Elections Electoral College question

ryan3434 said:
Was just wondering if there is a runner up prize for winning popular vote
Click to expand...
An unforgetable night of booze and scream-crying, and your pedogangster friend telling your fans "this isn't over" at your celebration ceremony you were too immature to attend, like a spoiled shit-head child staying in her room during her birthday party.
 
ryan3434 said:
I got the basics of the electoral college. If it wasn't in place you may as well call it the UNited States of California.. but my question is when one side wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college do they win anything (seats in a house. 5 bucks.. gold star etc) If not it doesn't seem fair to me.
Click to expand...
it's fair as everyone plays under the same rules. Trump's strategy would have been totally different under different rules.
 
We’ve never had a person get the majority of popular votes and lose the Presidency. The electoral college has its biggest impact on close races where neither candidate is that popular. It seems unfair when you have a guy winning more states with fewer total votes, but everybody knows the rules.

So, while it poses problems for the guy elected without a popular majority, it’s never been a case of the will of the majority of Americans being completely discarded.

The contest is a race to 270 electoral votes, not beating an opponent. It’s typically presented as a one on one contest, but it’s not. It’s individuals asking majorities in each state for votes. Whoever does a better job of that wins, and whoever does worse loses. No consolation prizes.
 
Last edited:
Kandyland said:
It's simple. the Electoral college protects small states and gives them a voice so we aren't having liberal shitholes like California and New York deciding elections every year. Only retards with TDS all of a sudden wanted to get rid of it due to it being "unfair" because they didn't get their way. That's why it's called TDS.
Click to expand...

Trump complained about the electoral college being "unfair" before the 2016 election.
 
StoneColdSteveAustin said:
No it’s true, those states are a net plus and pay for all The red states.


Your point of people moving doesn’t change the fact that blue states pay for the country.


Please post your results of red states paying for America? I’ll wait for it.
Click to expand...
California is basically fucking bankrupt. fuck you going on about.
 
The original idea behind the electoral college was solid and made sure that someone living in rural areas had a say-so.

The problem is that the electoral college has done the opposite and made only certain states important. In my state, my vote is worthless. It's red every time and has no chance of flipping. Candidates just have to campaign in the few battleground states to win.

One person - one vote would make it the most fair. Every vote matters. You would still have the problem of certain states mattering more because if you have millions of votes in Texas, you are going to campaign there before you do Montana. Still though, if there are votes to be had and each person counts as a vote rather than winning states, you need a ground game everywhere and every vote counts. It wouldn't solve the problem but it's the most equitable and the most democratic.

I'd love to start with abolishing the electoral college and doing one person one vote. From there, ranked choice voting and then proportional representation.
 
ryan3434 said:
Just seems a little unfair to the majority that voted for What's her name. As an outsider it does seem like something should be done when that happens. What that something is I dunno.
Click to expand...

You know how many eligible Americans vote in the Presidential election? About half. Some of that is disinterest, sure, but I guarantee you plenty of non-voters are republicans in California, democrats in Texas, and so on - people that don't bother because their vote isn't going to make a darn bit of difference.

When the President is elected based on popular vote, we can talk about the popular vote numbers. But for now, the fact that America uses the Electoral College is what drives campaigning, voting, and everything in between. And in that context, the overall popular vote is irrelevant.
 
We need to get rid of the electoral college. No need to have shit hole states deciding who gets elected for president. In fact, we would be better off if we didn't even let them vote.
 
Senzo Tanaka said:
The original idea behind the electoral college was solid and made sure that someone living in rural areas had a say-so.
Click to expand...

Sort of. It was put in place so that big states like Virginia couldn't determine an election all by themselves.

Senzo Tanaka said:
The problem is that the electoral college has done the opposite and made only certain states important. In my state, my vote is worthless. It's red every time and has no chance of flipping. Candidates just have to campaign in the few battleground states to win.

One person - one vote would make it the most fair. Every vote matters. You would still have the problem of certain states mattering more because if you have millions of votes in Texas, you are going to campaign there before you do Montana. Still though, if there are votes to be had and each person counts as a vote rather than winning states, you need a ground game everywhere and every vote counts. It wouldn't solve the problem but it's the most equitable and the most democratic.

I'd love to start with abolishing the electoral college and doing one person one vote. From there, ranked choice voting and then proportional representation.
Click to expand...

You kind of hit upon this, but overall you miss that the electoral college is what makes battleground states relevant. Without it, candidates wouldn't bother to campaign anywhere except the few very large states. California, New York, Texas, and Florida make up a third of America's population, so that's where candidates would campaign. You say your vote is worthless because your state is red every time. But on the flip side of that, my vote is even more significant, since I live in Wisconsin. We've got fewer people in our state than plenty of major cities (most of them Chinese, admittedly), yet the electoral college puts us on the map.

If you think your vote is insignificant being one in the millions of yours state, imagine how much more insignificant it would be being one in one hundred million or so. At least with an electoral college, that's not true for everyone. It's not perfect, but it's one of many important checks and balances in how the American government was designed. (Interestingly, I've never heard anyone who opposes the electoral college also try to abolish the Senate, despite it being far more disproportionate.)

I do agree with you on ranked choice voting, though. The two-party system has just polarized politics, and something that allows smaller, less extreme parties to still have a voice would be a step in the right direction.
 
Clifford_Harris said:
And this whole "United States of California" shit is quite stupid considering California gets a bigger say in the election based on the Electoral College than they would if the popular vote was how the election was decided.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how you are arriving at that conclusion. They have just over 12% of the nations population, but just over 10% of the electoral votes.

I am fine with the electoral college though.
 
Ask yourself this..

If Trump won in 2016 by the popular vote and lost by the Electoral Collage, would democrats have been saying it needs to be abolished?




That alone should tell you why its needed
 
What do people keep repeating this nonsense? Cali is like 60 D, high 30s R and rest independent. New York is like 65 vs 33.
 
cooks1 said:
I am not sure how you are arriving at that conclusion. They have just over 12% of the nations population, but just over 10% of the electoral votes.

I am fine with the electoral college though.
Click to expand...
Because not everyone votes for the Democrat, I'm guessing around 40% of those are Republicans. If you were using the popular vote instead then it would be 60% * 12% to represent the Dems and 40%*12% to represent the Republicans. (I'm simplyfying with made up numbers). The difference between those two would be CA's net contribution on the popular vote.
 
Diogenes of Sinope said:
Ask yourself this..

If Trump won in 2016 by the popular vote and lost by the Electoral Collage, would democrats have been saying it needs to be abolished?




That alone should tell you why its needed
Click to expand...
I would, because it's a stupid system that doesn't count every vote towards the election that's being held. It's like if Senate seats were decided based on a point system for winning individual Districts within the state.
 
Clifford_Harris said:
Because not everyone votes for the Democrat, I'm guessing around 40% of those are Republicans. If you were using the popular vote instead then it would be 60% * 12% to represent the Dems and 40%*12% to represent the Republicans. (I'm simplyfying with made up numbers). The difference between those two would be CA's net contribution on the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Now I'm with you. But this is even m ore true of a place like Texas. Clinton won CA by 30 points to get those 55 electoral votes. A margin of about 3.4 million people. Trump won Texas by 9 points, popular margin of 800,000 and got all 38 electoral votes.
 
Last edited:
ryan3434 said:
Just seems a little unfair to the majority that voted for What's her name. As an outsider it does seem like something should be done when that happens. What that something is I dunno.
Click to expand...
Bush lost the popular vote also
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,623
Messages
55,431,129
Members
174,776
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top