S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Except if you looked at the rankings, Obama in 2012 was 9 places ahead of Trump. I’ll give Trump this much, he did beat out both of GWB’s.
- Status
True, the states individually, have the power to determine how the electors are apportioned. It can be winner take all, apportioned percentage of votes, etc. A national plebiscite, OTOH, is not and should not be the method
S
stevegravy
Guest
I agree and would go further, repeal the 17th amendment. More power to the states over the federal Government. Get rid of these little princes of the empire.
Oh, absolutely. The 17th amendment, passed by progressives, undermines not only federalism, but also the republican model of governance
P
ProVobis
Guest
You say that but go into knots when the electors threaten to vote for some other candidate.
Even go to the US Supreme Court when you can’t figure out how to count your own votes.
And then you have the House if no one gets the 270 EV.
You seem to need the feds more than you think.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It’s noteworthy then that Obama had to win by 4% to be assured of the Presidency. This is what Nate Silver pointed out in the current election.
Clinton “only” won by 2.1% popular vote but it wasn’t good enough.
E
Erich
Guest
You missed my point,which was that Clinton can only claim to have won the national popular vote because of California. Someone earlier in this thread pointed out that Trump won 50% more states than Clinton, and an order of magnitute more counties (i.e. a landslide by any measure), so your meme isn’t exactly as solid as you think it is.
Personally, I’d be happy to trade California for another Kansas
S
stevegravy
Guest
Didn’t say Feds not needed just not as much as they think they are. And I never went into knots over stuff I can not control.
S
stevegravy
Guest
If by win you mean she achieved a plurality then OK, but it is also noteworthy that the Trumpster got a plurality of a couple million if you take Cali out of the counting altogether.
Even bigger if you toss New York. Succession is too good to be hoped for.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Hillary Clinton’s popular vote majority is down to the one state of California. The article cited in this paragraph points out Trump won the popular vote in 29 starts, well with Michigan, Trump won the popular vote in 30 states which is obviously the overwhelming majority of U.S. states. According to this article, in this last November election there were no Republicans running in California in nine districts for the House, there were none running for the state senate in six districts, and no Republicans either running for the assembly in sixteen districts in the November elections. Per article:
if California voted like every other Democratic state — where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins — Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)
The article points out that, “California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.”
What is so great about the electoral college is that it prevents such a majority party state as California determining the outcome of general elections.
(Article linked below was written before Michigan’s results were certified but correct me if am wrong but I believe Trump would still have a popular vote lead). California is even at odds even with other Democratic states where Hillary Clinton won as this article points out:
**what if California’s vote was in line with all the other Democratic states, where Clinton beat Trump 53.5% to 40.2%?
If that were the case, Clinton would have received 860,000 fewer votes in California. And if Trump had captured the same share he received in those same Democratic states, he’d have gotten 773,000 more California votes.
In other words, if California was more like the average Democratic state, Trump would currently have a 400,000 vote lead in the nationwide popular vote.**
Because the large populations are centred in largely coastal based cities and states, in a popular vote system it seems likely that a handful of these would be focused on at the expense of the concerns and issues that may be very different in other parts of the US.
In popular vote system, this article points out that there could be more candidates so you could get a situation where the candidate who wins gets only 30% of the overall popular vote:
A national plebiscite could readily attract many candidates. Would a four- or five-way race in which the winner got 30 percent or less be better? Darin DeWitt and Thomas Schwartz argue in the current issue of the political science journal PS that a plurality winner could readily be someone detested by the majority.
Is a popular vote system so much fairer if that could be the result?
[bold text my emphases]
if California voted like every other Democratic state — where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins — Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)
The article points out that, “California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.”
What is so great about the electoral college is that it prevents such a majority party state as California determining the outcome of general elections.
(Article linked below was written before Michigan’s results were certified but correct me if am wrong but I believe Trump would still have a popular vote lead). California is even at odds even with other Democratic states where Hillary Clinton won as this article points out:
**what if California’s vote was in line with all the other Democratic states, where Clinton beat Trump 53.5% to 40.2%?
If that were the case, Clinton would have received 860,000 fewer votes in California. And if Trump had captured the same share he received in those same Democratic states, he’d have gotten 773,000 more California votes.
In other words, if California was more like the average Democratic state, Trump would currently have a 400,000 vote lead in the nationwide popular vote.**
Because the large populations are centred in largely coastal based cities and states, in a popular vote system it seems likely that a handful of these would be focused on at the expense of the concerns and issues that may be very different in other parts of the US.
In popular vote system, this article points out that there could be more candidates so you could get a situation where the candidate who wins gets only 30% of the overall popular vote:
A national plebiscite could readily attract many candidates. Would a four- or five-way race in which the winner got 30 percent or less be better? Darin DeWitt and Thomas Schwartz argue in the current issue of the political science journal PS that a plurality winner could readily be someone detested by the majority.
Is a popular vote system so much fairer if that could be the result?
[bold text my emphases]
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
But Trump can’t claim to have won the national popular vote at all, even before we start arbitrarily throwing out states. California is one of the states, so it ought to be included in the national total. On the other hand, I could say that Trump can only claim to have won the electoral college because of Texas and Florida. If you leave out those two states, Clinton would have more electoral college votes than Trump. I mean, as long as you think it is significant to cherry-pick California, why not cherry-pick Texas and Florida?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What is it with this obsession of leaving out California? Wishful thinking?If by win you mean she achieved a plurality then OK, but it is also noteworthy that the Trumpster got a plurality of a couple million if you take Cali out of the counting altogether.
We only need the federal government as far as the enumerated powers are granted, and no further than the limits of the 10th amendment
S
stevegravy
Guest
Well not so fast, Lincoln started us on this road to Fed domination, Roosevelt kind of finished it up. The 10th amendment don’t mean nothing any more.
S
stevegravy
Guest
Yea, I know but you can still wish.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I will be the first to agree with that.
So why did they overturn the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 and order the counting to stop? The Constitution already provides a mechanism to select a President if neither reaches 270 EVs.
By the way, the jury is still out as to who had the most votes in Florida that year.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Why do Americans take so long to count their votes? It goes a lot quicker in other countries. I haven’t heard of any other country taking 16 years to count their votes?
I
In_Hoc_Signo312
Guest
As far as I’m concerned, if there’s any doubt to who won Florida, it falls squarely on Al Gore and his campaign. I don’t believe he ever tried to get a statewide recount, which would have saved us all a lot of time, money, and stress if they did that.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Perhaps Caifornians need to wise up and establish dual residencies in the swing states, I don’t know. Obviously a few fewer votes in California won’t make a difference in CA EVs.If by win you mean she achieved a plurality then OK, but it is also noteworthy that the Trumpster got a plurality of a couple million if you take Cali out of the counting altogether.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes but the point was that the feds decided to meddle in a state election.
- Status