Electoral college

  • Thread starter Thread starter JOEBIALEK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stevegravy said:
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.
Click to expand...
But most states have their own areas of high concentration of people. It seems the arguments for an EV would be more convincing if we get rid of the winner-take-all state electors. .
 
ProVobis said:
But most states have their own areas of high concentration of people. It seems the arguments for an EV would be more convincing if we get rid of the winner-take-all state electors. .
Click to expand...
Every state has the option of doing that. It shouldn’t be a mandate coerced by the central government
 
ProVobis said:
When it’s mathematically possible to collect 30 million more votes than your opponent yet lose an election
Click to expand...
30 million?

According to cookpolitical.com/story/10174, in all, Clinton picked up 65,844,610 votes, while Trump received 62,979,636 votes across the nation.

But in California, Clinton picked up 8,753,788 votes, while Trump received 4,483,810 votes.

So, across the nation, Trump picked up 58,495,826 votes, while Clinton received 57,090,822 votes.

I’ll grant that Clinton was elected President of California, but that’s about it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, it is possible to amass exactly 270 Electoral Votes by winning just 11 states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey.

And JFK won the Presidency by winning just 23 states.

Also, if you check out this website, you will see how the Electorial College is currently set up best for the Democrats 270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

If we change it to a per district senerio, that will help the Republicans greatly, while a popular vote or a Proportional Popular vote would help the Democrats.

Leaving the system the way it is is the fairest thing for both parties.

Especially since we the people should NOT directly vote for President because the founders correctly feared us doing so because of mob rule and because of MIS-INFORMATION
 
Erich said:
30 million?

According to cookpolitical.com/story/10174, in all, Clinton picked up 65,844,610 votes, while Trump received 62,979,636 votes across the nation.

But in California, Clinton picked up 8,753,788 votes, while Trump received 4,483,810 votes.

So, across the nation, Trump picked up 58,495,826 votes, while Clinton received 57,090,822 votes.

I’ll grant that Clinton was elected President of California, but that’s about it.
Click to expand...
I believe California got the bulk of the absentee ballot where it might have been indeterminate in which state bucket to have them placed. As if California needed them.

I wait for the year someone files for a recount in California.
 
phil19034 said:
Believe it or not, it is possible to amass exactly 270 Electoral Votes by winning just 11 states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey.

And JFK won the Presidency by winning just 23 states.

Also, if you check out this website, you will see how the Electorial College is currently set up best for the Democrats 270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

If we change it to a per district senerio, that will help the Republicans greatly, while a popular vote or a Proportional Popular vote would help the Democrats.

Leaving the system the way it is is the fairest thing for both parties.

Especially since we the people should NOT directly vote for President because the founders correctly feared us doing so because of mob rule and because of MIS-INFORMATION
Click to expand...
There is generally a high correlation between the popular vote and the electoral vote, though it’s not necessarily a straight one because of the winner-take-all. Can we say the disconnect this year was an anomaly which won’t happen again? Or do have to go through every election where one party has to win 4-5% more popular votes just to stay even in the House or Presidency?
 
Erich said:
30 million?

According to cookpolitical.com/story/10174, in all, Clinton picked up 65,844,610 votes, while Trump received 62,979,636 votes across the nation.

But in California, Clinton picked up 8,753,788 votes, while Trump received 4,483,810 votes.

So, across the nation, Trump picked up 58,495,826 votes, while Clinton received 57,090,822 votes.

I’ll grant that Clinton was elected President of California, but that’s about it.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Erich said:
30 million?
Click to expand...
Yes. The comment you were responding to cited the 30 million as a mathematical possibility is some hypothetical election. It was not about this election.
According to cookpolitical.com/story/10174, in all, Clinton picked up 65,844,610 votes, while Trump received 62,979,636 votes across the nation.
Click to expand...
But in California, Clinton picked up 8,753,788 votes, while Trump received 4,483,810 votes.
Click to expand...
So, across the nation, Trump picked up 58,495,826 votes, while Clinton received 57,090,822 votes.
Click to expand...
I’ll grant that Clinton was elected President of California, but that’s about it.
Click to expand...
It is even easier to put together a meme like that for Trump:

In all, Clinton picked up 65,844,610 votes, while Trump received 62,979,636 votes across the nation.
But in Kansas, Clinton picked up 414,788 votes, while Trump received 656,009 votes.

So, across the nation, Clinton picked up 65,429,822 votes, while Trump received 62,323,627 votes.

I’ll grant that Trump was elected President of Kansas, but that’s about it.

Of course both memes are ridiculous because both Clinton and Trump won more than one state, so “that’s about it” is nonsense. And because the second instance of the phrase “across the nation” in these memes means the total of all the states other than the one I named. In your case, that state is California. In my case, it is Kansas. Finally, the whole point of your meme was to derive a variant of a popular vote in which Trump could be seen to win. To do that you had to leave out California. Although I also left out Kansas in my meme, I didn’t really have to leave any state out, because the grand total popular vote was already for Clinton. So that makes my meme more solid than yours. The one and only way in which Trump is the President Elect is because of the Electoral College. Not that it should be changed or anything. It serves a purpose. But I’m just sayin…
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes. The comment you were responding to cited the 30 million as a mathematical possibility is some hypothetical election. It was not about this election.

It is even easier to put together a meme like that for Trump:

In all, Clinton picked up 65,844,610 votes, while Trump received 62,979,636 votes across the nation.
But in Kansas, Clinton picked up 414,788 votes, while Trump received 656,009 votes.

So, across the nation, Clinton picked up 65,429,822 votes, while Trump received 62,323,627 votes.

I’ll grant that Trump was elected President of Kansas, but that’s about it.

Of course both memes are ridiculous because both Clinton and Trump won more than one state, so “that’s about it” is nonsense. And because the second instance of the phrase “across the nation” in these memes means the total of all the states other than the one I named. In your case, that state is California. In my case, it is Kansas. Finally, the whole point of your meme was to derive a variant of a popular vote in which Trump could be seen to win. To do that you had to leave out California. Although I also left out Kansas in my meme, I didn’t really have to leave any state out, because the grand total popular vote was already for Clinton. So that makes my meme more solid than yours. The one and only way in which Trump is the President Elect is because of the Electoral College. Not that it should be changed or anything. It serves a purpose. But I’m just sayin…
Click to expand...
The Electoral College is the one and only way in which any president elect becomes president elect.
 
didymus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not sure if its the same thing but I saw a video about how it’s possible to win with only 22% of the popular vote.
 
CrossofChrist said:
Not sure if its the same thing but I saw a video about how it’s possible to win with only 22% of the popular vote.
Click to expand...
That sound right. If electors were exactly proportional to each state’s population, you could win with slightly more than 25% of the popular vote. Now throw in some real elector numbers and it could go down to 22%.
 
JonNC said:
The Electoral College is the one and only way in which any president elect becomes president elect.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are various ways states can decide how to split their EV whereas there is only one way the national popular vote is counted. Just sayin’
 
phil19034 said:
Believe it or not, it is possible to amass exactly 270 Electoral Votes by winning just 11 states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey.

And JFK won the Presidency by winning just 23 states.

Also, if you check out this website, you will see how the Electorial College is currently set up best for the Democrats 270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

If we change it to a per district senerio, that will help the Republicans greatly, while a popular vote or a Proportional Popular vote would help the Democrats.

Leaving the system the way it is is the fairest thing for both parties.
Click to expand...
I find it somewhat ironic that after the last election that certain swing states were seriously considering splitting their EV like Maine and Nebraska but the Democrats opposed it. Would have definitely helped them in FL, PA, OH, and MI.
 
Sy_Noe said:
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/
Click to expand...
Obama in a landslide in terms of electoral votes:

thenation.com/article/obamas-3-million-vote-electoral-college-landslide-majority-states-mandate/

300,000 voters flipping in four states would’ve won the election for Romney.

See, these EC arguments are partisan in nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top