The Electoral College

[drmevo]

4 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Well, despite the odds, Trump won!

That kind of posting is going to get the thread locked.

What is actually germane to our discussion is the fact that currently, while Trump won the Electoral College, Clinton is as of the this moment leading in the popular vote and may hold onto it.

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, drmevo said:

That kind of posting is going to get the thread locked.

What is actually germane to our discussion is the fact that currently, while Trump won the Electoral College, Clinton is as of the this moment leading in the popular vote and may hold onto it.

That's the strange thing, I'm not sure how this electoral college works, at all. I'm also really amazed that the pollsters had me conceding defeat yesterday?

Both are really really strange things with our political mega-system. . .

[RussUK]

4 minutes ago, Lihu said:

That's the strange thing, I'm not sure how this electoral college works, at all. I'm also really amazed that the pollsters had me conceding defeat yesterday?

Both are really really strange things with our political mega-system. . .

Same here, but i do have a good excuse being a Brit. Watching all the results coming in this morning and the talk of electoral college votes was giving me a headache.

now we have weeks of "special" programming on the TV to go over the result. Well, it'll fill the spot Poldark had 

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, RussUK said:

Same here, but i do have a good excuse being a Brit. Watching all the results coming in this morning and the talk of electoral college votes was giving me a headache.

now we have weeks of "special" programming on the TV to go over the result. Well, it'll fill the spot Poldark had 

The actual reason I feel it's not a good system is that this means that the electoral college doesn't fully represent a region correctly. However, I'm not unhappy with the 2016 results. . .

[Lefty-Golfer]

the very reason it is a great system is because of the electoral college...it represents in spectacular fashion.

Democrats loved it in 2008...apparently not so much now.

[saevel25]

They never loved it. It will happen again the winner of the presidency will not win the popular vote. 

Trump will probably win 29 states and end up with 303 electoral votes. That is in an extremely close race. The presidency is set up for Democrats to have an easier route with out the popular vote. It would be even more so with it just being the popular vote.

[14ledo81]

303 to 235 electoral votes?

Has there been an election where the winner had that big of a lead in electoral votes but still lost the popular vote?

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

303 to 235 electoral votes?

Has there been an election where the winner had that big of a lead in electoral votes but still lost the popular vote?

He didn't lose by much in popular vote either. It probably just means that Trump captured more states in the heartland of America.

[iacas]

On topic please. This isn't about this election.

[newtogolf]

Despite the results of this election I'd still rather see the electoral college split their votes in the way that Maine and Nebraska do.  

I voted yesterday in a state that wields a lot of electoral college votes and almost 40% of our votes were not represented in the overall outcome due to how our electoral college works.  

[DrvFrShow]

If you don't like the electoral college sign WolfPAC. There's the link. They want to amend the constitution for presidential election by popular vote. Read what they're doing before you dismiss it. The electoral college was originally designed to keep the common citizens from overriding the interests of the wealthy land owners. What you do with that link it is up to you. This situation with a candidate winning popular vote and losing electoral college is probably going to happen more and more frequently. Prior to 2000 it happened only once. In the past 16 years it has happened twice and came very close to happening a third time in 2004. That's all I have to say. No comments about the outcome of the election.

[ghalfaire]

3 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

If you don't like the electoral college sign WolfPAC. There's the link. They want to amend the constitution for presidential election by popular vote. Read what they're doing before you dismiss it. The electoral college was originally designed to keep the common citizens from overriding the interests of the wealthy land owners. What you do with that link it is up to you. This situation with a candidate winning popular vote and losing electoral college is probably going to happen more and more frequently. Prior to 2000 it happened only once. In the past 16 years it has happened twice and came very close to happening a third time in 2004. That's all I have to say. No comments about the outcome of the election.

Actually it has happened four times in the country's history.  This makes five.

[Gunther]

I like the Electoral College.

[No Mulligans]

On 10/21/2016 at 7:39 PM, iacas said:

Before we begin, a warning.

Warning: Though we disallowed political threads a few weeks ago, and while this thread is about politics, it's not really super-"political" in the partisan sense. It should not cause conflict. The topic will either be closed and/or people will be given warnings if they make political posts.

---

The electoral college has never made sense to me. Democrats almost always win California, and get 55-0 votes, despite getting only about 60% of the popular vote (and who knows whether that gap would have been narrower had Republicans had a reason to turn out and vote).

It blows my mind that we can have a system that's so lopsided in this sense. Now, I think some states don't cast all of their votes for one person, but most do (I think), and it creates situations where you can win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, sometimes by big margins.

What are the downsides to Instant Runoff voting? I'm not into politics at all, but in the little I've ever looked into it, it seems like a legitimate way to elect a candidate.

What are your thoughts on how we elect presidents in the United States? How do other countries do it, and what can we learn from them?

Remember the warning, please. This is not about the current race or really even any particular race.

I'm in California and I felt my vote won't have an affect on who is elected president.  I still vote though, for the other items on the ballot.

There is almost no presidential campaigning in California and I feel that results in no promises made to Californians by the candidates.  We do have issue that I feel are national that are related to being on the Mexican border which result in additional state expenses; in particular in healthcare/emergency room visits.  Perhaps we would get more help from the Fed if there wasn't an electoral college.  

Even though we are heavily Democratic party in California we still have more Independents and Republicans than most other states have registered voters.  3.6 million or 20% of our registered voters are independents, that alone is the equivalent of 11 electoral votes.  That's an awfully juicy low hanging fruit for the presidential candidates but for the electoral college.

[Strandly]

10 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

I'm in California and I felt my vote won't have an affect on who is elected president.  I still vote though, for the other items on the ballot.

There is almost no presidential campaigning in California and I feel that results in no promises made to Californians by the candidates.  We do have issue that I feel are national that are related to being on the Mexican border which result in additional state expenses; in particular in healthcare/emergency room visits.  Perhaps we would get more help from the Fed if there wasn't an electoral college.  

Even though we are heavily Democratic party in California we still have more Independents and Republicans than most other states have registered voters.  3.6 million or 20% of our registered voters are independents, that alone is the equivalent of 11 electoral votes.  That's an awfully juicy low hanging fruit for the presidential candidates but for the electoral college.

Exact same things happens in my home state of North Dakota; the candidates don't even bother visiting since it has such a low population.  30 years I lived there I don't remember a presidential candidate visiting it once.  In fact, I don't think the president or even vice president flew out there when the Red River flooded in 1997.  It's one of the things that made me come to hate politicians actually; they talk a big game about treating all Americans equally but they absolutely do not practice it.

[boogielicious]

10 hours ago, Strandly said:

Exact same things happens in my home state of North Dakota; the candidates don't even bother visiting since it has such a low population.  30 years I lived there I don't remember a presidential candidate visiting it once.  In fact, I don't think the president or even vice president flew out there when the Red River flooded in 1997.  It's one of the things that made me come to hate politicians actually; they talk a big game about treating all Americans equally but they absolutely do not practice it.

They don't stop in Rhode Island or Vermont either, so don't feel left out. The EC kind of determines where the focus will be unless there is some event that a candidate wants to use as an example. 

I understand why the EC was created initially. Mathematically it does increase the value of smaller states. States with 3 electoral votes get 2 for being a state and 1 for population. So 2/3 of their EC value is for just existing. CA on the other hand only has 2/55 for being a state.

[Lihu]

There's some talk about "Faithless Electors". I've read that it only happened a few times and that at no time did it affect the outcome of an election.

I'm just wondering how can people think that after all that has happened, that on December 28th, somehow, the current election results could be reversed?

[imsys0042]

14 minutes ago, Lihu said:

There's some talk about "Faithless Electors". I've read that it only happened a few times and that at no time did it affect the outcome of an election.

I'm just wondering how can people think that after all that has happened, that on December 28th, somehow, the current election results could be reversed?

I sincerely doubt it.   I am very unhappy with the results of the election but feel that it is more important to honor the wills of the voters.   There will be talk but I would be surprised.  A peaceful transfer of power is both expected and required.  No matter if any language might give them wiggle room (if it does)

and in my mind, a Hilary Clinton presidency would be illegitimate if that happened.  

Edited November 11, 2016 by imsys0042