So WAS this a repudiation of "politics as usual"?

[Dill]

(11-09-2016, 10:59 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Maybe i'm missing something? How can it not hold hold more weight with a denser population and a clear leaning one way?

Because when we are talking about the popular vote, it doesn't matter what state anyone is in. People are all lumped together.

Denser population holds weight with the electoral college.

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2016, 10:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course one state holds more weight than another on the popular vote, as do certain cities.

Our Nation is distributed by state, why shouldn't the vote? Could the EC use some massaging? Sure, but popular is not the way to go.

I don't understand how one person equals one vote nationally create skew. But, assuming it does, with the way the EC is weighted there is skew, no matter how you do it and it is a greater skew than there could ever be with a national popular vote. For instance, you would need only a plurality of the vote to get 10.22% of the electoral votes with California. To get that much of the weight in a popular vote you would need to win 84%.

[*Nately120*]

(11-09-2016, 11:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose as long as we are a Nation of united states. Once we do away with the whole state concept then we can focus on the popular vote.

That's fine, but we need to stop peddling this "every vote counts" and "majority rules" bs.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 11:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That's fine, but we need to stop peddling this "every vote counts" and "majority rules" bs.

But every vote does count, you're just voting for your state's voice.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 11:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't understand how one person equals one vote nationally create skew. But, assuming it does, with the way the EC is weighted there is skew, no matter how you do it and it is a greater skew than there could ever be with a national popular vote. For instance, you would need only a plurality of the vote to get 10.22% of the electoral votes with California. To get that much of the weight in a popular vote you would need to win 84%.

Of course there is "skew". It is skewed in a way that states with a larger population get more Electoral votes. It allows for the individual to have a voice in his or her state and allows that state to have a say in its Nation.

Look at this map and consider popular vote:



Do you think the popular vote would speak for the wants of a Nation?

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2016, 11:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course there is "skew". It is skewed in a way that states with a larger population get more Electoral votes. It allows for the individual to have a voice in his or her state and allows that state to have a say in its Nation.

Look at this map and consider popular vote:



Do you think the popular vote would speak for the wants of a Nation?

So what about the fact it is more skewed for those states using the EC method than popular?

And yes, because the nation would have spoken as a whole. The role of the POTUS is not to focus on local needs like that of the MCs and state officials.

[Dill]

(11-09-2016, 02:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'd say more of an absolute rejection of the PC culture, the Progressive Agenda, and all other radical idealisms that have been forced upon the lives and altered the cultures of plain Americans, ever increasingly for the past 8 years.

An absolute rejection of equality forced upon the lives and altered the cultures of Americans? Perhaps.  Although in total numbers more still voted for Clinton and Trump got fewer votes than Romney or McCain.

Whether talking about a "fat pig" or a "10", Trump says what he feels, and many prefer that honesty to some "politically correct" type who won't make fun of a handicapped person.

So now I am wondering, Sunset, how will Trump's policies affect the national debt and the wealth gap?

Now we have a president who promises to convert prejudice to policy. And that makes some feel very good. But beyond that,  where is the gain here for "plain Americans"?

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-09-2016, 11:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Because when we are talking about the popular vote, it doesn't matter what state anyone is in. People are all lumped together.

Denser population holds weight with the electoral college.

Raw numbers alone, i won't argue. The tendency for a strong lean that provides a clear statistical advantage, in one or two regions, is the problem. 

The only thing i'm arguing is that to state flatly (not that's what i'm saying Matt is doing--speaking more generally) that a candidate "won the popular vote" is a bit disingenuous when you can easily look at how 2 of 50 provide a clear statistical advantage. It's not a true representation of the whole.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 11:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So what about the fact it is more skewed for those states using the EC method than popular?

And yes, because the nation would have spoken as a whole.

As to the latter, we'll just disagree; not the first time. As to the former, I've said the EC needs massaged; maybe not to be as skewed based on population. That way the farmer in Nebraska that is harvesting 100s of acres to feed the Nation has as big a say as the 10,000 people living in a housing area taking up the same space of the Nation. 

[*Nately120*]

(11-09-2016, 11:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the latter, we'll just disagree; not the first time. As to the former, I've said the EC needs massaged; maybe not to be as skewed based on population. That way the farmer in Nebraska that is harvesting 100s of acres to feed the Nation has as big a say as the 10,000 people living in a housing area taking up the same space of the Nation. 

That sounds like a good way to make sure every election is between a super conservative and an ultra conservative.  Sign me up!  I know when I worked on Madison Avenue I looked around at the city and thought "What the hell do all these people do for this country that one farmer in Kansas doesn't?"

[Dill]

(11-09-2016, 11:18 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: that a candidate "won the popular vote" is a bit disingenuous when you can easily look at how 2 of 50 provide a clear statistical advantage. It's not a true representation of the whole.

What?   There is no "statistical advantage" when all votes are lumped together. The fact that you voted in NY or CA doesn't mean your vote counts more or "skews" anything. 

If the popular vote were run like the electoral college, then you would have a point. If Hilllary wins CA by 51% and all 100% of the votes go to her, then "density" would skew the popular vote. But that is not how it works.

Or perhaps you think that "statistical advantage" would be lost if the US population were spread evenly per square mile over the whole country?  

[Dill]

(11-09-2016, 11:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the latter, we'll just disagree; not the first time. As to the former, I've said the EC needs massaged; maybe not to be as skewed based on population. That way the farmer in Nebraska that is harvesting 100s of acres to feed the Nation has as big a say as the 10,000 people living in a housing area taking up the same space of the Nation. 

That is why we have the Senate.

I don't understand why anyone would say basing the EC on population some how "skews" it.

The point of democracy is to skew power in favor of the most votes.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 11:42 PM)Dill Wrote: That is why we have the Senate.

I don't understand why anyone would say basing the EC on population some how "skews" it.

The point of democracy is to skew power in favor of the most votes.

The 2 Senators per state actually levels the EC somewhat. I am not the one that used skew, that is why I placed it in quotes in my post.

EC is indirectly based on population as it is based on members of Congress and members of Congress are awarded by state based on population. 

The person with the most votes wins that state; as you say: Nothing is skewed. 

[Dill]

(11-09-2016, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The 2 Senators per state actually levels the EC somewhat. I am not the one that used skew, that is why I placed it in quotes in my post.

EC is indirectly based on population as it is based on members of Congress and members of Congress are awarded by state based on population. 

The person with the most votes wins that state; as you say: Nothing is skewed. 

Oops, sorry Bfine. I think I meant to respond to Rfaulk.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 11:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Oops, sorry Bfine. I think I meant to respond to Rfaulk.

We all post alike. 

[*Nately120*]

(11-09-2016, 11:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But every vote does count, you're just voting for your state's voice.

Now who's spouting feel-good t-shirt slogans? 

[JustWinBaby]

It's not purely about geography, but people's beliefs and voting preferences is clearly shaped by the communities they live in. And state and local govt's are SUPPOSED to serve them.

But on the national level you have pretty disparate regions and beliefs/preferences, and there needs to be some sort of reasonable adjustment there such that people in, say, Chicago don't unfairly dictate how you the farmer in Montana lives his day-to-day life.

I mean, aside from gerrymandering people don't complain about not having a say in the Representative in another district of their state. Even thought that House Representative has infinitely more (because you have no say in their election) influence on your outcomes, we recognize those people have a right to representation. And the EC works similar, where you have an equal say within your community but a community doesn't get twice as much say as another just because it has twice as many people.

I think as the federal govt encroaches more and more on state & local govt that the need for the EC is greater than ever.

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-09-2016, 11:39 PM)Dill Wrote: What?   There is no "statistical advantage" when all votes are lumped together. The fact that you voted in NY or CA doesn't mean your vote counts more or "skews" anything. 

If the popular vote were run like the electoral college, then you would have a point. If Hilllary wins CA by 51% and all 100% of the votes go to her, then "density" would skew the popular vote. But that is not how it works.

Or perhaps you think that "statistical advantage" would be lost if the US population were spread evenly per square mile over the whole country?  

That is something that would render my point moot. If you took everyone in NY and Cali and spread them throughout the US, it doesn't change the outcome--Clinton still wins the overall popular vote. Problem is, that's not the way it is. You can only say that she won the popular vote because she had such a massive statistical advantage in 2 out of the 50 states. Without such an advantage there, the numbers show that everyone else across the US favored Trump. 

I'm not saying either argument is right or wrong. Just using a trimmed mean to show that a blanket statement like "won the popular vote" isn't indicative of the overall because the outliers give a clear advantage to one side.

[xxlt]

(11-09-2016, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Someone on ABC, early in the evening said this was a "punch to the face of the elites".

I disagreed then and still do now.

The VAST majority of incumbents were re-elected.  The only change is the Presidency.  

So if one of the themes is "not liking career politicians"  why did so many get re-elected?

Gerrymandering and the two party system. It is ironic that Trump highlighted flaws and divisions on the R party like no other presidential candidate yet still the R party won big on Tuesday. It is almost like watching someone refuse to leave their burning home because it is their "safe place" even if it is in flames. I really hope the R party breaks with 40 years of tradition and does something to help working people. I really hope Trump is the greatest president ever. I want America and regular Americans to win regardless of who is steering the ship. But I fear in four years I will be shaking my head as things continue to worsen in middle class America and they reelect Trump again.

[SunsetBengal]

If this election went on total popular vote, they would be recounting for eternity. The separation of about 250K votes is approximately a little less than 0.1% of the total population.