Clinton will win the popular vote

[homersapien 11,367]

8 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

 It's cute that you really do believe what you post. Thanks for the laugh. 

It's cute how you constantly submit posts totally devoid of substance.  Thanks for the laughs.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, TheBlueVue said:

Giving the smaller states a "larger per capita influence on the election" balances the power with the states with the largest populations. Obviously, the detractors of the EC will never concede the genius of the founders in devising a system that doesn't place disproportionate political power in the hands of the heaviest  population centers

So here's the fundamental question that no one will ever be able to answer with simple logic:

Why does someone's vote in North Dakota count for more than someone's vote in Texas?  We are all Americans.  If a person in North Dakota makes the same amount of money as I do in Texas, we pay the same federal tax rate.  So thus, why shouldn't our vote count equally in a federal election?  If you ask me, there's a disproportionate lean to rural areas as they have less people contributing to the GDP of the country.

My argument is, and likely always will be, that the EC currently doesn't make candidates speak to a broad electorate or campaign where a large swath of voters live.  It's entirely possible that Trump could have won the popular vote if he had to campaign in California or New York, but as it stands right now, there's no reason for him to do so, just like there's no reason for any Democrat to ever campaign in Alabama or Kentucky.  That inherently means that you aren't having to broaden your message, but instead tailor it to a few specific demographics in swing states, which does nothing but polarize the country even further.

The argument that population centers would have too much power is asinine to me.  Lots of people live in those places for a reason:  jobs, infrastructure, entertainment, culture, etc.   Just because they choose to take advantage of those things doesn't mean that their votes should count less.

The EC had a place and time.  I just think with the advances in technology (ability to count votes quickly, campaign messaging, travel, interstate commerce, etc), the country has outgrown it. Like all things in life, the country needs to evolve with the times.

[AURaptor 1,122]

43 minutes ago, homersapien said:

False

There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives, the 100 Senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in the Twenty-third Amendment. Each state chooses electors amounting to the combined total of its Senators and Representatives.^[7]

[TexasTiger 12,835]

25 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives, the 100 Senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in the Twenty-third Amendment. Each state chooses electors amounting to the combined total of its Senators and Representatives.^[7]

Wyoming and CA each have 2 senators. Not proportional.

[AURaptor 1,122]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Wyoming and CA each have 2 senators. Not proportional.

 How many representatives does each have? It's  proportional. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

56 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Why does someone's vote in North Dakota count for more than someone's vote in Texas? 

The votes don't count for more but your focus is strictly on the individual vote. The founders focus was on the voice of the states. The voice of the state of North Dakota immediately becomes irrelevant noise the very moment we move to a popular vote election. Every state conducts a popular vote and the respective winner takes those electoral votes. Those are the rules of the game and both candidates knew it. Its a little late for crying about nationwide popular vote now.

[TheBlueVue 177]

10 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

 How many representatives does each have? It's  proportional. 

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and California has 55.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

16 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

 How many representatives does each have? It's  proportional. 

Did you fail math?

[TheBlueVue 177]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Did you fail math?

Did you? 55 for one and 3 for the other. The elector count seems to reflect the comparative populations very well.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

3 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Did you? 55 for one and 3 for the other. The elector count seems to reflect the comparative populations very well.

Use your calculator 

[TheBlueVue 177]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Use your calculator 

Don't need to. Cali has more than 18 times more electors than does Wyoming.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, TheBlueVue said:

The votes don't count for more but your focus is strictly on the individual vote. The founders focus was on the voice of the states. The voice of the state of North Dakota immediately becomes irrelevant noise the very moment we move to a popular vote election. Every state conducts a popular vote and the respective winner takes those electoral votes. Those are the rules of the game and both candidates knew it. Its a little late for crying about nationwide popular vote now.

No one here is whining about this election.  Everyone is trying to have a discussion about what is the right path for the country moving forward in future elections to make our country stronger.  And by the way, a 2011 poll showed 62% of Americans were in favor of moving to a popular vote (see link below).  That percentage number would suggest that the issue transcends party lines.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-want-popular-presidential-vote/

I'm well aware of what the founders thought and how electoral votes are awarded in the current process.  I just think that the founders got this wrong when taking into account a modern society.  And yes, my focus is strictly on the individual vote because I don't believe a single individual in one are of the country should have a more powerful vote than an individual in another part of the country.  And yes, votes in certain areas do count for more than others.  For example of weight:

North Dakota has 757,000 residents and 3 electoral votes.  Therefore, each person's weight is 0.0039 per electoral vote.

Texas has a population of 24.7 million residents and 38 electoral votes.  Therefore, each person's weight is 0.0000015 per electoral vote.

So essentially, a person in Texas has about HALF of the voting power that someone in North Dakota holds.  That is patently unfair to each individual American, as my voice should count for just as much as another tax-paying citizen's.

 

[TheBlueVue 177]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Everyone is trying to have a discussion about what is the right path for the country moving forward in future elections to make our country stronger.  And by the way, a 2011 poll showed 62% of Americans were in favor of moving to a popular vote (see link below).  That percentage number would suggest that the issue transcends party lines.

I was making reference to the candidates not you. As to the rest of your post my response is OK, change the law because that's what its going to take. With all due respect if that many americans favor a popular vote; it shouldn't be that hard to get a constitutional amendment passed.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

14 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Did you? 55 for one and 3 for the other. The elector count seems to reflect the comparative populations very well.

The only true reflection on population is the House.  Throwing in the Senators as part of the process throws more weight to smaller states as each state has the same amount of Senators.  It's not even close as California has 66 times the amount of population as Wyoming, but only 18 times the electoral voting power.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

The only true reflection on population is the House.  Throwing in the Senators as part of the process throws more weight to smaller states as each state as the same amount of Senators.  It's not even close as California has 66 times the amount of population as Wyoming, but only 18 times the electoral voting power.

OK, now what? Seems there's plenty there to get the law changed. Good luck.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

OK, now what? Seems there's plenty there to get the law changed. Good luck.

I think we're both well aware the law won't change any time soon as it would never get out of Congress, especially one controlled by Republican hands as the EC benefits that party more than the Dems.  Example: Dems have won 6-of-7 popular votes since 1992, but only 4-of-7 EC votes.

Beyond that, you would need 3/4 of the states to ratify which would not go to direct vote from the electorate in those states, but instead to political powers that be who would rather keep their undue influence.

Essentially I equate this whole issue to telling Gus to not be so predictable.  Easier said than done for a multitude of reasons, but mostly stubbornness.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

27 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Don't need to. Cali has more than 18 times more electors than does Wyoming.

And?

[RunInRed 16,404]

Hillary Clinton's national popular vote lead just surpassed 2.5 million (1.9%): https://t.co/j58GaxfPmH

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) December 1, 2016

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, TheBlueVue said:

The votes don't count for more but your focus is strictly on the individual vote. The founders focus was on the voice of the states. The voice of the state of North Dakota immediately becomes irrelevant noise the very moment we move to a popular vote election. Every state conducts a popular vote and the respective winner takes those electoral votes. Those are the rules of the game and both candidates knew it. Its a little late for crying about nationwide popular vote now.

Yeah, and the winner takes all, even if he/she won by a tiny margin.  That's how you get a "winner" with  a deficit of 2 million plus in the popular vote.

And without the electoral college, a citizen of North Dakota's vote counts exactly the same as a citizen's vote anywhere else in the country.

There is simply no argument for retaining the electoral college system other than simple tradition. Whatever rationale that could be made for it became irrelevant long ago.

[AURaptor 1,122]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Did you fail math?

Non sequitur. I showed you that the electoral college is proportional, and your reply is to insult me? 

I win. 

[quietfan 233]

5 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Land area does not vote blah blah blah... electoral votes are proportional to citizens, equaling the total Representatives & Senators of a State. 

California has 37,253,956 people and 55 Electoral votes, so each person in California is represented by 0.00000148 Electors.  Wyoming has 563,626 residents and 3 Electoral votes, so a Wyoming resident is represented by 0.00000532 Electors.  A resident of Wyoming has over three times more impact on the Electoral College than a resident of California.  In what way is that proportional? 

 

[AURaptor 1,122]

3 minutes ago, quietfan said:

California has 37,253,956 people and 55 Electoral votes, so each person in California is represented by 0.00000148 Electors.  Wyoming has 563,626 residents and 3 Electoral votes, so a Wyoming resident is represented by 0.00000532 Electors.  A resident of Wyoming has over three times more impact on the Electoral College than a resident of California.  In what way is that proportional? 

 

In the way that CA has 55 votes, and WY only has 3. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

2 minutes ago, quietfan said:

California has 37,253,956 people and 55 Electoral votes, so each person in California is represented by 0.00000148 Electors.  Wyoming has 563,626 residents and 3 Electoral votes, so a Wyoming resident is represented by 0.00000532 Electors.  A resident of Wyoming has over three times more impact on the Electoral College than a resident of California.  In what way is that proportional? 

 

You must've been a math major. All of this makes for a neat little argument but, lets be honest, it doesn't matter. comparing fractional differences that are that small to begin with is not very persuasive. Its really negligible. All of you who hate the electoral arrangement should redirect your efforts into changing the law rather than just complaining about it. Who knows you may succeed but I doubt it.

[quietfan 233]

9 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

In the way that CA has 55 votes, and WY only has 3. 

37,253,956 / 563,626 = 66 = 198 / 3.  If things were proportional, California would rate 198 Electoral votes to Wyoming's 3.

[TheBlueVue 177]

3 minutes ago, quietfan said:

37,253,956 / 563,626 = 66 = 198 / 3.  If things were proportional, California would rate 198 Electoral votes to Wyoming's 3.

So, if that were the case the road to the win @ 270 sure would be easier, huh? LOL