should the states matter if it is not what the people want?

Because we are a nation of united states; therefore each state has a voice. Some smaller than others, but each has one.  Are you seriously asking why the State Concept should matter in a Nation of united states?

[Aquapod770]

(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.

Trump won with less votes than Romney got in 2012. Never underestimate how horrible of a candidate hillary was. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2016, 11:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because we are a nation of united states; therefore each state has a voice. Some smaller than others, but each has one.  Are you seriously asking why the State Concept should matter in a Nation of united states?

But it is a government of the people, right? If the winner is not the person chosen by the people, then that is negated. The SCOTUS precedence is that the Constitution creates a government over the people, not an agreement between states. In fact, it was intentionally created it that way because they tried that and it failed. If the all of the people have the ability to learn about the candidates for POTUS, then each person should have an equal vote for the position.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 11:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But it is a government of the people, right? If the winner is not the person chosen by the people, then that is negated. The SCOTUS precedence is that the Constitution creates a government over the people, not an agreement between states. In fact, it was intentionally created it that way because they tried that and it failed. If the all of the people have the ability to learn about the candidates for POTUS, then each person should have an equal vote for the position.

Talking of the Constitution, How does SCOTUS interpret this:

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress."


The framers did not want it to be a popular vote. If you support popular vote, that is fine; but don't point to the Constitution for support.

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2016, 11:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Talking of the Constitution, How does SCOTUS interpret this:

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress."


The framers did not want it to be a popular vote. If you support popular vote, that is fine; but don't point to the Constitution for support.

I have already discussed why the EC was set up. I fully understand that an amendment would be necessary to change this. But the EC was set up so the people, the land owning white men, could elect oligarchs in their local areas to entrust with voting for president because the voting population would not have the ability to know much about candidates for an office like that and so didn't trust the population to make that choice. The need for this is gone, we should change it.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 11:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have already discussed why the EC was set up. I fully understand that an amendment would be necessary to change this. But the EC was set up so the people, the land owning white men, could elect oligarchs in their local areas to entrust with voting for president because the voting population would not have the ability to know much about candidates for an office like that and so didn't trust the population to make that choice. The need for this is gone, we should change it.

Well I hope your proposed Amendment does not ignore the voice of the individual states; unless you that the state concept needs to be gone for good.

Would you like to see this popular vote concept used in nominating a Party's Candidate?

[Belsnickel]

(11-10-2016, 12:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I hope your proposed Amendment does not ignore the voice of the individual states; unless you that the state concept needs to be gone for good.

Would you like to see this popular vote concept used in nominating a Party's Candidate?

Personally, I don't care what parties do as they are private organizations and get to establish their own rules. I concern myself with public policy, not that of the parties. I concern myself more with making the barriers to ballot access less daunting to reduce the power of the parties.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 12:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, I don't care what parties do as they are private organizations and get to establish their own rules. I concern myself with public policy, not that of the parties. I concern myself more with making the barriers to ballot access less daunting to reduce the power of the parties.

Not sure what barriers to ballot access has to do with the discussion at hand, but I'm sure we would all agree that every US citizen should be free to vote without barrier. Given that was part of the original intent of the EC, but we were a fledgling country. The intent that each state have a voice should not be "gone forever" IMO. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-10-2016, 12:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure what barriers to ballot access has to do with the discussion at hand, but I'm sure we would all agree that every US citizen should be free to vote without barrier. Given that was part of the original intent of the EC, but we were a fledgling country. The intent that each state have a voice should not be "gone forever" IMO. 

Ballot access is in reference to someone getting their name on the ballot, which is really what being a candidate for a major party is all about because it provides an easier path to that.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 12:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ballot access is in reference to someone getting their name on the ballot, which is really what being a candidate for a major party is all about because it provides an easier path to that.

Well that's a whole other can of worms

[Belsnickel]

(11-10-2016, 12:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well that's a whole other can of worms

I know, but that is the direction I go instead of party governance since ballot access is public policy and parties are private entities. One person may have little impact on things like that, but public policy is something we can have an impact on rather than the party elites that will get their way no matter what within their organizations. Like how I would expect rules change in the RNC to prevent something like Trump from happening again.

[xxlt]

(11-09-2016, 11:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Excellent explanation. And what have we heard for the last year plus? "I don't like either of them," has been the lament of nearly everyone I have spoken with. The videos make the claim that the nature of the two party system is to produce two candidates neither of whom is appealing to the majority of voters and that is certainly born out in this presidential election and previous ones. Amazing. But will it ever get fixed? The two parties have limited incentive to change it, but the people would surely benefit if things changed.

[BmorePat87]

The Electoral College was a compromise between popular vote and Congressional vote. Some wanted Congress to pick while others wanted a popular vote. The slave states would never agree to a popular vote, however, since they were afford additional representation in congress thanks to the 3/5th's compromise. People like Madison, however, worried that having a group that was constantly together (Congress) picking the President would cause issues.

So they agreed that the people would vote for electors who could not be elected officials who would then get together and pick the President. The concept is the masses vote for smart people to make the decision. You didn't vote for a candidate, there was no "winner take all" of the electors.

We eventually evolved into a system where you voted for the candidate, not the elector, and the electors where then chosen and had to all vote for which ever candidate got a plurality of the vote.

The system was never meant to be truly democratic, nor was it meant to prevent large cities from picking the President, despite what a recent meme tries to tell us. The system as a whole can only be replaced via a constitutional amendment, however, you can change how electors are assigned without one.

A constitutional amendment will not pass anytime soon. That requires 38 states to be on board and red states have no reason to agree to this right now. They've lost the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections but have managed to win 3 of those 5 elections thanks to this system. They benefit from voters in Wyoming being worth 3.5 times what a voter in California is worth.

Arguments in favor suggest that it keeps the opinion of all of the states heard, but it does so be stating that citizens in small states are worth more than citizens in big states and making voters of the minority party in states voiceless. The popular vote makes more sense. There are arguments against it, but it would actually mean candidates now have a reason to go to pockets in opposite color states that house their supporters.

It won't be a system like that any time soon, however, so if Democrats want to win the white house, they need to start fielding candidates who can win by more than half a million. And, yes, it did sound silly when I typed that Democrats can't win if they can only get half a million more votes...

[Mike M (the other one)]

(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.

Yep, that accurate polling from the left media set her up there. Had they been polling that Trump was winning, they would've gotten out and voted. Even my son and wife said Hillary's going to win, but they both still voted for Trump.

[Millhouse]

(11-10-2016, 07:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yep, that accurate polling from the left media set her up there. Had they been polling that Trump was winning, they would've gotten out and voted. Even my son and wife said Hillary's going to win, but they both still voted for Trump.

I have a theory that Clinton's campaign own polling people who they would have privately hired throughout the campaign knew it was much closer than the common polls the news outlets used. I think this because in the last two weeks, the negative attack ads ramped up big time while less amount of positive ads were being used. If she had a comfortable lead which their own internal polls showed as well, then I dont think those attack ads would have been used to the extent they were. But it seemed like a last ditch effort in hindsight to pull out all the punches.

[SunsetBengal]

(11-10-2016, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Electoral College was a compromise between popular vote and Congressional vote. Some wanted Congress to pick while others wanted a popular vote. The slave states would never agree to a popular vote, however, since they were afford additional representation in congress thanks to the 3/5th's compromise. People like Madison, however, worried that having a group that was constantly together (Congress) picking the President would cause issues.

So they agreed that the people would vote for electors who could not be elected officials who would then get together and pick the President. The concept is the masses vote for smart people to make the decision. You didn't vote for a candidate, there was no "winner take all" of the electors.

We eventually evolved into a system where you voted for the candidate, not the elector, and the electors where then chosen and had to all vote for which ever candidate got a plurality of the vote.

The system was never meant to be truly democratic, nor was it meant to prevent large cities from picking the President, despite what a recent meme tries to tell us. The system as a whole can only be replaced via a constitutional amendment, however, you can change how electors are assigned without one.

A constitutional amendment will not pass anytime soon. That requires 38 states to be on board and red states have no reason to agree to this right now. They've lost the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections but have managed to win 3 of those 5 elections thanks to this system. They benefit from voters in Wyoming being worth 3.5 times what a voter in California is worth.

Arguments in favor suggest that it keeps the opinion of all of the states heard, but it does so be stating that citizens in small states are worth more than citizens in big states and making voters of the minority party in states voiceless. The popular vote makes more sense. There are arguments against it, but it would actually mean candidates now have a reason to go to pockets in opposite color states that house their supporters.

It won't be a system like that any time soon, however, so if Democrats want to win the white house, they need to start fielding candidates who can win by more than half a million. And, yes, it did sound silly when I typed that Democrats can't win if they can only get half a million more votes...

That is a false statement, Pat.  Only in 2000 has a recent Republican won the Presidency, despite not winning the popular vote.  Prior to that, you have to go all the way back to 1844, in order to find another example.

[Belsnickel]

(11-10-2016, 07:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is a false statement, Pat.  Only in 2000 has a recent Republican won the Presidency, despite not winning the popular vote.  Prior to that, you have to go all the way back to 1844, in order to find another example.

So Trump won the popular vote on Tuesday?