Electoral college

[Theo520]

This is all quite ridiculous, Hillary completely ignored several flyover swing states.

If it was a truly popular vote election, we honestly don’t know the impact and how many voters might come out of hiding in deep blue or deep red states, where they just don’t bother.

 

[phil19034]

Anytime a candidate wins with less than 50%, it should be taken as an indicator that they need to work to win over the American people. It can be done without sacrificing core principles.

It means that the nation is terribly divided.

 

[phil19034]

If the US did not have the EC system, I think Trump would have run his campaign much differently and still had a chance at winning. But because he considered the system under which he was actually running, he won by careful allocation of resources.

One reason I like the EC system which has not yet been mentioned, is that if there is some fraud going on, it has to take place in a large number of areas. Under a popular vote, fraud in just one area could derail the election.

Yes, very true. The EC also forces the candidates to campaign all over. Trump has a made it a point several times that he campaigned in Maine 4 times for just one vote. He mentioned that before he didn’t see the genius of the Electoral College, but now he does because it truly makes it an election where all the states are important. If the election was popular vote, candidates would spend all their time in CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, plus a few other large urban areas.

All the time would be focused on the urban areas, and rural America would lose its voice in the Presidential election.

The people who want to remove the electoral college view America as a unitary state, instead of a federation of states. Afterall, there is a reason we have a “federal government” instead of a “national government” or “central government” like unitary states like the UK, France, China, etc.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation

 

[Bill_Martin]

The EC is a brilliant system. It gives far more of a voice to minorities than a popular vote and forces candidates to consider a wide range of people, not just the major cities.

 

[phil19034]

I don’t like the fact that some think some people’s vote don’t count. All the votes count in their state. Some voters vote for the winner and some people vote for the loser. All votes count within the state. All votes counting is just a smoke screen for somebody who voted for the eventual loser, within the system.

Considering that when America was founded, it was the State Legislatures that voted for President and not the people, I think we’ve come a long way.

Your vote does count. We are not a direct democracy nor a representative democracy. We are a democratic republic, which means we elect people to make informed decisions on their own.

Plus, we are a federation, not a unitary state. We don’t have 1 Presidential election, we have 51 elections (1 for each state and 1 for DC).

The American People do not elect the President. The States do. That was the way America was founded, and that was done on purpose to avoid highly populated states with different interests from controlling the other states.

This means, we are citizens of our individual States first, before we are citizens of the United States. Our Birth Certificates, Driver’s licenses, Marriage Certificates, Death Certificates, etc. are all based on the state we are born in, live in, get married in, and die in. None of those come from the Federal Government.

We are not just Americans, but we are also Delawareans, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, Californians, Texans, etc. Our states each have their own micro-culture, customs, traditions, etc.

Your vote counts big time on the local level. If want to change the nation, first we must change ourselves. Then, our local communities, and then our counties, and finally our states. Solutions come from the bottom up, not top down.

The way America was founded is a great example of the Catholic concept of subsidiary. We are supposed to solve societal problems on the local and state levels. The federal government main purpose is to provide for the common defense.

So you vote does count. Because you are telling your state representatives what you think. So they use that information to gather how the people in your state feel about topics and they act accordingly on the local level (at least in theory).

God bless

 

[7_Sorrows]

The EC is a brilliant system. It gives far more of a voice to minorities than a popular vote and forces candidates to consider a wide range of people, not just the major cities.

you are right!

 

[WilliamE]

Winning a popular vote does not necessarily mean that the majority or even a plurality of American voters wanted that particular candidate.

Well then, what does LOSING the popular vote mean?

 

[phil19034]

Well then, what does LOSING the popular vote mean?

it means the country is deeply divided.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Agree with the bold. NY and CA aren’t less American because of EC, the EC was designed as a check and balance against majority mob rule.

As far as not counting CA, it does count. It’s 55 electoral votes, and despite some of the GOP bemoaning they can’t ever win it, they ought to look at how popular Condi Rice is in the state. The republicans have proven they can win most anywhere and should not be so dismissive of CA and no one should say 32 million Americans don’t count, even if it’s “just sayin”—a phrase I dislike, btw.

Republicans and Trump voters would be very wise to understand that not winning the popular vote is not a good thing. It tells me the silent majority in this country may not really be there.

Anytime a candidate wins with less than 50%, it should be taken as an indicator that they need to work to win over the American people. It can be done without sacrificing core principles.

Well except to your point which I bolded… Most Republicans incorrectly think Trump won the popular vote.

52 percent said Trump won the popular vote, compared with only 7 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of independents. Among Republicans without any college education, the share was even larger: 60 percent.

washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/18/a-new-poll-shows-an-astonishing-52-of-republicans-think-trump-won-the-popular-vote/?utm_term=.eeb93df1cbb9

 

[Sy_Noe]

So it was a landslide for Trump.

Far from it. He lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. He won FL, PA, MI, WI each by merely about 1%. And even in the all-important EC, his ranks near the bottom, belonging somewhere between the lowest one-fourth and the lowest one-fifth of all Electoral College victories in history.

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/12/donald-trump/donald-trumps-electoral-college-victory-was-not-ma/

 

[ProVobis]

It means that the nation is terribly divided.

Gerald Ford seemed to have brought some unity to the nation. And he wasn’t even elected.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

So the House would have decided the Presidency?

 

[M-Dent]

Gerald Ford seemed to have brought some unity to the nation. And he wasn’t even elected.

I do recall the sigh of relief President Nixon resigned yet when President Ford issued a pardon he wasn’t that popular. Though the war was in decline, I was sickened, as were many were after fall of Saigon. The US quit a war on their soldiers. Chevy Chase summed my thoughts on Ford.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Far from it. He lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. He won FL, PA, MI, WI each by merely about 1%. And even in the all-important EC, his ranks near the bottom, belonging somewhere between the lowest one-fourth and the lowest one-fifth of all Electoral College victories in history.

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/12/donald-trump/donald-trumps-electoral-college-victory-was-not-ma/

No doubt he meant the number of electoral votes was not close.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Also, what if in a state with 10 electoral votes, 4 million people vote in total. Candidate A wins 2.5 million votes, but only a majority in 2 districts. Candidate B wins the remaining 6 districts with 1.5 million votes.

Under the winner takes all model, Candidate A wins all 10 votes. Candidate A “wins” the state.

But if the state was using the Nebraska/Maine method, Candidate A would receive 2 votes for the districts he/she won, plus the 2 votes for winning the popular vote for a total of 4 votes. While candidate B would receive 6 votes. Canididate B “wins” the state.

If we change the electoral college, it should go back to a system like Maine & Nebraska. Otherwise, leave it alone.

For the people who want the popular vote, this is why the electoral college is genius

Trump Won in Electoral Vote count 306 to her 232 as opposed to “Popular” vote of her 2.5 million over Trump. Let’s put it into perspective regarding why we need to keep the Electoral College System.

1. There are 50 States. Trump won 30 of the States to Hillary’s 20 States.

2.There are exactly 3,141 Counties contained in all 50 States. Trump won 3,094 Counties in the US to Hillary’s 57 Counties. So Trump won 3,094 Counties to her 57

1. Lets look at the State of New York. There are 62 Counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them to Hillary’s 16.
2. Clinton won the national “Popular Vote” by approximately 2 Million+. In the 5 Counties that encompass New York City alone (Bronx, Kin, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island), Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump, It should be noted that Clinton won 4 of these Counties and Trump only won Staten Island (aka Richmond County).
3. Therefore these 5 Counties alone - which are entirely inside New York City, more than accounted for Clinton winning the 2 Million+ “Popular” Vote of the entire Country.
4. These 5 Counties (aka NYC) comprise 319 Square Miles. Total Square miles of the USA is 3,797,000 Square Miles. (319 vs. 3,797,000)
5. When you have a Country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit the 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a National Election.

Large, densely populated states, counties & cities do not and should not speak for the rest of the Country. This is exactly why the founders created the electoral college in the first place and also why the New Jersey Compromise was put into place, giving each state in the Senate 2 votes instead of the upper house being based on population like the US House.

The founders wanted a system where the president won the pularity of states, not the pularity of the total population because the founder knew that some states would be have more people than others. After all, we are a federation of states, not unitary nation.

God Bless

Definitely a landslide when you look at the number of counties Trump won!

Thanks for posting these statistics!

 

[JonNC]

In a one person, one vote system, conservative voters in Massachusetts and liberals in Wyoming would have more incentive to vote. Instead of the influence of your ballot depending off of state – every last voter would count equally.

I reject the false claim that our current system is somehow short of one person one vote. In North Carolina, each vote counted the same toward the choice of our electors. The same is true for a voter in California or Texas, Vermont or Wyoming.
There is no such thing as a national popular vote. A national plebiscite is a fiction. There are 51 popular votes, one in each state and in DC. Clinton won 20 statewide popular votes and received the electoral votes for those states and D.C. One person, one vote in each.
Trump won the popular vote in 30 states.

The United States is a constitutional representative republic, which employs democratic principles. These democratic principles, one person one vote, were clearly on display Nov. 8.

 

[JonNC]

Far from it. He lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. He won FL, PA, MI, WI each by merely about 1%. And even in the all-important EC, his ranks near the bottom, belonging somewhere between the lowest one-fourth and the lowest one-fifth of all Electoral College victories in history.

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/12/donald-trump/donald-trumps-electoral-college-victory-was-not-ma/

He lost the statewide popular vote in 20 states and D.C. He won the popular vote in 30 states. The state of California voted in a landslide for Clinton. As a result, she won those 55 electoral votes. The California vote means absolutely nothing beyond that. Nor should it.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I reject the false claim that our current system is somehow short of one person one vote. In North Carolina, each vote counted the same toward the choice of our electors. The same is true for a voter in California or Texas, Vermont or Wyoming.
There is no such thing as a national popular vote. A national plebiscite is a fiction. There are 51 popular votes, one in each state and in DC. Clinton won 20 statewide popular votes and received the electoral votes for those states and D.C. One person, one vote in each.
Trump won the popular vote in 30 states.

The United States is a constitutional representative republic, which employs democratic principles. These democratic principles, one person one vote, were clearly on display Nov. 8.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I reject the false claim that our current system is somehow short of one person one vote. In North Carolina, each vote counted the same toward the choice of our electors. The same is true for a voter in California or Texas, Vermont or Wyoming.

Each person does get exactly one vote, but that one vote does not have the same significance in every state. The vote of a person in California has less effect on the outcome of the election than the vote of a person in Montana, because the number of electors are not exactly proportional to the population of the state. It is almost proportional, if the number of electors were equal to the number of congressional representatives. That’s because the number of congressional representatives is designed to be proportional to the population of the state. But then we have to throw in two more electors for the Senators. That’s why the small states get more representation per voter than the large states. If you truly believed that all that counts is the number of states won, then each state should get one vote. That, of course, would make the representation even more unequal.

There is no such thing as a national popular vote.

As a mathematical concept, there certainly is a national popular vote. It is public knowledge. This national popular vote has no legal significance. But any politician who claims in some sense to represent all the people would do well to consider the popular vote. The President does not say he represents the states. He says he represents the people.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Each person does get exactly one vote, but that one vote does not have the same significance in every state. The vote of a person in California has less effect on the outcome of the election than the vote of a person in Montana, because the number of electors are not exactly proportional to the population of the state. It is almost proportional, if the number of electors were equal to the number of congressional representatives. That’s because the number of congressional representatives is designed to be proportional to the population of the state. But then we have to throw in two more electors for the Senators. That’s why the small states get more representation per voter than the large states. If you truly believed that all that counts is the number of states won, then each state should get one vote. That, of course, would make the representation even more unequal.

As a mathematical concept, there certainly is a national popular vote. It is public knowledge. This national popular vote has no legal significance. But any politician who claims in some sense to represent all the people would do well to consider the popular vote. The President does not say he represents the states. He says he represents the people.

Well said.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The EC is a brilliant system. It gives far more of a voice to minorities than a popular vote and forces candidates to consider a wide range of people, not just the major cities.

It also forces folks in major cities to do some thinking about their vote.

As a mathematical concept, there certainly is a national popular vote. It is public knowledge. This national popular vote has no legal significance. But any politician who claims in some sense to represent all the people would do well to consider the popular vote. The President does not say he represents the states. He says he represents the people.

That is an important point!