Support NeoGAF

[numble]

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.

Why not both?

I argued against the electoral college before the election happened:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1301095

I argued that Clinton neglected a focus on Rust Belt workers after the election:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=224114580&highlight=romney#post224114580

You can argue that the electoral college is unfair while also criticize her campaign missteps under the current system.

 

[Joni]

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.

If you round, did Johnson get enough votes somewhere to steal EV?

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

You can't remove the EC and keep a state based system. The EC obviously exists because certain states have much higher populations than others so it's weighted to be as balanced as possible.

So you either keep the EC or base it purely on single votes. You can't really have anything in between.

 

[Sande]

What I don't understand is that winning a state 51-49 is practically the same as winning it 70-30, leading to the completely fucked swing state situation.

Sure, give the votes different weight based on states to balance urban and rural areas, but don't make the losing votes completely meaningless in every state.

And EC on top of this is just pointless. Count the votes based on the weight given to each state and announce the winner. Done.

 

[Eidan]

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.

I personally don't think the argument that rural America would go ignored without the EC holds much water. The vast majority of Republicans votes come from rural America. It's not like they simply stop catering to those votes and halt GOTV efforts if the popular vote was the winning factor. Hell, if anything you'd see the GOP start reaching out to rural voters in blue states far more. When every vote matters equally, you'd likely start seeing greater 50 state strategies from both parties.

EDIT: oh, and though I'm not accusing you of believing this, I do believe that a lot of this guttural desire to have rural America receive outsized power is racially tinged. Minorities only need to be elevated when those minorities are white.

 

[Syrus]

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.

Trump took democratic states where Clinton sod not take any republican states was more the issue

 

[MANUELF]

Popular vote works for the rest of the world, why is the US so special that it wouldnt Work there?

 

[Sydle]

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.

So did her surrogates and the celebrities who backed her. You believe between the Obamas, Warren, and Sanders she stubbornly refused their advice? You think she forced them to say anything? Every time Trump said something controversial each of them shifted to a narrative of how he was unfit to be president instead of staying on track regarding the issues.

This really needs to be a lesson to the entire Democratic party and we need to hold them each accountable for learning from their mistakes and doing better next time.

 

[Jonm1010]

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.

Most already are ignored. No presidential candidate gives two fucks about Utah, Nebraska, Wyoming, Vermont or Alaska past making sure they stay safe.

They care about swing states. The states that give them a path. A democrat only really shows up and concerns themselves in a safe place like Oregon or Washington when a Nader situation happens and they have to divert resources.

 

[Apollo]

Popular vote works for the rest of the world, why is the US so special that it wouldnt Work there?

they'res a reason why the US is better then the rest of the world.

 

[Jonm1010]

they'res a reason why the US is better then the rest of the world.

A jackpot of natural resources and best positioned economically and militarily post WWII?

 

[ntropy]

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

you spend time in the final week to rally supporters to go out and vote.

if they really thought it was a swing state, do you honestly believe they would wait until the final week to campaign?
i'm no Machiavelli, but I think it would be wise to campaign consistently during the months leading to election day than cram a week before.

 

[guek]

I personally don't think the argument that rural America would go ignored without the EC holds much water. The vast majority of Republicans votes come from rural America. It's not like they simply stop catering to those votes and halt GOTV efforts if the popular vote was the winning factor. Hell, if anything you'd see the GOP start reaching out to rural voters in blue states far more. When every vote matters equally, you'd likely start seeing greater 50 state strategies from both parties.

Maybe. What's certain is that both parties would try to go down whichever path to victory that offers the least amount of resistance. That's going to be different depending the party.

If I could change the EC though, I'd shift it to a proportional distribution of EVs rather than a purely popular vote. My belief is that the existence of swing states in all or nothing contests does more to disenfranchise voters in non-swing states.

 

[bill0527]

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.

How would you keep from disenfranchising all of those people in the smaller states. You want every vote to count and every vote to mean something, but if the majority of Americans all packed into our 15 largest cities got to decide every election, there's no reason for anyone else to ever bother going to the polls.

 

[MANUELF]

they'res a reason why the US is better then the rest of the world.

Europe killing themselves on World War 2?

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

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

Because they mis-read their numbers and waited too long? Based on stories coming out regarding debriefs Bill, and others, were saying they needed to spend time in these states and they all disagreed. They waited too long

 

[Makai]

they'res a reason why the US is better then the rest of the world.

Better at ____?

 

[Stinkles]

Dat mandate...

 

[numble]

How would you keep from disenfranchising all of those people in the smaller states. You want every vote to count and every vote to mean something, but if the majority of Americans all packed into our 15 largest cities got to decide every election, there's no reason for anyone else to ever bother going to the polls.

                     Clinton       Trump
1. New York          1,902,060     423,212
2. Los Angeles       1,654,626     542,591
3. Chicago             892,580     132,900	
4. Houston             702,569     543,227 
5. Philadelphia        563,275     105,876	
6. Phoenix             426,438     444,531
7. San Antonio         319,191     240,161 
8. San Diego           419,401     291,069
9. Dallas              458,845     261,865
10. San Jose           393,066     113,174
11. Austin             247,097      97,368
12. Jacksonville       205,317     211,377 
13. San Francisco      238,772      27,633
14. Indianapolis       212,676     130,228  
15. Columbus           335,961     192,328

Total Top 15 Cities   8,971,874  3,757,540

Total Nationwide    60,839,922  60,265,858

If Clinton restricted her campaigning to the top 15 cities, she would lose. She had over 50 million votes come from outside the top 15 cities. The top 15 cities counted for less than 15% of her total popular votes. Your argument that campaigns would restrict their campaigning to the top 15 cities is absolutely false.

 

[theCalamity]

Number Stuff

If Clinton restricted her campaigning to the top 15 cities, she would lose. She had over 50 million votes come from outside the top 15 cities. The top 15 cities counted for less than 15% of her total popular votes. Your argument that campaigns would restrict their campaigning to the top 15 cities is absolutely false.

What about the top 50 cities? 100?

I'm just curious.

 

[99Luffy]

Popular vote works for the rest of the world, why is the US so special that it wouldnt Work there?

The rest of the world doesnt work on popular vote. At least not Canada.

 

[Eidan]

How would you keep from disenfranchising all of those people in the smaller states. You want every vote to count and every vote to mean something, but if the majority of Americans all packed into our 15 largest cities got to decide every election, there's no reason for anyone else to ever bother going to the polls.

This argument makes zero goddamn sense. Saying the election of president should rely on popular vote isn't disenfranchising voters in smaller states. It's saying that everyone's vote should count equally.

 

[MBS]

Complaining about EC is like complaining for the NBA home court advantage rules. You get some key wins, you bring this home. It can't change, it won't change. Simple as that. Both played upon the same system from day one and it's been like that since forever. Both didn't make a case for it. If Hillary herself didn't make any excuses on that, why do her supporters are? Focus instead on millions of registered dems that didn't vote.

 

[Jonm1010]

How would you keep from disenfranchising all of those people in the smaller states. You want every vote to count and every vote to mean something, but if the majority of Americans all packed into our 15 largest cities got to decide every election, there's no reason for anyone else to ever bother going to the polls.

You sound like a typical millennial lol.

There is much, much more to government then the presidential ticket. In fact such a shift might actually start the process of re-emphasizing the importance of down ticket votes.

But to your point, that logic seems to ignore that cities are not some magical land where 100% of people vote one party. Rural areas would still matter because republicans, in their current position, would be trying to build coalitions of support.

And ultimately, your logic comes back to giving disproportionate power to rural areas which by its very argument is saying that everyone else deserves less power.

 

[remist]

                     Clinton       Trump
1. New York          1,902,060     423,212
2. Los Angeles       1,654,626     542,591
3. Chicago             892,580     132,900	
4. Houston             702,569     543,227 
5. Philadelphia        563,275     105,876	
6. Phoenix             426,438     444,531
7. San Antonio         319,191     240,161 
8. San Diego           419,401     291,069
9. Dallas              458,845     261,865
10. San Jose           393,066     113,174
11. Austin             247,097      97,368
12. Jacksonville       205,317     211,377 
13. San Francisco      238,772      27,633
14. Indianapolis       212,676     130,228  
15. Columbus           335,961     192,328

Total Top 15 Cities   8,971,874  3,757,540

Total Nationwide    60,839,922  60,265,858

If Clinton restricted her campaigning to the top 15 cities, she would lose. She had over 50 million votes come from outside the top 15 cities. The top 15 cities counted for less than 15% of her total popular votes. Your argument that campaigns would restrict their campaigning to the top 15 cities is absolutely false.

Is that just the city or the full metro area?

 

[numble]

you spend time in the final week to rally supporters to go out and vote.

if they really thought it was a swing state, do you honestly believe they would wait until the final week to campaign?
i'm no Machiavelli, but I think it would be wise to campaign consistently during the months leading to election day than cram a week before.

You spend time in the final weeks in swing states to get out the vote. The most important states will be focused on in the last week.

They did not wait until the final week, like I said, Tim Kaine and Bill Clinton had events in Wisconsin as well.

Clinton neglected campaigning in swing states. Look at her schedule compared to Obama's schedule in his election campaign:

This was Clinton's schedule in late August:
http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintoncal0816.html
August 18 - New York, NY
August 19 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 20 - Nantucket, MA, Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 21 - Provincetown, MA, Osterville, MA
August 22 - Beverly Hills, CA
August 23 - Los Angeles, CA, Laguna Beach, CA, Piedmont, CA
August 24 - Redwood City, CA, Los Altos, CA, Woodside, CA
August 25 - Reno, NV
August 26 - None
August 27 - White Plains, NY
August 28 - Sag Harbor, NY, Southampton, NY, Bridgehampton, NY
August 29 - East Hampton, NY, Quogue, NY
August 30 - Sagaponack, NY, North Haven, NY
August 31 - Cincinnati, OH

This was Obama's schedule in the same period in 2008:
https://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2008/obama/obamacal0808.html
August 18 - Albuquerque, NM
August 19 - Orlando, FL, Raleigh, NC
August 20 - Greensboro, NC, Martinsville, VA, Danville, VA, Lynchburg, VA
August 21 - Richmond, VA, Chester, VA, Petersburg, VA, Emporia, VA, Chesapeake, VA
August 22 - Chicago, IL
August 23 - Springfield, IL
August 24 - Eau Claire, WI
August 25 - Davenport, IA, Kansas City, MO
August 26 - Kansas City, MO
August 27 - Billings, MT, Denver, CO
August 28 - Denver, CO
August 29 - Monaca, PA, Aliquippa, PA, Beaver, PA
August 30 - Boardman, OH, Cleveland, OH, Marengo, OH, Dublin, OH
August 31 - Lima, OH, Toledo, OH, Hamilton, IN, Battle Creek, MI

We can compare her September schedule to Obama's as well:

http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintoncal0916.html
1 Ohio event, 0 Michigan events, 1 Pennsylvania event, 0 Wisconsin events, 15-16 days in New York
September 1 - None
September 2 - None
September 3 - None
September 4 - None
September 5 - Cleveland, OH, Hampton, IL
September 6 - Tampa, FL
September 7 - New York, NY
September 8 - Charlotte, NC, Kansas City, MO
September 9 - New York, NY
September 10 - None
September 11 - New York, NY, Chappaqua, NY
September 12 - Chappaqua, NY
September 13 - Chappaqua, NY
September 14 - Chappaqua, NY
September 15 - Greensboro, NC, Washington, DC
September 16 - Washington, DC, New York, NY
September 17 - Washington, DC
September 18 - None
September 19 - Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY
September 20 - None
September 21 - Orlando, FL
September 22 - Chappaqua, NY
September 23 - Rye Brook, NY
September 24 - Rye Brook, NY
September 25 - New York, NY, Rye Brook, NY
September 26 - Hempstead, NY
September 27 - Raleigh, NC
September 28 - Durham, NH, Boston, MA
September 29 - Des Moines, IA, Chicago, IL
September 30 - Fort Pierce, FL, Coral Springs, FL, Miami Beach, FL

Obama:
https://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2008/obama/obamacal0908.html
3 Ohio events, 5 Michigan events, 5 Pennsylvania events, 2 Wisconsin events, 4 days in Illinois
September 1 - Detroit, MI, Monroe, MI, Milwaukee, WI
September 2 - Chicago, IL
September 3 - New Philadelphia, OH, Dillonvale, OH
September 4 - York, PA, Columbia, PA, Lancaster, PA
September 5 - Duryea, PA, Wyoming, PA, Middletown, NJ
September 6 - Terre Haute, IN
September 7 - Chicago, IL
September 8 - Flint, MI, Farmington Hills, MI
September 9 - Riverside, OH, Abingdon, VA Lebanon, VA
September 10 - Norfolk, VA, New York, NY, Washington, DC
September 11 - Harlem, NY, New York, NY
September 12 - Dover, NH, Hopkinton, NH, Concord, NH
September 13 - Manchester, NH
September 14 - Chicago, IL
September 15 - Grand Junction, CO, Pueblo, CO
September 16 - Golden, CO, Beverly Hills, CA
September 17 - Elko, NV, Las Vegas, NV
September 18 - Albuquerque, NM, Bernalillo, NM, Española, NM, Albuquerque, NM
September 19 - Coral Gables, FL
September 20 - Daytona Beach, FL, Jacksonville, FL
September 21 - Charlotte, NC
September 22 - Green Bay, WI, Chicago, IL
September 23 - Clearwater, FL
September 24 - Clearwater, FL, Dunedin, FL
September 25 - Clearwater, FL, Washington, DC
September 26 - Oxford, MS
September 27 - Greensboro, NC, Fredericksburg, VA, Washington, DC
September 28 - Detroit, MI
September 29 - Westminster, CO
September 30 - Reno, NV

 

[mashoutposse]

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.

                     Clinton       Trump

Total Top 20 Cities 10,514,775   4,547,462

Total Nationwide    60,839,922  60,265,858

How does my chart prove this at all?! You are completely making up facts.

I'll spell it out.

Creating a +6,000,000 margin in population-dense areas won her the popular vote overall despite losing decisively with the other 80% of the population.

And this happened within a system where she was not even incentivized to run up the numbers in some of the biggest cities.

 

[theCalamity]

Complaining about EC is like complaining for the NBA home court advantage rules. You get some key wins, you bring this home. It can't change, it won't change. Simple as that. Both played upon the same system from day one and it's been like that since forever. Both didn't make a case for it. If Hillary herself didn't make any excuses on that, why do her supporters are? Focus instead on millions of registered dems that didn't vote.

Many of us had these concerns well before this. Even if the opposite was true, Don winning the PV but not the EV, I would still be arguing against the Electoral College.

 

[Regulus Tera]

Better at ____?

Electing white supremacists into power?

You're not even the first, America.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This argument makes zero goddamn sense. Saying the election of president should rely on popular vote isn't disenfranchising voters in smaller states. It's saying that everyone's vote should count equally.

If anything, as a Democrat in a heavily Republican state, it makes me feel like my vote for president counts!

 

[numble]

I'll spell it out.

Creating a +6,000,000 margin in population-dense areas won her the popular vote overall despite losing decisively with the other 80% of the population.

And this happened within a system where she was not even incentivized to run up the numbers in some of the biggest cities.

She did not lose decisively with the other 80% of the population. 80% of her vote came from outside the top 20 cities.

You're mapping the results of a game with one set of rules to projected results of that game with a different set of rules. That's fundamentally wrong.

If she had ignored the rest of the voters outside of the top 20 cities, which you argue she would do, she would not have gotten those votes. She got those votes because she was incentivized to get their votes. She would still be incentivized to get their votes in a popular contest. The empirical evidence is there: 1) other Western democracies and how they campaign; 2) Nebraska and Maine's setup of awarding split electoral votes--when you have a potential of earning votes that count, the campaigns actively campaign for such votes.

 

[Jonm1010]

If anything, as a Democrat in a heavily Republican state, it makes me feel like my vote for president counts!

And this is actually a really big component that gets left out.

This country puts so much of an emphasis on presidential politics, to the point that as someone living in a red state, the biggest thing I have heard for over a decade is, "this state is going red, my vote doesn't even count." I've heard the opposite from Republicans in blue states/cities I have lived in. You look at turnout numbers by state and this seems to play out as well. Safe states seem to be near the bottom half of the turnout rankings while the swing states tend to concentrate toward the top half of turnout.

Logically this likely harms down ballot races and skews participation and representation.

A nationwide popular vote would honestly spur record turnouts and bring the representatives of the citizenry in all states better in line with their actual needs.

 

[Brakke]

People also forget that they ripped Sanders and wiped the way for her to be the presidential candidate.

lol nobody forgets this.

 

[slit]

If anything, as a Democrat in a heavily Republican state, it makes me feel like my vote for president counts!

Yeah but because a farmer lives in the middle of Wyoming his should count for more or something.

 

[F34R]

If you round, did Johnson get enough votes somewhere to steal EV?

There are definitely places in my chart that shows Trump + Clinton didn't take all the EV in each state.

 

[SteveMeister]

The electoral college is part of the constitution. It's there based on the fact that pure democracies always fail, because the interests and needs of the few never get represented, and eventually thus drives the democracy apart.

People in cities and other high population areas, who have very different priorities than people in rural communities, would always control government. They'd make all the decisions, and those in smaller communities would just have to live with it. Their votes truly woul not count.

The electoral college encourages coalition building -- candidates must seek out people in high and low population communities, listen to their issues, and take them into account in order to build support.

With a simple majority vote, there'd be no incentive for any candidate to do that.

 

[Hoo-doo]

The electoral college is part of the constitution. It's there based on the fact that pure democracies always fail, because the interests and needs of the few never get represented, and eventually thus drives the democracy apart.

People in cities and other high population areas, who have very different priorities than people in rural communities, would always control government. They'd make all the decisions, and those in smaller communities would just have to live with it. Their votes truly woul not count.

The electoral college encourages coalition building -- candidates must seek out people in high and low population communities, listen to their issues, and take them into account in order to build support.

With a simple majority vote, there'd be no incentive for any candidate to do that.

Yup. A popular vote 'pure' democracy works in smaller, more homogeneous countries.
In a country as huge and diverse as the US when it comes to population density, it completely falls apart.

 

[mashoutposse]

She did not lose decisively with the other 80% of the population. 80% of her vote came from outside the top 20 cities.

You're mapping the results of a game with one set of rules to projected results of that game with a different set of rules. That's fundamentally wrong.

If she had ignored the rest of the voters outside of the top 20 cities, which you argue she would do, she would not have gotten those votes. She got those votes because she was incentivized to get their votes. She would still be incentivized to get their votes in a popular contest. The empirical evidence is there: 1) other Western democracies and how they campaign; 2) Nebraska and Maine's setup of awarding split electoral votes--when you have a potential of earning votes that count, the campaigns actively campaign for such votes.

She won the popular vote by gaining overwhelming margins with 20% of the population, despite losing by 5 points with 80% of the population. That happened. No hypotheticals, no comparisons. That's not "made up" anything - that's the hard, objective truth.

That only gets worse when candidates are incentivized to run it up in those 20 cities. Without the EC, there is no reason to do anything but campaign in the biggest cities by population density. Doing anything else is by definition not mathematically sensible.

 

[Eidan]

The electoral college is part of the constitution. It's there based on the fact that pure democracies always fail, because the interests and needs of the few never get represented, and eventually thus drives the democracy apart.

People in cities and other high population areas, who have very different priorities than people in rural communities, would always control government. They'd make all the decisions, and those in smaller communities would just have to live with it. Their votes truly woul not count.

The electoral college encourages coalition building -- candidates must seek out people in high and low population communities, listen to their issues, and take them into account in order to build support.

With a simple majority vote, there'd be no incentive for any candidate to do that.

Smaller states already get outsized representation in both houses of Congress, in the Senate to a laughably outsized degree. The Electoral College is an antiquated institution that continues today because it protects the power of rural white elites. It doesn't encourage bridge building, it actually concentrates candidates' attention to a few areas of contention, while the vast majority of the country goes ignored. Arguing for the Electoral College is arguing that rural Americans matter more.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

So basically she won. That bites. Yeah, the EC has to go.

She won the participation award.

 

[numble]

Yup. A popular vote 'pure' democracy works in smaller, more homogeneous countries.
In a country as huge and diverse as the US when it comes to population density, it completely falls apart.

So you agree that these homogenous countries always fail? That is what he is arguing.

There is incentive to get votes from the rest of the population, because the votes simply aren't there in the cities to get you the necessary votes. This is proven--when Nebraska and Maine split up their electoral votes partly by proportional votes, the campaigns start campaigning there for votes. They will get any votes that can matter.

With a popular vote, you could run up the votes in large cities and still lose the popular vote. You need the votes from the rest of the country. With the electoral college, you can get 22% of the popular vote and still win the election.

 

[Jonm1010]

The electoral college is part of the constitution. It's there based on the fact that pure democracies always fail, because the interests and needs of the few never get represented, and eventually thus drives the democracy apart.

People in cities and other high population areas, who have very different priorities than people in rural communities, would always control government. They'd make all the decisions, and those in smaller communities would just have to live with it. Their votes truly woul not count.

The electoral college encourages coalition building -- candidates must seek out people in high and low population communities, listen to their issues, and take them into account in order to build support.

With a simple majority vote, there'd be no incentive for any candidate to do that.

First off the rationale for the EC from the founders was about citizen ignorance and wanting layers of protection so someone without the prerequisite skills would not hold office. They had a very, very low opinion of voter intelligence and wanted to limit who could have sway based on their own beliefs at the time(lots had to do with land owning for one).

We just had a page with people posting actual numbers about why this isn't true though

All the EC does is focus interests on swing states and leaner states that can be spoiled.

The EC does nothing for a farmer in Nebraska. That's partly why you have the House and Senate. There seems to be this perpetuating conflation that rural towns all have shared interests. As if in Michigan and Ohio they have the same concerns as the wants and needs of sugar cane farmers in Louisiana or a small coastal town on the east coast.

 

[Camp Freddie]

snip

Wow, thanks for researching that schedule. Total proof of why she lost and just how incompetent her campaign was.
I'm shocked that such an experienced politician could make such a rookie error in neglecting swing states.

 

[ntropy]

You spend time in the final weeks in swing states to get out the vote. The most important states will be focused on in the last week.

They did not wait until the final week, like I said, Tim Kaine and Bill Clinton had events in Wisconsin as well.

Clinton neglected campaigning in swing states. Look at her schedule compared to Obama's schedule in his election campaign:

Tim Kaine and Bill Clinton doing events in Wisconsin is the not the same as Hilary doing them.

the schedule corroborates that she and her campaign didn't regard MI, WI as swing states.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

It's nice to know America isn't quite as batshit crazy as it seems

It's great to know that another 0.03% of America isn't crazy!

 

[Byakuya769]

Trump took democratic states where Clinton sod not take any republican states was more the issue

"Democratic States"/"Republican States"

This characterization is one major reason the EC should go. How about we just focus on winning "people."

 

[Nif]

She won the popular vote by gaining overwhelming margins with 20% of the population, despite losing by 5 points with 80% of the population. That happened. No hypotheticals, no comparisons. That's not "made up" anything - that's the hard, objective truth.

That only gets worse when candidates are incentivized to run it up in those 20 cities. Without the EC, there is no reason to do anything but campaign in the biggest cities by population density. Doing anything else is by definition not mathematically sensible.

Candidates already campaign in large cities. They just focus those large cities in a frew swing states. That doesn't sound better to me?

 

[ScatheZombie]

The electoral college is part of the constitution. It's there based on the fact that pure democracies always fail, because the interests and needs of the few never get represented, and eventually thus drives the democracy apart.

Actually, it's there to ensure wealthy, white, male landowners maintained complete control of the political system. One of the biggest reasons it was established in the first place was because colonies with large slave populations complained they would be given less power in government because their states had fewer eligible voters. It's literally where the idea that a black man was 3/5 of a person comes from too.

People like to cite 'voter intelligence'; but... it was actually far more about slavery and white supremacy than anything else. The founding fathers were a bunch of racist, sexist, classist assholes who built a system that gives the appearance of equality while still giving complete control to wealthy, white men.

Though I do appreciate the irony of trying to say that without the electoral college, certain areas of the country would have more political power - when with the electoral college we have that exact same problem in that every election for the past 2 decades has been decided by the same 4-5 battleground states and everyone else in the country might as well not exist.

 

[mashoutposse]

*Clinton campaigning schedule*

Proof positive that focusing on big cities alone is a valid strategy to winning the popular vote.

The EC worked - she was penalized for this unbalanced strategy and lost.

 

[theCalamity]

The electoral college is part of the constitution. It's there based on the fact that pure democracies always fail, because the interests and needs of the few never get represented, and eventually thus drives the democracy apart.

So you'd be alright if the Electoral College elects Hillary Clinton in December? Because the Electoral College can do that.