Clinton will win the popular vote

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 11:01 AM, quietfan said:

Personally, I think the biggest change I'd make to the Electoral College is requiring all states to appoint them in proportion to that state's popular vote rather than "winner-take-all". (Although mathematically defining such proportionality among multiple candidates would be tricky.)  That would make the Electoral College more reflective of the popular vote while preserving the protections for smaller states and still providing some sense of insulation against a 'tyranny' of uninformed, emotionally driven masses.  

I ran this exact idea in other thread and went to do the math.  Not 100% accurate, but close, the numbers for last week came out to 264 Trump, 263 Clinton, 15 Independent.

[homersapien 11,379]

On 11/9/2016 at 7:26 PM, AUcivE09 said:

That was exactly my point. Ole Alabama is way on down the list of states with a lot of people. Part of the case for the electoral college.

That's a pretty weak case.  

[homersapien 11,379]

16 hours ago, Mikey said:

Serious thinkers on the subject from Plato through James Madison reject the idea of a straight one man, one vote democracy as mob rule. No nation under mob rule, the "tyranny of the majority" could long survive, they say.

The EC and the U.S. Senate keep us from mob rule. This system has maintained our Democratic Republic for over 200 years now and I do not believe any objective person would recommend that we go to mob rule.

The electoral college has nothing to do with preventing mob rule.  The electors don't play a roll in the process, they simply reflect the popular vote.  

The problem lies with the winner take all policy which distorts the results to the point minority candidates can win and the voters for the opposition have their votes discounted.

[bigbird 60,533]

19 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I ran this exact idea in other thread and went to do the math.  Not 100% accurate, but close, the numbers for last week came out to 264 Trump, 263 Clinton, 15 Independent.

I said the same thing too and came up with similar stats.  I'm not sure why it doesn't gain more traction.

[aujeff11 6,243]

On 11/15/2016 at 10:48 PM, Mikey said:

Serious thinkers on the subject from Plato through James Madison reject the idea of a straight one man, one vote democracy as mob rule. No nation under mob rule, the "tyranny of the majority" could long survive, they say.

The EC and the U.S. Senate keep us from mob rule. This system has maintained our Democratic Republic for over 200 years now and I do not believe any objective person would recommend that we go to mob rule.

I agree that the Senate was set up to prevent mob rule by checking the house, but I'm not sure about the EC. Theoretically, the EC is supposed to align itself with the popular vote even though they are not required to. The populist movement actually diminished the founders intent of the Senate to check the house though as it birthed the ability of the masses to directly elect the Senate.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

I fully congratulate Mrs. Clinton on her ability to win California by over 3 million votes.  And I'm glad that dominance doesn't mean someone wins an election.

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

On 11/15/2016 at 3:36 PM, RunInRed said:

Question, if you lose the popular vote, do you really have a "mandate?" ...

Hannity and Rush say a lot of dead people and many illegals vote Democrat. That means the popular vote does not count when close.

I am protesting anyway. No work tomorrow. Taking my fishing gear to St Joe Bay and protesting all day. 

[AURaptor 1,125]

Salty - don't you mean celebrating? 

[AUcivE09 582]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I fully congratulate Mrs. Clinton on her ability to win California by over 3 million votes.  And I'm glad that dominance doesn't mean someone wins an election.

This is what some people do not want to see. It is about the state - not the individual for this very reason. To win the election you cannot dominate California/New York and hope to split the rest of the country. You actually have to try and win the smaller states.

On a side note - a popular vote will not happen anywhere near our lifetime. You would need a Supermajority in congress and 3/4 of the states to approve. Splitting up the electoral college to vote proportionally isn't a horrible idea, but until CA agrees to do this I hope other states do not jump on board.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, AUcivE09 said:

This is what some people do not want to see. It is about the state - not the individual for this very reason. To win the election you cannot dominate California/New York and hope to split the rest of the country. You actually have to try and win the smaller states.

On a side note - a popular vote will not happen anywhere near our lifetime. You would need a Supermajority in congress and 3/4 of the states to approve. Splitting up the electoral college to vote proportionally isn't a horrible idea, but until CA agrees to do this I hope other states do not jump on board.

The popular majority won't happen, but there's nothing saying that states equaling 270 electoral votes can't make laws to where their electoral votes go to the nationwide popular vote winner.  There's actually a movement happening for that right now and states making up about 165 electoral votes have conditionally agreed to it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[TitanTiger 20,483]

21 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

The popular majority won't happen, but there's nothing saying that states equaling 270 electoral votes can't make laws to where their electoral votes go to the nationwide popular vote winner.  There's actually a movement happening for that right now and states making up about 165 electoral votes have conditionally agreed to it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Yeah, I don't see that gaining enough traction either.  

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

52 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Salty - don't you mean celebrating? 

Hold it down raptor. Can't get out of work to celebrate or fish. Think I can to protest. You know, like leftest professors let students out of class to protest.

[AURaptor 1,125]

23 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Hold it down raptor. Can't get out of work to celebrate or fish. Think I can to protest. You know, like leftest professors let students out of class to protest.

 

Please,  don't encourage them. 

 

 

[Auburn85 432]

Heck it's possible Trump could have had over 340 electoral votes and Clinton still would have won the popular vote.

[RunInRed 16,411]

Quote

Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump in the popular vote surpassed 2 million Wednesday morning, according to Dave Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Clinton has garnered 64,223,958 votes, compared to Trump’s 62,206,395 votes.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-lead-popular-vote-2016-231790

Mandate? What mandate.

[AURaptor 1,125]

10 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Mandate? What mandate.

306 > 232

[TheBlueVue 177]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 7:00 AM, bigbird said:

I said the same thing too and came up with similar stats.  I'm not sure why it doesn't gain more traction.

Because it will take a constitutional amendment to change it and I'm quite certain a 3/4 majority of the states approving  it will never happen. The wisdom of the founders in setting up a system that prevents mob rule is still relevant and it still works much to the dissatisfaction of the coastal elites who would love nothing more than being in total control of the electoral process.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Because it will take a constitutional amendment to change it and I'm quite certain a 3/4 majority of the states approving  it will never happen. The wisdom of the founders in setting up a system that prevents mob rule is still relevant and it still works much to the dissatisfaction of the coastal elites who would love nothing more than being in total control of the electoral process.

When you control both major political parties, there is little need to absolutely control the electoral process.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Because it will take a constitutional amendment to change it and I'm quite certain a 3/4 majority of the states approving  it will never happen. The wisdom of the founders in setting up a system that prevents mob rule is still relevant and it still works much to the dissatisfaction of the coastal elites who would love nothing more than being in total control of the electoral process.

Your post sounds like we were talking about the vote being purely popular majority.  We weren't.  Conversation revolved around a modified electoral college where Trump still won, but with a vote total that more closely resembled the popular vote.  Agreed though that it won't happen because of states not approving it.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

I find it a tad ironic that the party of superdelegates and several winner-take-all primaries is griping about the Electoral College.

[AURaptor 1,125]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I find it a tad ironic that the party of superdelegates and several winner-take-all primaries is griping about the Electoral College.

https://mobile.twitter.com/joss/status/801221773148569600/photo/1

[TheBlueVue 177]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I find it a tad ironic that the party of superdelegates and several winner-take-all primaries is griping about the Electoral College.

Thnak you for reminding me of that. The one overwhelmingly obvious fact about the left is if they cant fix it they aint gonna be happy with it.

[TheBlueVue 177]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

When you control both major political parties, there is little need to absolutely control the electoral process.  

Signed,

ALL those "Not my President" protestors

[icanthearyou 4,463]

49 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Signed,

ALL those "Not my President" protestors

Once again, pure idiocy, your calling card.  There a plenty of people who aren't predisposed to the cheerleader concept of politics.  There a plenty of people who have no emotional stake in either party or, any ideology.  Just because you cannot comprehend, doesn't change the fact.  You are a fool.

[AUloggerhead 2,233]

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I find it a tad ironic that the party of superdelegates and several winner-take-all primaries is griping about the Electoral College.

That's a great point.  Here's another one:  all these people screaming about the majority of the popular vote should decide the election ... well, it did.  HRC got a fraction over 48% of the popular vote (coincidentally, Al Gore got about the same %.)  That her votes were the most in this election mean its a plurality but not a majority.  It will only be a majority if she gets over 50%.  If you add up Trump's votes and that of all the other candidates, then that represents the 'majority of the popular vote.'  Fact:  the majority of the popular vote soundly rejected HRC.