I don't see the point of the EC, if the Senate already has a safeguard in place that no state gets an unbalanced advantage. The legislative branch should keep the interest of the state in mind, the president should be there for all the Americans (ideally, partisanship ruined it), so a popular vote makes more sense. Now you're just doing the same thing twice.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Clinton may win the popular vote by millions
- Thread starter Buba Big Guns
- Start date
- Status
Because Republicans have done so many great things for rural people.
Arguments for the electoral college basically boil down to small rural voters deserve more power because there are less of them. It's like, the only time Americans feel a minority deserve more power by virtue of being a minority. I'm black. Should my votes count for more than a white guy's because there are less blacks?
Trigonometrize.
Member
I vote democrat in Arizona, a state that has been red for some time. And yet, this election it got classified as a swing state and had a chance at turning blue. Things can change if you work with your community and local government to make headway in the federal elections. It didn't work out this time, but it's not like states that are predominately blue or red now are stuck there for eternity.
She lost fair and square.
Electoral college is the best way to vote a president. Why? A majority of americans live in 10 or fewer states. It would be unfair to the rest of the states if the few decided whos president.
Theres a picture that shows what im saying, google it.
Also while many of you complain about popular vote. Democrats started out with 270 electoral votes already based on states that USUALLY vote democratic. It was her race to lose. Democrats have a much easier way to the whitehouse but she lost like 5 or more states that are usually democratic
OrbitalBeard
Member
Exactly.
California was a reliable red state until 1992.
The EC isn't perfect, but I'm completely fine with it.
??
you said "The fact that Clinton neglected a swing state", hence my question.
so "they consider it a swing state", but she neglected it. got ya
You're contradicting yourself. You just said the majority of voters live in 10 states, but then say the "few" shouldn't decide the election. Again, an argument that land is more important than people.
What makes that minority of people so special?
No, im saying that all states shouls count. Not just California , Texas , New York , Pennyslvania , Florida and the rest of the coastal states
Again , democrats latelu have 270 votes already based on how many states lean democratic. She messed up
Minority? You sound like she won by tens of millions.
Her having a .5 to 2% more votes is not alot.
No, you said a majority of people live in 10 states. Then implied that this majority represents "the few". No, they represent the majority of people.
You're arguing that small rural areas should be given outsized power because there's less of them. Which no one in here has made a compelling argument for.
StarSketch
Banned
They need to figure out how to look at both sets of numbers for an election instead of "first person to max EC wins"
Like there should be a threshold percentage to cross of Pop votes as well as the EC or something. If it's split like this, go to tie breaker.
Like there should be a threshold percentage to cross of Pop votes as well as the EC or something. If it's split like this, go to tie breaker.
Trigonometrize.
Member
Honestly, some of y'all might as well just start arguing that we dissolve all of the states altogether if you're that perplexed as to why we don't give Wyoming 1/66 the say in government as California.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
You're arguing in favor of minority rule. There's really no defense of that. These small states can't attract people to live in them. Why should their votes be weighted more because their state isn't as successful?
The few, living more spread out, have more say in the national government (Senate since every gets 2, President due to electoral college).
Electoral college was designed to favor slave holding states over others anyway.
Extra Sauce
Member
We'll never know but in my wildest dreams I imagine it would have meant no 9/11, no 4 trillion Iraq war, no Citizens United, no 2008 global financial collapse, no stem cell research ban... basically the 2000 election was a major turning point for Humanity.
WiiredShawn
Member
Watch as no one bothers to address this logic. I certainly can't think of much of a reason.
theCalamity
Member
If we're alright with the Electoral college, then we should be alright with faithless electors, too, right?
Also, fun fact: theoretically, someone can win the electoral vote with 22% of the popular vote.
Also, fun fact: theoretically, someone can win the electoral vote with 22% of the popular vote.
Yeah, and I mentioned before, a system that can give such outcome is flawed.
The EC is based on population as is. Thats why California has 51 electoral votes. One state gives democrats almost 1/5 of the way to presidency. I live in Oklahoma worth only 7 EC votes, 1/7 the importance of California.
EC is flawed but its best and fair. Its always the democrats race to lose, they start out with over 270 votes in states that lean dsmocratic
Clinton also neglected Michigan and Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia. In the last half of August she had 2 swing state campaign events and 5 California fundraising events. She spent 15 full days of September in New York.
Your argument seems to be that they did not consider Wisconsin a swing state. But if that was so, why would they waste time to have 3 events in Wisconsin in the final week of the campaign?
http://www.p2016.org/clinton/chelseaclintoncal1116.html
I'm not perplexed by it. I just don't see a compelling argument for it. I'd love for you to explain why you think it's a great idea that North Dakota has as much power in the Senate as California, and why a person in North Dakota deserve so much more power than a person in California.
You serious?? That is almost impossible. You have to win enough states to hit 270. Youd have to have a good percentage of popular vote.
Its usuallt only when a third party is in the race that someone win with a smaller then 50% popular vote
This is from 2012, but I thought it was somewhat interesting. It shows the electoral votes per potential voter (18+):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html
It shows for instance that in Wyoming there are 142,741 potential voters for one electoral vote, and in New York there are 519,075 potential voters for one electoral vote.
So your "voting power" for the electoral college as an individual is three times less in New York than in Wyoming.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html
It shows for instance that in Wyoming there are 142,741 potential voters for one electoral vote, and in New York there are 519,075 potential voters for one electoral vote.
So your "voting power" for the electoral college as an individual is three times less in New York than in Wyoming.
theCalamity
Member
paperboywriter
Member
Sometimes I imagine how the GOP would be looked at when it were the other way around and they were the ones complaining about the EC.
Senate is different. Every state has equal power with 2.
The house IS based on Popular.
Look up the great compromise or the connecticut compromise to answer your question
I'm aware of the history. I'm saying there's no compelling argument for it, and I think you agree.
Ragnarsson
Member
The arguments for an electoral college are mostly nonsensical. I mean, why are rural voters and their needs so special that they deserve protection? Why is their voice more important than that from the urban voters? Why are they more important than other minorities? Following that reasoning, shouldn't we also give greater importance to the African American, Latino, LGBTQ, Asian American or Native American votes?
The Senate already caters to the notion that every state should be heard and should have the same weight in big decisions. There's no need to carry any of that over to the Presidency. Each vote should count the same towards the Presidency. It's the fairest way of choosing someone. No vote is more important than another.
The Senate already caters to the notion that every state should be heard and should have the same weight in big decisions. There's no need to carry any of that over to the Presidency. Each vote should count the same towards the Presidency. It's the fairest way of choosing someone. No vote is more important than another.
...you dont understand what your saying...New York is worth MUCH more then Wyoming since it has more people.
Its flawed but theres a reason they tend to hit the populated states more
I do think the EC needs drastic reform but rural votes counting slightly more than urban votes does have some valid arguments, mostly in that being from a rural area already puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to income, opportunity, and attention from candidates.
I never said it was better the way it is, just that there's a reason to avoid a strictly popular vote where urban populous cities/states would have much more power over candidates.
per individual.
The Electoral College as it stands today is basically rigged in favor of the Democrats and will remain so unless the Republicans finally try to become more competitive on a national basis.
The Democrats before Polls even Close on Election day can count on an almost guaranteed 200+ electoral college votes. They have the absolute easiest path to victory every election. Its on them to close the deal. I mean the Republicans literally have to run the entire battleground state tally and even then they still need to flip democrat states.
The Democrats before Polls even Close on Election day can count on an almost guaranteed 200+ electoral college votes. They have the absolute easiest path to victory every election. Its on them to close the deal. I mean the Republicans literally have to run the entire battleground state tally and even then they still need to flip democrat states.
That's why he said theoretically. All you need to win is 50%+1 in about half the states. You can then lose 100% of the vote in the other half of the states. That gets you to about 25% of the vote needed. Then you factor in how smaller states have more voting power than larger states and you can get it down to 22%.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
The math is staring you in the face. We're in a thread talking about HRC winning the popular vote on the backs of the millions of voters in population-dense areas. Your own chart proves that she almost got away with essentially ignoring large swaths of people outside of the areas listed.
You are so right. That's why the person who got the MOST votes should win. You know, Gore, who won by 500,000 and Clinton who will win by 1-2 million votes.
Please tell me you're in favor of black votes counting for more.
Look at the math. It is staring you in the face. She got over 80% of the vote outside the top 20 cities. You are arguing that the fact that she got over 80% of the vote outside the top 20 cities is that she would win with just the top 20 cities? Show me how the numbers prove this.
Code:
Clinton Trump
Total Top 20 Cities 10,514,775 4,547,462
Total Nationwide 60,839,922 60,265,858How does my chart prove this at all?! You are completely making up facts.
Here's what I have, based on the percentage of votes for each state.
I'll double check the Michigan and New Hampshire numbers to make sure it's accurate as of now.
As you can see, neither get to 270. However, it shows Clinton with more EV than Trump based on percentages of votes per state.
I'll double check the Michigan and New Hampshire numbers to make sure it's accurate as of now.
As you can see, neither get to 270. However, it shows Clinton with more EV than Trump based on percentages of votes per state.
I understand what you are saying but wed just not give a crap about 40 other states??
Rural votera arent more apecial. Thats why alot of states only have a small number of EC say. The majority are represented By EC because states with more people are more special and more of concern then states with less
Clinton only lost because she lost key democrat states. She should have won.
I didnt think Trump had a shot in hell. I laughed at him thinkig hes going to lose by a landslide.
But then he won MI , WI , PA and FL and shockrd everyone.
It's not entirely based on population. For example California gets an Elector for every 650,000 residents or so, Wyoming gets one for every 150,000 residents.
I think it favors more Republicans, the last 4 election were the PV winner didn't become president the Republican won the election. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes more common in future elections.
Lol I knew you'd bring that up. In theory, I would say yes, but practicality speaking, it's much more difficult to identify voting inequalities the more specific you get with demographics. It's not like the minority vote isn't important and actively sought after as is. Even if it's not the most powerful voting block, it's not ignored. The concern is that rural states would become almost completely ignored if we were to strictly adhere to a popular vote. That's why I think the EC needs reform rather than being completely abolished.
If you look at states that Clinton carried by a margin of 8% or more, that is only 187 votes.
For states that Trump carried by a margin of 8% or more, that is 176 votes.
It is not as guaranteed as you think, and is more close than you think.
theCalamity
Member
I think with a popular vote, it's not about winning individual states, but winning individuals across the country.
What people mean when they say the rural vote is more special is because their votes are weighted more than those who live in more populous states. Like Haribi said:
All of those votes are not equal.
Hillary completely ignored the "depressed white" middle class voters and she lost fair and square because of that. Bill's old campaign managers suggested her to focus her rhetoric more on swing states and the middle class just as Bernie did, but she would just keep on going with the anti Trump vitriol. You just can't possibly win this way. People also forget that they ripped Sanders and wiped the way for her to be the presidential candidate. Liberals can keep going on all day and blame the electoral college but that won't change the fact that she couldn't focus on major issues, and instead she would just fell on the anti-trump rhetoric.
Anyone that has even the slightest bit of historical understanding for the rationale of the founders for the EC would recognize pretty quickly it was ill conceived and a misfire of reasoning.
The major rationales for its existence didn't hold true and now we just have it because what did happen, is rural states know it gives them extra power and attention in presidential elections.
The needs and desires of their swing states end up more focused on then the needs of the rest of the country.
The major rationales for its existence didn't hold true and now we just have it because what did happen, is rural states know it gives them extra power and attention in presidential elections.
The needs and desires of their swing states end up more focused on then the needs of the rest of the country.
OrbitalBeard
Member
I'm sure plenty would be complaining about it, yeah. I mean ,Trump himself complained about it heavily in 2012.
Wouldn't change anything though.
- Status