Clinton won popular vote because of one single state?

[Deleted]

Of course those whom dislike election results want to change the process. If the process was representing one's interests, why would one bother to change it?

Belief in principle over sheer opportunism?

[Themius]

The EC is about balance of outcome based on states, not equality for people. One should ask which is more important, individual equality, or the power of a state government? I'll take individual freedom over forced inequality in order to balance outcome any day of the week.

How can you say it's about absolute balance when the votes of smaller states are worth 2-3x more than votes in larger states?

[Fencers]

Belief in principle over sheer opportunism?

It is possible some who oppose the EC also think it is principally stupid but traction from the post-2000 election has now given those supporters of the PV a wider platform.

[stomination]

What makes it better for swing states to have all the influence on the election then?

The only reason they have "more" influence is because they don't vote the same party every year. So Canidates actually have a chance to flip the state compared to a democrat flipping texas or a Gop flipping California.

[ezgeze]

None of the large states are big enough or homogenous to "steamroll" the small states with a popular vote in place. You're right though, it's not debatable, it's just bullshit.

Oh really?




As of Nov 21st when the article was written........

California breaks the electoral scale: It still has more votes to count than were cast in 34 states
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.258176fbcd3d

[Bullettime]

How can you say it's about absolute balance when the votes of smaller states are worth 2-3x more than votes in larger states?

Especially when states are already guaranteed representation through the House and the Senate. The president should be running on behalf of the people as a whole. I also doubt the founding fathers had severe gerrymandering in mind when making the system, which is what many red states have done.

[Machismo]

How can you say it's about absolute balance when the votes of smaller states are worth 2-3x more than votes in larger states?

Like I said, it's about balancing the power of states, not about equality. The EC is the opposite of equality, it's our country's oldest form of affirmative action. When the government tried to balance things, they do so by forcing inequality.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh really?




As of Nov 21st when the article was written........

California breaks the electoral scale: It still has more votes to count than were cast in 34 states
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.258176fbcd3d

So what? California has a lot of people in it. Does that mean that a voter in Wyoming should have more than three times the power of a voter in California?

[Deleted]

Tomorrow can't come soon enough, so that this pointless discussion ends.

[Deleted]

Isnt that also a state where there are LOTS of "Latino's" ?

[Spectral]

That poll by circumstance reflects the attitudes of people post-election. The support of getting rid of the EC likely gained most of it's modern momentum post-2000/Florida recount.

Of course those whom dislike election results want to change the process. If the process was representing one's interests, why would one bother to change it?

The entire point is anti-EC/PV supporters don't believe the EC represents the actual majority (which it doesn't vis-a-vis PV).

I know it does - that's my point, these people aren't operating on principle, they're operating on, "fuck this, I didn't realize this system could make us lose".

[Xeones]

That is ultimately the problem of a straight popular vote, it would just be California picks the president.

With three of the largest cities in the country, only NYC would rival CA, and maybe Chicago, but the three urban mega-cities in this country generally vote in lockstep. The presidency would just be of those five cities.

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen. The popular vote makes every vote equal. The electoral college made my vote this round completely pointless. My state was called for one candidate before the polls even closed. But with a popular vote mine would be worth just as much as Californians vote. Unlike now where my vote has no value compared to people who live a state north of me.

[Spectral]

How can you say it's about absolute balance when the votes of smaller states are worth 2-3x more than votes in larger states?

The goal, obviously, isn't to weight individual votes equally. The system came about when the confederation of states was much looser and more tentative - it was part of a bargain to give states an incentive to sign off on the Constitution to provide what amounts to a heavier weighting of smaller states. This is confusing for modern people that don't tend to think of states as being particularly separate entities, but if you think of each of these as mini-countries with their own interests, it becomes much more clear why states would have pushed for this and why more powerful states would have agreed to it.

Whether you think it should continue (assuming charitably that we're operating on principle and not opportunism) will tend to be a result of what extent you believe states should behave as independent entities that favor the interests of their state residents over the federal government. Put another way, it's a question of whether you're a federalist or prefer a unitary state.

- - - Updated - - -

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen. The popular vote makes every vote equal. The electoral college made my vote this round completely pointless. My state was called for one candidate before the polls even closed. But with a popular vote mine would be worth just as much as Californians vote. Unlike now where my vote has no value compared to people who live a state north of me.

Yeah, the extent to which actual value by state varies is staggering once one considers the importance of closer-run states. Wallet Hub's data is obviously rough estimates (their level of precision is laughable), but it's instructive - it's reasonable to argue that winning over a voter in Ohio is worth 100X or more what winning a Californian over is.

[Deleted]

The goal, obviously, isn't to weight individual votes equally. The system came about when the confederation of states was much looser and more tentative - it was part of a bargain to give states an incentive to sign off on the Constitution to provide what amounts to a heavier weighting of smaller states.

Its also practicality, while this election wasn't a close shave, finding a vote or two in every recount at every polling place delivers more than a hundred thousand votes - It would likely be the 2000 Florida recount in every state, every time.

[Revik]

One thing that should be pointed out is that almost all the votes that Clinton has above Trump comes from THREE recording districts within California. So we are not even talking about the entirety of California but THREE recording districts out of 56 counties.

[ezgeze]

Like I said, it's about balancing the power of states, not about equality. The EC is the opposite of equality, it's our country's oldest form of affirmative action. When the government tried to balance things, they do so by forcing inequality.

- - - Updated - - -



So what? California has a lot of people in it. Does that mean that a voter in Wyoming should have more than three times the power of a voter in California?

Considering California has 55 electoral college votes in the first place, I think their voters have enough representation in our voting system in the first place.

If you take California and New York margin of victory into account, that's roughly 6 million overcasted voted for Clinton than trump. How many states will 6 million wipe out in the smaller states? The vast majority of them. How do I know this? Check it yourself at http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php

What you, and people like you are advocating for is for 2-3 states to run an entire election, where a candidate will pander to only those states to pull massive votes and shit all over the rest of the states. I find it ironic that people like you bitch and complain about our 2 party system but what you really want is a one party rule system.

Well go fuck yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

1) No, that's not even why.

2) No state "steamrolls" the others anyway.

3) These claims suggest that somehow smaller numbers of voters should instead have power over larger numbers "just because".

4) The end result of the EC is that small handfuls of mathematically useful states end up vastly more important anyway.

5) The EC doesn't even abide by it's initial purpose, so it really is basically just a popular vote in disguise in each state anyway.

The EC is a check to ensure that arrogant assholes like Hillary actually pay attention to the "flyover country" states and not completely become a shill for the elites in a select few large population centers. I know it sucks not having the ability to govern from California and New York but this isn't the world of the Hunger Games.

[Machismo]

Considering California has 55 electoral college votes in the first place, I think their voters have enough representation in our voting system in the first place.

If you take California and New York margin of victory into account, that's roughly 6 million overcasted voted for Clinton than trump. How many states will 6 million wipe out in the smaller states? The vast majority of them. How do I know this? Check it yourself at http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php

What you, and people like you are advocating for is for 2-3 states to run an entire election, where a candidate will pander to only those states to pull massive votes and shit all over the rest of the states. I find it ironic that people like you bitch and complain about our 2 party system but what you really want is a one party rule system.

Well go fuck yourself.

But they don't have as much as they should And places like Wyoming have far more than they should based on actual population. That's forced inequality. I'm advocating for freedom and equality, something the Electoral College takes away. Why do you have such a problem with freedom and equality? I don't support the two-party system, because both parties are garbage. You seem to have no problem with the shitty candidates that are tossed onto your plate. You will continue to lap it up, thinking you have some semblance of say in what happens... you don't. Your willful ignorance is not my problem.

And you can also go fuck yourself, I'll take freedom and equality any day of the week.

[Tijuana]

The EC isn't going to stop being a stupid system tomorrow.

But the pointless discussion will end, just as he said it would.

[ezgeze]

But they don't have as much as they should And places like Wyoming have far more than they should based on actual population. That's forced inequality. I'm advocating for freedom and equality, something the Electoral College takes away. Why do you have such a problem with freedom and equality? I don't support the two-party system, because both parties are garbage. You seem to have no problem with the shitty candidates that are tossed onto your plate. You will continue to lap it up, thinking you have some semblance of say in what happens... you don't. Your willful ignorance is not my problem.

And you can also go fuck yourself, I'll take freedom and equality any day of the week.

Freedom and Equality my ass. What you want is a couple of states with entrenched political powers to rule the rest of us. That is not freedom, that's tyranny. While yes, the election as a whole can be decided by the swing states for the most part, they are at least swing states that swap back and forth based on issues. The possibility of moving to a system where the winner for the most part is no longer about issues to one that is decided strictly by party is shocking. The fact you think that this is a good idea speaks poorly on your lack of lack of judgment but quite frankly I would be surprised if you have even reached the mental capacity of a toaster.

[Elegiac]

Freedom and Equality my ass. What you want is a couple of states with entrenched political powers to rule the rest of us. That is not freedom, that's tyranny. While yes, the election as a whole can be decided by the swing states for the most part, they are at least swing states that swap back and forth based on issues. The possibility of moving to a system where the winner for the most part is no longer about issues to one that is decided strictly by party is shocking. The fact you think that this is a good idea speaks poorly on your lack of lack of judgment but quite frankly I would be surprised if you have even reached the mental capacity of a toaster.

Fun Fact: The Electoral College is one of the things maintaining the strict bipartisan system in the US and encourages partisanism. Non-plurality voting systems tend to encourage candidates to seek broader bases of support anyway.

[Tijuana]

Fun Fact: The Electoral College is one of the things maintaining the strict bipartisan system in the US and encourages partisanism. Non-plurality voting systems tend to encourage candidates to seek broader bases of support anyway.

The PEOPLE are what causes partisanship, not laws. Get serious. If what you say is true, WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN A THING FOR 240+ YEARS????