She went to those big cities for fundraisers.
-
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
Yeah, people are doing really weird rationalizations to support the current system with absolutely no mind for what the mechanics actually mean, or what they meant, or why.
We didn't even require state-wide votes, initially, nor did we allow women to vote, or minorities, or people that didn't own land. None of those restrictions are any justifiable anymore, nor is the EC. There are variations of the popular-vote (like Dem Primary proportionality) that overcomes its shortcomings.
Yeah, that's a big issue. Same here in Canada. 51-49 is the same win as 95-5.
What happens with all the money anyways now that the campaign ended? What happens generally with raised campaign money?
Miggytronz
Member
It still baffles me how people don't really understand how important the EC is.
Especially in terms for this election and the demographics of the Popular vote. She had the Popular vote only in major cities and that was it.
Especially in terms for this election and the demographics of the Popular vote. She had the Popular vote only in major cities and that was it.
This is key.
Big Baybee
Member
Everyone's vote is equal if we went by popular vote, regardless of where they live. I don't understand your reasoning.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Candidates are forced to focus on flipping states where the margin is tight. This encourages a balanced and inclusive campaign platform.
Without the Electoral College, it would be much better strategy to "preach to the choir" and get out the vote big time where you're already winning. That encourages more extreme and unbalanced campaign rhetoric and policy positions.
Sans EC, it would be far smarter and simpler for Clinton to push CA and NY from 65-35 to 75-25 than it would be to try and flip Ohio or Michigan or Wisconsin.
DasPenguin
Member
It's really hard to understand from a European perspective. Yeah, big cities have a higher population than some smaller towns. Last I checked, every single person gets one vote. So if the people of your country vote for person A and he or she gets more votes than the person B, I have a hard time understanding why person A isn't the president. It might be many things, but it doesn't sound very democratic to me.
This. So much this.
Riposte
Member
That's what bothers me the most. The strongest counterargument to this claim is "yeah, but the democrats always win the popular vote!" which is missing the point lol. The fact the difference is a fraction of a percent makes it even less compelling. Seeing people quote Trump's embarrassing tantrum in 2012 is just ammo against this. I wonder what would happen to this argument if the electoral college rebelled and voted Clinton in.
I'm ambivalent on the electoral college. I think it needs to change, but not be thrown out. The states vs total population debate would finding an alternative system very difficult I'm sure.
DasPenguin
Member
Ok, I'm starting to get the hang of it. What you are saying is that people who live in big cities, their votes aren't as important? Again, if the majority of the population where everyone gets one vote per person votes for someone, that person should be the president. Location doesn't matter because all votes are equal. I can't even imagine what kind of hillbillies would be running Finland if the system was similar here. Thankfully it isn't.
Nope. I would argue the exact same thing. If the majority of the people vote for someone and that person doesn't get elected, then what the people wanted doesn't matter.
It's not balanced or inclusive, it's just tailored to the swing states.
The only way this makes sense is if you are assuming "rural" is some sort of monolithic voting block. At least in terms of wants and needs.
And frankly, at the end of the day, any system where a minority can override the majority. And not just that, in the worst case scenario, you can win with only 22% of the popular vote.
Vincent Alexander
Member
Same. I really want to understand. I can see the logic, I guess. But I don't agree with it.
I disagree. The problems of the Electoral College come up every election, and its problems would obviously be discussed even more so when the popular vote and the EC don't match.
It's because the US has a much different cultural and economic needs than most smaller countries. Big citie on the coasts are doing well, the rust belt is struggling.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Imagine if the EU were one big country and there was a vote for the leader of the whole thing. A straight vote wouldn't be practical in a union that diverse.
No thats not it. She ignored a large portion of the electorate(the rust belt) which traditionally votes Democrat while she was trying to make plays in strong/leaning Republican states like Georiga and Arizona which are possible future swing states. Instead of playing defense in states she should have won which would have been enough to win the election she made plays in states that were a long shot but almost there.
DasPenguin
Member
Big cities (the few we have) are doing well here also. Or at least better than some rural areas. It doesn't mean the rural areas don't get their voices heard. They do. But their votes shouldn't overrun the people who live in Helsinki, for example, when we are voting for the next president.
Maybe it's one of those things where you are used to it because that's how it has always been. Here it just sound foolish.
Well obviously. I understand why she lost. But in every one of those states every person gets the same amount of votes. And if the majority of your country votes for a person and he or she doesn't get elected, democratic is not the word I would use for it. Then all votes are not equal.
Again, your system and I'm not used to it. Would argue the same way if Trump had lost but won the popular vote.
Can we stop acting like the electoral college is infallible, please? When there is this wide of a gap between that an the popular vote, it clearly needs extensive reform. It's fucked.
And Trump will need to be reminded EVERY SINGLE DAY that he lost the popular vote. It's the most effective way to try and protest his insanity and keep his destruction of our nation to as much of a minimum as possible.
And Trump will need to be reminded EVERY SINGLE DAY that he lost the popular vote. It's the most effective way to try and protest his insanity and keep his destruction of our nation to as much of a minimum as possible.
The money can be donated, sent to political parties for other races, saved for if the candidate wants to run again, returned to donors...tons of stuff. It just can't be used to personally enrich the candidate or campaign folks.
No one here has been able to create a compelling argument for the EC that doesn't say that rural voters' issues are more important than urban voters'. People advocating for the popular vote are arguing for equal representation. People arguing for the EC are arguing outsized power for a minority based on land, something they'd laugh at if we decided to extend the concept to things like race or income.
Miggytronz
Member
This. Many areas of the US don't want Democratic policies put in place. Many need Republican policies. A lot of the swing to Republican has a lot to do with jobs IMO. Yeah Obama opened up a lot of great new job opportunities for America but nobody wants to do those types of jobs or those jobs simply don't pay enough when your medical insurance raises every year.
If it helps I live in south eastern VA. Where my area relies on the support of the Military. Jobs are down because of defense cuts which only hurts the lower class who work for a small business. Then it's just a domino effect from there.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
False by definition. The needs of those swing states are considered in addition to those of states where the candidate is naturally winning handily. That's additional balance and inclusion not incentivized by the straight popular vote system.
CrispyBoar
Banned
Yet they elected a racist, sexist, LGBT hating madman.
Only in the US you can find both rich dense cities, disenfranchised industrial areas and empty countrysides. Of course.
I'd say you're wrong. It prioritizes attention on a few states, while voters in safe states go ignored by both parties. What you're supporting is the opposite of "balance".
The size of a single country in Europe is similar to the size of some states in the US. Not comparable.
shaowebb
Member
There's actually a petition needing 4.5 million signatures that is nearing goal that is going to be sent to the electoral college asking them to support the popular vote and overturn the election.
You can sign if you want
You can sign if you want
The size of the country: the ultimate scapegoat for all of your problems. Legislation on firearms? Introducing single payer healthcare? Having the popular vote decide for the presidency? What are you thinking about. The country is too big. It would never work.
Seriously, Every time an alternative is pushed, the size is put forward to say "It will never work!"
Look around you and stop thinking you're so special, America.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Ask yourself why those states are "safe."
One party consistently wins a majority of the votes in that state. Is this a trick question?
You don't understand anything about our culture, the diversity in our economies anything like that. So many Europeans see the movies with New York or LA and assume that's the way US is. The difference between the Northeast, midwest, South, west coast are all like distinctive countries with differences in cultures. America is special in this regard. No other country has the cultural diversity that is found in the US. The country was founded with these differences in mind. We have a federal government, unlike any other country. States and the National government are both sovereign in their own way. This is the way the country was founded and our founders found it essential part of our Republic.
It was essential to the founders, that large states(like Virginia at the time) did not squash out small states(NJ at the time) in the democratic process.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
It's actually not that outlandish. As an austrian my vote is worth much more in the EU than a germans' is because my country gets a proportionally higher count of seats per capita on the European parliament. The system is intended so high population countries can't shout down smaller member states.
To have a system like that applied to presidency is weird though.
Sounds a lot like the EU and is what it should eventually become.
Signed and donated. So many critics are saying this petition is a ridiculous long shot, but it's more important to do what is right. Trump being the supposed president-elect was unprecedented, so our country can do something unprecedented again to save itself from ruin.
plagiarize
Banned
I'm sick of hearing this. I didn't complain about the rules of the brexit referendum when remain lost that too by a small margin.
I didn't complain about the system when Bush won the popular vote on 2004.
Why should people who don't live in cities have their votes count more than people who do? One person one vote makes a lot of sense.
The house is already biased towards rural areas. The senate is already biased towards smaller states.
Why can't the executive branch be won or lost on popular vote? There is only one winner. When it's really close and the country is so divided, why is it a good idea to let a handful of states tip the scales instead of taking states entirely out of the question?
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Any why does one party consistently win a majority of votes in the states in question?
We just had an election where several states flipped, including at least one "safe" one.
The EC in its current form is most certainly NOT how the founders intended it.
And with theses differences in mind? What? Most of those regions didn't even fucking exist when the country was founded.
The country was founded and crafted in a way that gave all power to white males, with certain preferences for the ruling class and land/slave holders. It had nothing to do with fostering cultural diversity.
A myriad of reasons. Arrive at your point.
jstevenson
Sailor Stevenson
The real problem isn't really the electoral college (which is a way of checking the power of the majority, and spreading power across regions).
The real problem is that states allocate their electoral votes in a winner-take-all system.
A more proportional method would eliminate a lot of the complaints.
The real problem is that states allocate their electoral votes in a winner-take-all system.
A more proportional method would eliminate a lot of the complaints.
Back when the country was founded, there was a distinct difference between Pennsylvania and Virginia for example. The national government was meant to be only used for things that states couldn't do each on their own like currency, interstate trade, military etc.
It would reduce the magnification of the problem but it still is a shitty system.
No system that can be won by 22% of the popular vote is a defensible system.
We already have checks to the executive that give preferential treatment to smaller states and gives a voice to rural areas.
I don't believe you.
Are you saying that there are no farmers outside of the US? Or that there are no decaying steel industries? Or disenfranchised minorities? Or all these can't be in a single country?
You keep saying that Europeans don't know anything about the US. I would argue that you know nothing about Europe. I'm trying really hard not to troll about Americans not knowing anything about the outside world.
I know how the Electoral College came to be. It may have served its purpose back in the day, but it is now an aberration, and plenty of people in this thread have already explained why.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
We just had an election where several states flipped unexpectedly, including one "safe" one.
Your point is that, with the Electoral College, you can win a general election in the US with a platform that solely addresses the needs of today's swing states. You're definitively and objectively wrong.
My point is that the Electoral College encourages candidates to broaden their platforms to include the needs of swing states as well as "safe" states. I am right, with objective results to prove it.
theCalamity
Member
Or a system that could theoretically change who the president is on a whim.
Well, we do have an "EU president". Hi election is quite... compleex though, but the parliament (elected by representative democracy) has a veto on him.
What baffles me withthe EC is the "winner takes all". It makes no sense at all.
How can you write these two sentences one after the other?
You literally wrote "candidates are encouraged by the EC system to make unbalanced campaigns to favour swing states, so EC encourages balanced campaigns"...
You did hear about a little thing called the European Union, right?
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Its not a whim and that was designed into it. The 22% potential popular vote win was not.
Elfforkusu
Member
It seems like the EC is really only a problem when the campaign that wins the popular vote is incompetent.
theCalamity
Member
I meant the electors could, theoretically, change who will be the president in December, not that it wasn't designed into it.
I'm not a fan of the EC, but it's the way its been forever and has benefited both sides. As of now its the rules in place to win an election, so not matter how many votes she has, she still lost. I think people should be protesting the EC instead of Trump, otherwise...it's gonna happen again someday.
- Status