Electoral college

[ProVobis]

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.

It would have meant a lot to Trump to have won the popular vote, you can bet plenty of tweets on that.

 

[ProVobis]

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

How so? Republicans aren’t known to care about the infrastructure of highly dense areas, among other things. What have you got against centers of high concentration of people? They are as old as civilization.

 

[ProVobis]

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

Thanks for posting these statistics!

When it’s mathematically possible to collect 30 million more votes than your opponent yet lose an election, I suggest a more suitable name than a constitutional republic. Just my opinion.

 

[didymus]

I think the electoral college should remain.

One of the purposes of the EC is preventing one region one region or State from having too much influence. If you look, all of Clinton’s advantage in the popular vote came from California.

Check out these maps:

3.bp.blogspot.com/-EPTD5jNB7A4/WFLltFW5ypI/AAAAAAAA-Kk/4WOBllP06GcmWqVcy8cxU9cHc51hoFHqACLcB/s1600/Trumpland.png

2.bp.blogspot.com/-IMbSxFrS_KE/WFLlk1g4IQI/AAAAAAAA-Kg/1mfcdyWgQFMQRWqzbWZ6DxxzS6ct5bcNACLcB/s1600/Clinton_Archipelago.png

I’ll admit it would be more honest to show the states distorted for population, but the point stands. Is it good to have a president chosen by two coasts and a few inland metro areas?

My solution would be to award one elector per Congressional district with the extra two going to the statewide winner.

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14356807]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

And yet laws are passed at the federal level with exactly the same system of representation, and nobody (yet) complains that the Senate is set up to evenly represent the states in our bicameral system. The citizen in Montana has no greater sway in the passing of laws than the citizen in California.
In the congress, I am represented by three individuals: 2 senators and one representative. You do, too. In the EC, my state votes for our representation, which is essentially the same, representation based on the number of house members and 2 senators.
The fact is that this is exactly how federalism is supposed to work.
For more than half of the lifespan of the republic thus far, senators were selected by their state legislatures, until the 17th amendment, perhaps the most destructive active amendment in terms of upsetting the balance of state and federal power, was passed.
In short, the current attack on the EC is actually an attack on federalism and limited central government. It is an attack on the safeguards put in place to protect the republic from democracy and the clear dangers it presents, dangers the founders were aware of and articulated.

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

The Constitution starts out with “we the people”, but no one would claim that means all laws should be passed by plebiscite.
The constitution itself was drafted and ratified by the states, not by plebiscite.
The constitution cannot be changed by plebiscite, but it can be changed by the states.
SCOTUS justices and not selected by plebiscite.
The president indeed represents the people, and he/she is selected by the people through their states.

 

[JonNC]

When it’s mathematically possible to collect 30 million more votes than your opponent yet lose an election, I suggest a more suitable name than a constitutional republic. Just my opinion.

I cannot imagine it being mathematically possible for this to happen.

 

[JonNC]

It would have meant a lot to Trump to have won the popular vote, you can bet plenty of tweets on that.

It would meant nothing, constitutionally or even democratically, Except perhaps winning the popular vote in California.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I cannot imagine it being mathematically possible for this to happen.

130 million voted for president. If 35 million voted for Clinton in the states she loses that could cover 35 million plus a few that voted for Trump in those states. In the states Clinton won, assume she got all 60 million of the remaining votes. Unlikely, but mathematically possible. So we would have 35 million for Trump and 35+60 million for Clinton. The difference is not 30 million but 60 million. Yes, it is mathematically possible to get 60 million more votes than your opponent and lose the electoral college.

 

[JonNC]

130 million voted for president. If 35 million voted for Clinton in the states she loses that could cover 35 million plus a few that voted for Trump in those states. In the states Clinton won, assume she got all 60 million of the remaining votes. Unlikely, but mathematically possible. So we would have 35 million for Trump and 35+60 million for Clinton. The difference is not 30 million but 60 million. Yes, it is mathematically possible to get 60 million more votes than your opponent and lose the electoral college.

Then that would be the outcome. If California, New York, and Illinois, for example, voted that dramatically for one candidate, and the constitution rest of the states elected the other, I see no problem with that.
This election was unusual based on a 2.5 million difference, mostly in California. The chance of a difference being 10 times that amount is far-fetched

 

[stevegravy]

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.

What is the name of the country again? United what? I don’t think it is people. So, the president is the president of what?

 

[7_Sorrows]

One of the purposes of the EC is preventing one region one region or State from having too much influence. If you look, all of Clinton’s advantage in the popular vote came from California.

Check out these maps:

3.bp.blogspot.com/-EPTD5jNB7A4/WFLltFW5ypI/AAAAAAAA-Kk/4WOBllP06GcmWqVcy8cxU9cHc51hoFHqACLcB/s1600/Trumpland.png

2.bp.blogspot.com/-IMbSxFrS_KE/WFLlk1g4IQI/AAAAAAAA-Kg/1mfcdyWgQFMQRWqzbWZ6DxxzS6ct5bcNACLcB/s1600/Clinton_Archipelago.png

I’ll admit it would be more honest to show the states distorted for population, but the point stands. Is it good to have a president chosen by two coasts and a few inland metro areas?

My solution would be to award one elector per Congressional district with the extra two going to the statewide winner.

Those two maps clearly show how Trump won. Everyone needs to view those maps!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is the name of the country again? United what? I don’t think it is people. So, the president is the president of what?

The states as entities unto themselves mean nothing but for the people in those states. The president is not the president of mountains and rivers and fields and highways and mines and ports and buildings. He is president of a nation of people. When a candidate campaigns, he meets with people - not state governments. When the president addresses the nation on television or radio, he talks to the people, not to state governors. It is nonsense to say the President represents states but does not represent individual people.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Those two maps clearly show how Trump won. Everyone needs to view those maps!

If you were to look at the nation from space at night, you would see that the light and life and activity are all coming from the Clinton Archipelago. The “Trumpland” is composed mostly of mountains and fields. In terms of square miles of dirt, Trump certainly won. In terms of beating hearts, Clinton won.

 

[stevegravy]

The states as entities unto themselves mean nothing but for the people in those states. The president is not the president of mountains and rivers and fields and highways and mines and ports and buildings. He is president of a nation of people. When a candidate campaigns, he meets with people - not state governments. When the president addresses the nation on television or radio, he talks to the people, not to state governors. It is nonsense to say the President represents states but does not represent individual people.

Nice try confusing the subject but, the States are made up of people and the States constitute the country on who’s behalf the federal government is suppose to be doing business for. Which is why we should repeal the 17th amendment. Just sayin’.

 

[7_Sorrows]

If you were to look at the nation from space at night, you would see that the light and life and activity are all coming from the Clinton Archipelago. The “Trumpland” is composed mostly of mountains and fields. In terms of square miles of dirt, Trump certainly won. In terms of beating hearts, Clinton won.

I disagree.

 

[didymus]

When it’s mathematically possible to collect 30 million more votes than your opponent yet lose an election, I suggest a more suitable name than a constitutional republic. Just my opinion.

Here’s a YouTube video about the Electoral College, you can win with just 22 million. Go to 4:20 to see how that works.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here’s a YouTube video about the Electoral College, you can win with just 22 million. Go to 4:20 to see how that works.

This is not surprising. I showed above how you can win with 35 million, and that was by assuming the number of electors is proportional to the number of people in a state, which is only approximately true. If you concentrate on winning all the smaller states where the representation in the electoral college is the most un-proportional, I would not be a bit surprised to see the 35 million number reduced to 22 million. Of course the probability of that happening is vanishingly small. But if we are talking only about mathematics, it is still possible.

 

[Jeanne_S]

If you were to look at the nation from space at night, you would see that the light and life and activity are all coming from the Clinton Archipelago. The “Trumpland” is composed mostly of mountains and fields. In terms of square miles of dirt, Trump certainly won. In terms of beating hearts, Clinton won.

So basically,you would prefer that those heavily congested states,Esentially be the vice of the people of this Country?

 

[ProVobis]

So basically,you would prefer that those heavily congested states,Esentially be the vice of the people of this Country?

That’s a broad generalization of people. Everyone will still be judged individually after he dies.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So basically,you would prefer that those heavily congested states,Esentially be the vice of the people of this Country?

No, I’m just pointing out that a person who occupies a 700 square foot apartment is deserving of as much consideration, respect, and representation as a rancher who occupies 700 acres. Election maps that show acres as more relevant than people are a distortion of the voting process. Being spread out is not inherently virtuous or evil. It is just an irrelevancy.