Clinton will win the popular vote

[TexasTiger 12,897]

53 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

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

I win. 

You and Charlie Sheen.

[AURaptor 1,125]

44 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You and Charlie Sheen.

[homersapien 11,379]

3 hours ago, AURaptor said:

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

I win. 

 Self-parody.    

[AURaptor 1,125]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

 Self-parody.    

Actually, ...oh, never mind. You wouldn't even understand anyway. 

[quietfan 233]

4 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

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

Oh absolutely, it would be easier to get 270 E.C. votes.  But 270 wouldn't be close to a majority.

Wyoming's roughly 600,000 people (being generous and rounding up) have three Electoral votes, or about 1 E.C. vote per 200,000 people.  To apply the same ratio for the entire 300 million population of the U.S. (i.e., to make the Electoral College truly proportional to state populations) would mean an Electoral College of 1500 Electors, making 751 votes the winning number:  300,000,000 / 200,000  =  1500 

 

[quietfan 233]

7 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

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

Yep, California has 18 1/3 times more Electors.           ...and  66 times more people!

[TexasTiger 12,897]

On November 28, 2016 at 8:12 AM, TitanTiger said:

I hardly think a state that went 62-33 for Clinton and hasn't gone for a Republican since the 1980s represents a "broader spectrum of thought and interests" than anyone else. I didn't say "anyone else." Most white voters in the deep South don't even consider the Democratic candidate no matter who the Republican is or what he stands for. There is an almost total lack of critical thought that goes into the process. The South has operated from Groupthink at least since the Civil War. Perhaps if it was split up into 8 states and they weren't gerrymandered to make sure that each section retained a Democratic majority we could talk.  But that isn't happening.  The conservative areas of the state don't get much say because the coast dominates everything.

At least within the old Confederacy there's some movement.  Florida, Virginia and North Carolina are battleground states and all have gone for Democrats in recent elections.  Georgia was only a 6 point win for Republicans.  Even Texas was closer (9 points).  Democrats at least have a chance of peeling off anywhere from 13-57 EVs in the Old South.  They may never lose California's 55 EVs again.  That's a monolithic block guaranteed for Dems.

You say at least there is some movement. CA has moved. Reagan carried it. GHWB carried it. Bill Clinton barely got over 50%. Many Republicans have carried CA. The previous governor was Republican. CA might vote for a Republican that was more centrist.

And I'll counter with New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.  Three fewer states, the exact same number of EVs and a 4.3 million vote advantage for Hillary.  Also states that "grossly distort" vote totals using your logic.

This is not an argument that works for ditching the EC.

Most of the states that make a net contribution to the federal budget vote Dem. The states deciding who is president take more from the budget than contribute. Is that a recipe for stability? How's that argument?

As can be a popular vote.  In fact, it makes it even easier.  The amount of widespread manipulation that has to be coordinated across 51 separate elections vs just manipulating a few popular votes here and there makes pulling that off much harder under the EC.  

This campaign was decided by less than 80,000 votes in 3 states. 40,000 of them go the other way, the EC matches the popular vote. What makes this year's outcome a more fair or appropriate outcome?

And yet that has not been a widespread problem.  After all these years we still only have Nebraska and Maine splitting up their EVs.  Should it actually become a problem, we can address the standardization issue.  But the idea that the EC is somehow far more susceptible to manipulation than a popular vote doesn't hold water.  

It is structurally far more susceptible due to the utter lack of standardization. A system that is structurally designed to allow such manipulation is structurally unsound. No "cheating" or "fraud" is even necessary to distort the outcome under the current structure. Wait until after an election is decided this way before addressing an obvious structural problem which allows a single state to tip the balance by changing the rules of the game?

 

[TexasTiger 12,897]

On November 30, 2016 at 1:36 PM, cptau said:

Can you name a country  the size of or near the size of the United States that uses direct popular vote to elect a chief executive?   The only one I know of is Russia.   Where you get Putin!    The mob likes Putin.   

The notion of popular vote is not even mentioned in the US Constitution concerning election of the President.  The states can individually select their electors in almost any manner they choose.    Initially the electors were appointed by the state legislators. All states now use state level popular vote, but some states have even partially separated their electors by Congressional districts (Maine and Nebraska).  Good luck with the states agreeing to change all this with a constitutional amendment.  

One option is to select Presidential electors totally based on individual Congressional district popular votes.  Trump probably still wins as the House of Representatives has a Republican majority.  The DNC actually pushed this idea several years ago and abandoned it when they discovered they were better off with the current elector selection method. Congressional districts in upstate NY,  rural California, Michigan, Oregon, Illinois, Washington, etc. would go Republican.  

If popular vote is used for Presidential election, why not use it to directly vote on lots of issues.   Constitutional amendments,  tax increases, impeachment trials, etc.      How do you think the country would vote on amendments concerning abortion, same sex marriage, legalizing drugs, etc...............    Mob rule?

 

 

 

 

 

So you think we'd end up like Russia because of our size? Congressional districts are actually "rigged". More folks vote for Dems for Congress and still get a Republican Congress. And where in the heck do you get the comparison between electing an executive by popular vote and having referendums on random issues? What incredible evil do you really think the EC is preventing from happening?

[TheBlueVue 177]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

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.

So let me get this straight, you're ALL FOR a winner take all national popular vote but have a problem with the winner take all popular vote in the states? That's an interesting study in contrasts. There are many arguments that make perfect sense for maintaining the EC...1st, its the law. 2nd, as badly as you want it to be, the good ole USA is not a democracy of 330 million citizens, its a Constitutional Republic of 50 states. And 3rd, just because your nominee lost is not sufficient reason to ditch the EC so get over it. LOL

What democrats have to understand is they have to field a candidate that can appeal to a non-monolithic electorate all across the country. They cannot simply run up the score in huge ultra liberal states like New York, Illinois and California and call it a day. That's essentially what everyone who is for dismantling the EC seems to favor and it will never happen.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Just for giggles, I ran a couple of comparisons, first altering the Electoral College allocation to completely proportional, then a second one allocation just the congressional Electoral Votes proportionally and giving the senatorial EVs (2 per state) to the overall winner of that state.  The results:

Proportional
Clinton 256
Trump 250
3rd parties 32
Most likely result:  Since no one reached 270, the election would go to the House of Representatives and Trump would be President.

 

Proportional for 'congressional district' EVs only, Winner of state gets the 2 'senatorial' EVs
Trump 260
Clinton 252
3rd parties 24
Most likely result:  Since no one reached 270, the election would go to the House of Representatives and Trump would be President.

 

One alternate scenario would be that both candidates lobby the electors for the various third parties to cast their EVs for their candidate.  In all but two states, Gary Johnson was the third party candidate that would get the leftover electoral votes if there were any.  Only Utah (Evan McMullin) and Vermont ("others") had someone else in third.  Jill Stein did not get third in any state.  So would a lot of them peel off and cast votes for Trump or Clinton or let the House decide?  If they did peel off, would Trump get more or Clinton?  How would they decide...personal political feelings or go with the winner of their respective state?

My guess is that few if any Johnson electors would defect and the House would choose the next president.

 

[cptau 169]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

So you think we'd end up like Russia because of our size? Congressional districts are actually "rigged". More folks vote for Dems for Congress and still get a Republican Congress. And where in the heck do you get the comparison between electing an executive by popular vote and having referendums on random issues? What incredible evil do you really think the EC is preventing from happening?

Nope, there just aren't other large nation doing direct election.   Other countries that do direct election are the size of US states (where we do use direct election of governors).  

If we can logistically and technically allow popular vote for an election at a US national level. Why not have federal referendums like California does at the state level?  We'd  trust the electorate to vote on a federal office but not on a federal law or amendment?   

You know the answer to the last question.   If not, just google it or find a good high school civics or US government text book.

 

[homersapien 11,379]

11 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

So let me get this straight, you're ALL FOR a winner take all national popular vote but have a problem with the winner take all popular vote in the states? That's an interesting study in contrasts.

Where's the contrast?

A winner of the popular vote wins the office.  That's the way all other elections work

Given the electoral system, a narrow winner of a given state negates all the votes against them in that state, and because of the disproportional distribution of electoral college votes among the states, a given candidate can win the presidential election with a minority of the vote.  

That's more than an "interesting study" in contrasts, it's a revelation of an archaic system that is anti-democratic. 

[homersapien 11,379]

11 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

There are many arguments that make perfect sense for maintaining the EC...1st, its the law. 2nd, as badly as you want it to be, the good ole USA is not a democracy of 330 million citizens, its a Constitutional Republic of 50 states. And 3rd, just because your nominee lost is not sufficient reason to ditch the EC so get over it. LOL

The outcome of the recent election is not the reason for my opinion of the electoral college. I don't really give a s*** if you believe me or not on that, since it's not relevant to my argument.

(But speaking of which , considering Trumps statements prior to the election about it being "rigged" and his post election statements about the popular vote, it sure would be interesting to see the reaction of Trump if Hillary had won the electoral college and Trump had won the popular vote, wouldn't it?)

As far as it "being the law", there have been many archaic laws that were written into the constitution that have been changed, and rightly so.  So, "it's the law" is certainly no justification for keeping it. 

And the "good ole USA" is what we make of it, period.  That doesn't mean we have to cling to outmoded constitutional provisions. 

(And congratulations for not including the normal personal insults. It makes you look, let's say, more reasonable.  But you do "LOL" a lot.  Am I really that funny or is it just a habit?)

[AURaptor 1,125]

 

[TheBlueVue 177]

On 12/2/2016 at 8:46 PM, homersapien said:

considering Trumps statements prior to the election about it being "rigged" and his post election statements about the popular vote, it sure would be interesting to see the reaction of Trump if Hillary had won the electoral college and Trump had won the popular vote, wouldn't it?)

It doesn't matter what trump said. BOTH campaigns knew going in what the rules were. i was agree with trump that when 12 states and DC issue illegal aliens driver licenses it is either extremely naive, at best, or willfully ignorant, at worst to believe no voter fraud exists. His comments were challenging that narrative and I have no problem with it. Alluding to trumps reaction should the situaiotn be reversed isutrerly immaterial to making your argument because it is a moot point

 

On 12/2/2016 at 8:46 PM, homersapien said:

As far as it "being the law", there have been many archaic laws that were written into the constitution that have been changed, and rightly so.  So, "it's the law" is certainly no justification for keeping it.

Which is why I said change that law and stop whining about it. FTR, there is nothing archaic about a Constitutional republic of 50 states having a system wherein each state has meaningful input into its Presidential election. For once, be intellectually honest..its archaic IYO because your nominee won the national popular vote but lost the election. You know what, thats a really disengenuous appraisal because Trump won the popular votes that mattered. Had he not, we'd be listening to Shrillary shrieking for the next 4 years. Hillary lost....GTF over it.

 

On 12/2/2016 at 8:46 PM, homersapien said:

And the "good ole USA" is what we make of it, period.  That doesn't mean we have to cling to outmoded constitutional provisions.

Interestingly enough, we have an amendment process whereby you can change the good ole USA into a pure democracy and ALL you gotta do is invigle 3/4 of the states to agree to forego their electors and voila...you're in the clover. I seriously doubt they share your view about the law being archaic. If only we lived in a democracy homie...you'd be flying high today but, sadly, for you, we dont and thank God for that!

[homersapien 11,379]

6 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

It doesn't matter what trump said. BOTH campaigns knew going in what the rules were. i was agree with trump that when 12 states and DC issue illegal aliens driver licenses it is either extremely naive, at best, or willfully ignorant, at worst to believe no voter fraud exists. His comments were challenging that narrative and I have no problem with it. Alluding to trumps reaction should the situaiotn be reversed isutrerly immaterial to making your argument because it is a moot point

 

Which is why I said change that law and stop whining about it. FTR, there is nothing archaic about a Constitutional republic of 50 states having a system wherein each state has meaningful input into its Presidential election. For once, be intellectually honest..its archaic IYO because your nominee won the national popular vote but lost the election. You know what, thats a really disengenuous appraisal because Trump won the popular votes that mattered. Had he not, we'd be listening to Shrillary shrieking for the next 4 years. Hillary lost....GTF over it.

 

Interestingly enough, we have an amendment process whereby you can change the good ole USA into a pure democracy and ALL you gotta do is invigle 3/4 of the states to agree to forego their electors and voila...you're in the clover. I seriously doubt they share your view about the law being archaic. If only we lived in a democracy homie...you'd be flying high today but, sadly, for you, we dont and thank God for that!

"Whining" about bad laws is a necessary precursor to changing them. It's called building a political consensus.

And changing the way we elect the president doesn't magically change our form of government into a "pure democracy" any more than electing the rest of our government officials through a direct count does, so that's a false argument.

Trump may have been elected, but he does not speak for the majority of the American people. That will become progressively more apparent to you given time.  So maybe you need to start preparing to "GTF over that", oh clueless one.

[TheBlueVue 177]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Whining" about bad laws is a necessary precursor to changing them. It's called building a political consensus.

And changing the way we elect the president doesn't magically change our form of government into a "pure democracy" any more than electing the rest of our government officials through a direct count does, so that's a false argument.

Trump may have been elected, but he does not speak for the majority of the American people. That will become progressively more apparent to you given time.  So maybe you need to start preparing to "GTF over that", oh clueless one.

So wrong on about every level. The election process is how we maintain our form of govt homie. You're better than this, I thought. He is your President homie and its is going to be absolute treasure watching you melt for the next 4 years

[homersapien 11,379]

13 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

So wrong on about every level. The election process is how we maintain our form of govt homie. You're better than this, I thought. He is your President homie and its is going to be absolute treasure watching you melt for the next 4 years

That doesn't make sense.  I don't think you understood my post.

Of course the election process is how we "maintain" our form of government.

My point is that electing our president with a popular vote instead of the electoral college would not change that one iota.  It's the way we elect every other government representative.  Nothing would change by using the same method for the president.

I would say it's going to be pleasure watching the country melt over the next 4 years from having this narcissistic psychopath it office, but it won't be.  I take no pleasure in watching my country regress. It's unfortunate, but that seems to be the way with progress. Two steps forward, one step back.

[AURaptor 1,125]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I take no pleasure in watching my country regress.

So, stronger border, more attention to keeping ILLEGALS out, ( not simply Latinos and Muslims ) , more companies keeping jobs in the US, better tax rates for everyone, sanity in dealing with radical violent Jihadists, reinvigorating the energy industry, a return to constitutional views on the US Supreme court...oh yeah, some horrific ' regression ' on the horizon, huh homer ? 

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,897]

On December 2, 2016 at 11:58 AM, TitanTiger said:

Just for giggles, I ran a couple of comparisons, first altering the Electoral College allocation to completely proportional, then a second one allocation just the congressional Electoral Votes proportionally and giving the senatorial EVs (2 per state) to the overall winner of that state.  The results:

Proportional
Clinton 256
Trump 250
3rd parties 32
Most likely result:  Since no one reached 270, the election would go to the House of Representatives and Trump would be President.

 

Proportional for 'congressional district' EVs only, Winner of state gets the 2 'senatorial' EVs
Trump 260
Clinton 252
3rd parties 24
Most likely result:  Since no one reached 270, the election would go to the House of Representatives and Trump would be President.

 

One alternate scenario would be that both candidates lobby the electors for the various third parties to cast their EVs for their candidate.  In all but two states, Gary Johnson was the third party candidate that would get the leftover electoral votes if there were any.  Only Utah (Evan McMullin) and Vermont ("others") had someone else in third.  Jill Stein did not get third in any state.  So would a lot of them peel off and cast votes for Trump or Clinton or let the House decide?  If they did peel off, would Trump get more or Clinton?  How would they decide...personal political feelings or go with the winner of their respective state?

My guess is that few if any Johnson electors would defect and the House would choose the next president.

 

You point out other issues with our system. A candidate could win the popular vote, have no one reach 270 and then have a congress so gerrymandered that despite have more Americans vote for Democratic congressmen, an extremely right wing congress selects our President, further deteriorating confidence in our system and weakening us as a country.

[homersapien 11,379]

3 hours ago, AURaptor said:

So, stronger border, more attention to keeping ILLEGALS out, ( not simply Latinos and Muslims ) , more companies keeping jobs in the US, better tax rates for everyone, sanity in dealing with radical violent Jihadists, reinvigorating the energy industry, a return to constitutional views on the US Supreme court...oh yeah, some horrific ' regression ' on the horizon, huh homer ? 

Sorry if I don't seem impressed by your hopes and fantasies.  

I don't think you know which of the above are promises, and which are merely "campaign devices".  But then, no one does. 

Get back to me in four years and we'll revisit your list.

 

[TitanTiger 20,483]

18 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You point out other issues with our system. A candidate could win the popular vote, have no one reach 270 and then have a congress so gerrymandered that despite have more Americans vote for Democratic congressmen, an extremely right wing congress selects our President, further deteriorating confidence in our system and weakening us as a country.

And there are issues with a straight popular vote as well, such as have been pointed out.  We have one of the largest most geographically and regionally diverse republics that exists.  We have big concentrations of people in a handful of areas, and major media that sympathizes with and trumpets their views and concerns 24/7/365.  A candidate could win the popular vote simply by dominating the coast of California, Illinois and the DC to Boston corridor while performing ok to poorly across the rest of the country.  I don't think that's a good thing either.  The same reasons that we came up with a bicameral legislature to provide a balance between the concerns of the populous areas vs the concerns of the less populous apply with the office of the President.

None of these voting mechanisms are perfect and free of negative aspects.  While not perfect, I think the system we have, overall, does the best job of providing balance and a middle ground between all these competing concerns, advantages and disadvantages.

[TexasTiger 12,897]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

And there are issues with a straight popular vote as well, such as have been pointed out.  We have one of the largest most geographically and regionally diverse republics that exists.  We have big concentrations of people in a handful of areas, and major media that sympathizes with and trumpets their views and concerns 24/7/365.  A candidate could win the popular vote simply by dominating the coast of California, Illinois and the DC to Boston corridor while performing ok to poorly across the rest of the country.  I don't think that's a good thing either.  The same reasons that we came up with a bicameral legislature to provide a balance between the concerns of the populous areas vs the concerns of the less populous apply with the office of the President.

None of these voting mechanisms are perfect and free of negative aspects.  While not perfect, I think the system we have, overall, does the best job of providing balance and a middle ground between all these competing concerns, advantages and disadvantages.

I've pointed out numerous structural problems with the current system that allow it to be manipulated in ways that defeat its intention. In fact, it was intended to prevent a Trump, but has already been altered at the state level to lock-in results. Your primary issue comes down to the concern that population centers are more liberal than you prefer and, thus, Americans are more liberal than you prefer. You can dress that up as principle, but it ultimately comes off as pretty self-serving.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I've pointed out numerous structural problems with the current system that allow it to be manipulated in ways that defeat its intention. In fact, it was intended to prevent a Trump, but has already been altered at the state level to lock-in results. Your primary issue comes down to the concern that population centers are more liberal than you prefer and, thus, Americans are more liberal than you prefer. You can dress that up as principle, but it ultimately comes off as pretty self-serving.

No, my concern would be the same if the populous areas were more conservative and the rural ones more liberal.  That's perhaps because I'm old enough to understand when the alliances that make up the two major parties and the regions who supported them voted very differently.  Those things will ebb and flow with migration and population shifts, as well as cultural changes.  But in my view, the general principle remains intact.

You've made some thoughtful arguments about the cons of our current system.  I acknowledge that some are valid and would be open to some tweaks to the system.  Others I believe are "self-serving" for the side you have typically backed.  I'm sorry that I remain unconvinced of the wisdom of switching to a purely popular vote system.  It doesn't mean I haven't been listening or considering your view, it just means I don't agree with it, all things considered.  That doesn't make me "self-serving," it just means I have a mind of my own that sees it differently.

[TexasTiger 12,897]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, my concern would be the same if the populous areas were more conservative and the rural ones more liberal.  That's perhaps because I'm old enough to understand when the alliances that make up the two major parties and the regions who supported them voted very differently.  Those things will ebb and flow with migration and population shifts, as well as cultural changes.  But in my view, the general principle remains intact.

You've made some thoughtful arguments about the cons of our current system.  I acknowledge that some are valid and would be open to some tweaks to the system.  Others I believe are "self-serving" for the side you have typically backed.  I'm sorry that I remain unconvinced of the wisdom of switching to a purely popular vote system.  It doesn't mean I haven't been listening or considering your view, it just means I don't agree with it, all things considered.  That doesn't make me "self-serving," it just means I have a mind of my own that sees it differently.

Thanks for engaging.