Support NeoGAF

[theCalamity]

So does the Senate and House of Representatives

All states have equal representation in the Senate and proportional in the House.

But it's functionally the same thing. You're voting for your state's allocation of votes, just as you're voting for your state's vote in the senate and house. States do not have equal representation respective to their populations and never have.

I'm not voting in those other states, though. Within my state, my vote has the same weight as another person in my state. I can only choose US Reps in my district and my vote has the same weight as those within my district. But when I vote for President, my vote doesn't have the same weight as someone who votes in Wyoming

 

[timmy]

It's actually much more doable now. Before, the only recent divide between the EC and popular vote was incredibly narrow. I wasn't that bitter in 2000 since it was so close either way. But now, we've got a huge difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote, and that's an issue. The EC was set up to give states more of a say, but not to this degree.

It's not an issue to the GOP though, since they benefit from it. And they control the vast majority of state legislatures, so that's a huge roadblock. As someone above mentioned, if that changes, so do this bill's chances, but democrats are in a hell of a hole right now.

 

[Scrotum Phillips]

The Electoral College is the reason basically every modern election has come down to candidates devoting an overwhelming majority of their Presidential campaigning to Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. It's absurd. A vote in New York or Texas should be worth the same as a vote in Ohio. It's also a reason many don't show up to vote if you live in a state that's overwhelmingly likely to go to a Democrat or a Republican.

While I'd support getting rid of this archaic system, how about this hybrid system for a compromise...

Each state keeps its electoral votes, but the candidate who wins the state gets half the electoral votes and the rest of the votes are decided proportionally. In this example, the state of Michigan (16 electoral votes) 8 votes would automatically be given to Trump who won the state (that hurt to type) and since Clinton and Trump roughly tied in the popular vote the rest of the votes would be split 4-4. Trump gets 12 votes, Clinton gets 4.

 

[Skellig Gra]

The Electoral College is the reason basically every modern election has come down to candidates devoting an overwhelming majority of their Presidential campaigning to Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. It's absurd. A vote in New York or Texas should be worth the same as a vote in Ohio. It's also a reason many don't show up to vote if you live in a state that's overwhelmingly likely to go to a Democrat or a Republican.

While I'd support getting rid of this archaic system, how about this hybrid system for a compromise...

Each state keeps its electoral votes, but the candidate who wins the state gets half the electoral votes and the rest of the votes are decided proportionally. In this example, the state of Michigan (16 electoral votes) 8 votes would automatically be given to Trump who won the state (that hurt to type) and since Clinton and Trump roughly tied in the popular vote the rest of the votes would be split 4-4. Trump gets 12 votes, Clinton gets 4.

I think that's more of a symptom of a 2 party system than the EC. If we had viable 3rd parties CA,NY, and TX would be in play every election.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

The Electoral College is fine, but it should actually serve its intended purpose as outlined by Hamilton rather than simply being the formality it has become.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I think that's more of a symptom of a 2 party system than the EC. If we had viable 3rd parties CA,NY, and TX would be in play every election.

EC encourages a 2 party system. If no party gets to 270, the election goes to the House.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

What universe have you been living in? Trump would be raging about how the system is rigged.

Like, he factually spent the last month of the election saying that if he didn't win it meant the results were rigged. He would've given everyone an earful even if he lost both EC+PV.

 

[Izayoi]

Rural folks are in for a terrible surprise in the next few decades regardless of whether or not the EC stays in place.

Cities are the future. Rural living is not sustainable in the long run. Eventually everyone will live in a city.

 

[mo60]

Wait what? Last I head wasn't CNN saying Trump was actually likely to win the pop. vote? Did that change? someone answer pls

He's getting obliterated in NY and CA. There is zero chance of him winning the popular vote at this point unless he shrinks her million+ or nearly 3 million lead(In CA case) by a lot.

 

[Codeblue]

Man, Clinton may not have been the candidate for the time, and, as a Sanders supporter, the primary left a gross taste in my mouth, but I still think she's a rockstar. The amount of people that went out and supported her gives me hope, and I'm proud to have supported her final race.

Hope she lives to see someone shatter the ceiling she couldn't.

 

[____]

Why do they count or release the popular vote numbers if they don't "count"?

 

[Dark Cloud]

I like how movements and not trying to make changes from the people isn't allowed according to posters on here.

If that's the case we'd still be living like it was the 1700's...People should stand up and fight what they believe is right for this country. Trump and his goons are not right for this country. Make a stand and make a difference to get things changed. The government works for the people not the other way around.

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

I like how movements and not trying to make changes from the people isn't allowed according to posters on here.

If that's the case we'd still be living like it was the 1700's...People should stand up and fight what they believe is right for this country. Trump and his goons are not right for this country. Make a stand and make a difference to get things changed. The government works for the people not the other way around.

The time for this shit was 2 years ago, not the day after the dems lost the election. It's the timing this the issue, not the idea.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Why do they count or release the popular vote numbers if they don't "count"?

They're counted because every state awards at least two electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state. The national popular vote doesn't count for anything, though.

The time for this shit was 2 years ago, not the day after the dems lost the election. It's the timing this the issue, not the idea.

I concur, and also point out that the lesson "should have" been learned 16 years ago when Gore lost the way he did. Although Gore only lost by one state; Hillary would have needed multiple close states to swing her way.

 

[slit]

The time for this shit was 2 years ago, not the day after the dems lost the election. It's the timing this the issue, not the idea.

2 years ago? People have debated against the EC for decades. I have no idea where this fable came from that the criticism against the EC is something completely new.

 

[jtb]

The time for this shit was 2 years ago, not the day after the dems lost the election. It's the timing this the issue, not the idea.

who said it's a new debate? it's a debate as old as this country.

just because we can't do anything about it doesn't mean that it hasn't been an issue.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

You're right, there's no reason why the president couldn't be elected by popular vote. But by and large the system did what it was intended to do, which is to give states a voice in the outcome proportional to their size.

We're not going to see a change in the electoral college. When it comes to winning the presidency the people in control of the political parties want to keep it just like it is. It's a lot easier for them to plan a campaign where they get 270 electoral votes than it is to plan a campaign where they have to win 60 million individual votes.

If you want to make individual voices count then we also need to get rid of the two-party system. The democrat and republican parties have a lock on the system and there's little incentive for them to let it go.

Just need one viable 3rd party to win a large enough state that neither two can get 270. Then it'll change

 

[jtb]

Just need one viable 3rd party to win a large enough state that neither two can get 270. Then it'll change

why would this make it change....

if McMuffin had won Utah and kept either candidate from reaching 270, the house would happily have elected Donald Trump. and we'd be in the exact same position we're in right now.

 

[Gallbaro]

why would this make it change....

if McMuffin had won Utah and kept either candidate from reaching 270, the house would happily have elected Donald Trump. and we'd be in the exact same position we're in right now.

Technically the house could elect anyone and would not be limited to the contestants.

IIRC

 

[jtb]

Technically the house could elect anyone and would not be limited to the contestants.

IIRC

Not true, house delegations (each state gets 1 vote) must vote from one of the top three candidates, per the 12th amendment.

 

[____]

They're counted because every state awards at least two electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state. The national popular vote doesn't count for anything, though.

Ahh I see. Thanks for the explanation!

 

[Morrigan Stark]

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

Yeah, how can a voter be informed unless Hillary herself graces them with her presence? How will they be informed of the candidates' platforms and make an informed choice if she isn't there to wave at crowds, shout platitudes in a mic, and shake a few hands?

 

[RadarScope1]

"Viable third parties" aren't a thing and never will be. People love to yak about the "two party system" but it's not. We have a winner-take-all system, which naturally shakes out to two major sides. You can have insurgent candidates from time to time but a lasting, functioning, large, "viable" third party in the United States just ain't gonna happen.

 

[FStubbs]

why would this make it change....

if McMuffin had won Utah and kept either candidate from reaching 270, the house would happily have elected Donald Trump. and we'd be in the exact same position we're in right now.

I actually think in this scenario Ryan would have screwed Trump and made a deal with Democrats to get McMullin in.

 

[RadarScope1]

Technically the house could elect anyone and would not be limited to the contestants.

IIRC

You're thinking of choosing a Speaker of the House.

 

[TheSeks]

Yes, they deserve a voice. No, they do not deserve to have their voice have more weight than the rest of us.

Yes, let's continue to stomp on poor working class folks in the mid-west. What do you mean they can't leave these "fly-over-states" and have no jobs and are scrounging for money to live? What do you mean their cry for help should be noticed instead of scoffed at by us coasters?

WORKS FINE ON MY MACHINE! STATE!

 

[ntropy]

Yeah, how can a voter be informed unless Hillary herself graces them with her presence? How will they be informed of the candidates' platforms and make an informed choice if she isn't there to wave at crowds, shout platitudes in a mic, and shake a few hands?

is that you, Donna? lmao

 

[Morrigan Stark]

is that you, Donna? lmao

I did not get this reference

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Do we have updated numbers yet? Did she really win by millions?

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

Do we have updated numbers yet? Did she really win by millions?

Still no final numbers, but she's close to 700,000 ahead as of the numbers I'm finding.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Still no final numbers, but she's close to 700,000 ahead as of the numbers I'm finding.

Yeah, thats the number on NYT, and on another site it said the same numbers and that its 99.5% of votes counted so far, but I don't fin that info on NYT and I don't trust the other source.

If the 99.5% figure is true it means she won't even be ahead by 1 million.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Do we have updated numbers yet? Did she really win by millions?

We wont have the final numbers for weeks, but she will definitely be expanding her lead. I think she'll end up with a 1.5-2.5 million lead by the end of it.

Yeah, thats the number on NYT, and on another site it said the same numbers and that its 99.5% of votes counted so far, but I don't fin that info on NYT and I don't trust the other source.

If the 99.5% figure is true it means she won't even be ahead by 1 million.

California still has 30% of it's votes to be counted according to CNN

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

We wont have the final numbers for weeks, but she will definitely be expanding her lead. I think she'll end up with a 1.5-2.5 million lead by the end of it.

If it's 99.5% complete (I haven't actually checked that number at all), then her cap would be 1.5 million - that would be all remaining votes in her favor. A 2-1 lead on the remainder would get her around a million though.

 

[Chezzymann]

Yeah, thats the number on NYT, and on another site it said the same numbers and that its 99.5% of votes counted so far, but I don't fin that info on NYT and I don't trust the other source.

If the 99.5% figure is true it means she won't even be ahead by 1 million.

Yeah, which is why this 'won the popular vote, electoral college is terrible' narrative doesn't make sense to me. 700,000-1,000,000 sounds like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things thats only half of a percent. They're effectively tied at 47.8% versus 47.3%. That's not a big enough difference to say that the electoral college isn't representing the will of the people. Who knows, maybe Trump would have won the popular vote if the electoral college system wasn't here this election. Maybe more republicans would have voted in places like california or new york if they knew their vote actually counted.

 

[Jeels]

Yeah, which is why this 'won the popular vote, electoral college is terrible' narrative doesn't make sense to me. 700,000-1,000,000 sounds like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things thats only half of a percent. They're effectively tied at 47.8% versus 47.3%. That's not a big enough difference to say that the electoral college isn't representing the will of the people. Who knows, maybe Trump would have won the popular vote if the electoral college system wasn't here this election. Maybe more republicans would have voted in places like california or new york if they knew their vote actually counted.

Eh, it would balance out with all the liberals I hear in Texas saying they don't vote because their vote doesn't matter.

 

[transformer]

The problem with analyzing the popular vote after the fact, is that it is meaningless. Educated voters and all candidates understand the process. As a result, they vote and campaign accordingly. I know many democratic friends in red states that often don't bother with the presidential vote (often go third party) because they know it won't make a difference in their state. I also know republicans in blue states that do the same. Another factor is that many won't bother to vote in this type of scenario.

The concept of looking at the popular vote and construing that it should have an impact on the election, or even have a correlation to the real "popular" opinion is flawed because of this. It's like trying to change the result of a football game after the fact by adjusting the point value of field goals or touch downs. The teams would have made different decisions during the game if the points were different. Similarly, voters would have voted differently if the rules were different.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Yeah, how can a voter be informed unless Hillary herself graces them with her presence? How will they be informed of the candidates' platforms and make an informed choice if she isn't there to wave at crowds, shout platitudes in a mic, and shake a few hands?

Voters are stupid, lazy and selfish. They want candidates to come to them and speak to them. Literally and more generally to their issues.

GET OVER IT.

This is reality and you need to be able to function within those boundaries to win.

Yeah, which is why this 'won the popular vote, electoral college is terrible' narrative doesn't make sense to me. 700,000-1,000,000 sounds like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things thats only half of a percent. They're effectively tied at 47.8% versus 47.3%. That's not a big enough difference to say that the electoral college isn't representing the will of the people. Who knows, maybe Trump would have won the popular vote if the electoral college system wasn't here this election. Maybe more republicans would have voted in places like california or new york if they knew their vote actually counted.

It doesn't make sense because they weren't playing for the popular vote. She won something no one was contesting.

It's worthless. Like you said, we don't know what would have happened if the popular vote was the target. Argue against the EC? Fine. But argue against it more generally, not with this election as a basis, because that's a weak, weak argument.

 

[pdog128]

They're counted because every state awards at least two electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state. The national popular vote doesn't count for anything, though.

What? No . . . that's not how it works at all. Like at all. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states to split their electoral votes.

Just . . no.

 

[HoodWinked]

you know its ironic that voter id would greatly increase the chances of moving to a popular vote but its also the thing that democrats don't want.

 

[IrishNinja]

Every vote should matter. Note every state.

Empty swaths of geographical land TRUMPS the plurality of votes

And a farmer living in rural Idaho has more voting clout than 2 CEOs of international companies living in California. But hey, the farmer plants crops.

There's a reason why "one man, one vote" is the epitome of democracy. So that you don't give more power to anyone for any reason, kings and peasants weight the same in the balance.

came to post these - everyone here knows the theory behind EC, but overpowering flyover states does nothing to fix this. it's a shit system and we can do better - even this thread is devoid of a good argument against one person, one vote.

aside: the entire primary process is bizarre, too. you watch tiny states act as kingmakers for who we all get to vote on.

 

[DrForester]

Flyover states have their interests protected in the form of the Senate.

But when it comes to election of the NATION'S leader, every vote should count equally.

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

you know its ironic that voter id would greatly increase the chances of moving to a popular vote but its also the thing that democrats don't want.

Democrats would be fine with it if it were easier for legal citizens to get their hands on valid ID, which is the thing Republicans don't want.

 

[DrForester]

you know its ironic that voter id would greatly increase the chances of moving to a popular vote but its also the thing that democrats don't want.

If a vote ID law came with 1-2 years of expanded ID office hours and a big campaign to get everyone who needs one an ID, I don't think Democrats would fight it.

But it's proven time and again, the ID law is just so GOP can do as much as they can to prevent people from getting the ID.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Voters are stupid, lazy and selfish. They want candidates to come to them and speak to them. Literally and more generally to their issues.

GET OVER IT.

Nice. Maybe I'd rather that voters become more educated and less dumb instead.

This is reality and you need to be able to function within those boundaries to win.

Never denied that. I just disagree that the stupidity of the voters should be handwaved and ignored. A country is only as good as its citizens, and if a significant portion of its citizens are ignorant simpletons, that's a real fucking problem that people should care about to try and fix.

 

[jfoul]

I don't think the electorial college needs to go away, but something needs to change. Not getting anything for winning the popular vote is absurd, and in this case your vote indeed doesn't matter. This has happened twice in sixteen years, and the country has & will suffer because of it.

 

[catbrush]

Not only is Clinton winning the popular vote, she could end up with more votes than Obama in 2012.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

But that is one of the fundamental things our country was founded on. Each state gets equal say in at least one chamber of the legislature.

If I recall, states with low population still have an outsized say in the house of representatives, even though it's the chamber intended to keep the big states happy. Compare the amount of representatives per citizen in Wyoming to the amount of representatives per citizen in California and you'll see that CA is getting screwed. The state should have considerably more reps than it does to keep things proportional.


Edit- just did the math. Wyoming has one representative in the house for the entirety of its 580,000 residents. California has 53 representatives, which comes out to about 1 representative for every 732,000 people. If California were represented in Congress as well as Wyoming, the state would have 67 representatives across both houses instead of 55.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Nice. Maybe I'd rather that voters become more educated and less dumb instead.

Never denied that. I just disagree that the stupidity of the voters should be handwaved and ignored. A country is only as good as its citizens, and if a significant portion of its citizens are ignorant simpletons, that's a real fucking problem that people should care about to try and fix.

Civic education is a long-term problem that has long-term solutions. It's also a problem that even the most forward-thinking countries really have yet to solve since those things I listed (laziness, stupidity and selfishness) are basic issues of the human condition.

Regardless, even if you want to fix the stupidity, you still have to deal with the reality of now.

 

[mashoutposse]

The candidates campaigned in fewer states because other states were solid red or blue.

The point is that the Electoral College incentivizes candidates to seek the support of constituents in states where the people have not made up their minds collectively or maybe even slightly disagree with the candidate ("flipping" states). This gives additional states with unique and insufficiently addressed concerns and views a voice. With a straight popular voting system, the path of least resistance for the candidate is to run up the numbers where they're already winning ("preaching to the choir").

A "swing state" is simply any state where the electorate is divided. This is exactly where the campaigning should happen.

Solid red/blue states are not where Presidential candidates should be rewarded for spending their time. You keep arguing that these states should inexplicably be a focus when these states have already raised their hands and said, "I want Candidate X." They already agree with the candidate. The EC forces candidates out of their comfort zone and encourages an expansion of messaging, both in its content and targeting.

 

[QuantumZebra]

What a shame that a majority of sensible Americans were let down by a campaign that took the rust belt for granted. All she had to do was lock down that blue wall but instead the campaign got high off it's own farts and tried to flip Arizona and Texas.



No she didn't win. She lost fair and square. Clinton, her campaign, the DNC, everybody knew that Trump's only path to the WH was to win Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc, we all knew the rules of the game and the routes to victory. Instead of being defensive and guaranteeing a win they took a risk and tried to humiliate the Republicans, neglecting their working class base and trying to flip red states.

this x10000000000000000000

i'm not even angry anymore

The DNC and Hillary did this to themselves