Support NeoGAF

[blakep267]

It should go but I'm sure rural republicans would fight it tooth and nail. If it were popular votes, I'm just guessing that minorities and white dems would most always outnumber white republicans. We're not going to get minorities to move out to South Dakota or some place

 

[Joni]

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

More than any candidate except Obama.

 

[Neoweee]

EDIT: Sorry.

 

[ReBurn]

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.

EC is not a "shit system." It's just that people don't understand how the electoral process works or what their votes are actually for. And when someone tries to tell them they just put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la doesn't matter, the system is broken."

It's both ignorant and disgusting that anyone would consider the votes of people in "flyover" states to be irrelevant. That's exactly the kind of thinking that the electoral college was created to defend against.

The U.S. Is a union of states. When people vote for president they're voting for who they want to represent their state, just like when they elect senators and representatives. The electoral college positions are awarded to the political party that wins the popular vote in the state. So every vote in California counts equally within the context of that state, just like every vote in Iowa does.

Saying that we should move to a national popular vote would disenfranchise small states. Why should California and New York decide the outcome of every election? Just because more people live there? Faced with infrastructure needs in California versus infrastructure needs in South Dakota, where do you think the money would go in a majority rule system?

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

 

[Eidan]

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

God will this pain ever end?

 

[ersocaster]

EC is not a "shit system." It's just that people don't understand how the electoral process works or what their votes are actually for. And when someone tries to tell them they just put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la doesn't matter, the system is broken."

It's both ignorant and disgusting that anyone would consider the votes of people in "flyover" states to be irrelevant. That's exactly the kind of thinking that the electoral college was created to defend against.

The U.S. Is a union of states. When people vote for president they're voting for who they want to represent their state, just like when they elect senators and representatives. The electoral college positions are awarded to the political party that wins the popular vote in the state. So every vote in California counts equally within the context of that state, just like every vote in Iowa does.

Saying that we should move to a national popular vote would disenfranchise small states. Why should California and New York decide the outcome of every election? Just because more people live there? Faced with infrastructure needs in California versus infrastructure needs in South Dakota, where do you think the money would go in a majority rule system?

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

Yes.

The president is supposed to represent the will of the people. The Senate is there to fight for state issues. The electoral college gives the minority complete control over the majority. A straight popular vote gives majority control, but each state has equal representation in the Senate.

 

[Dude Abides]

EC is not a "shit system." It's just that people don't understand how the electoral process works or what their votes are actually for. And when someone tries to tell them they just put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la doesn't matter, the system is broken."

It's both ignorant and disgusting that anyone would consider the votes of people in "flyover" states to be irrelevant. That's exactly the kind of thinking that the electoral college was created to defend against.

The U.S. Is a union of states. When people vote for president they're voting for who they want to represent their state, just like when they elect senators and representatives. The electoral college positions are awarded to the political party that wins the popular vote in the state. So every vote in California counts equally within the context of that state, just like every vote in Iowa does.

Saying that we should move to a national popular vote would disenfranchise small states. Why should California and New York decide the outcome of every election? Just because more people live there? Faced with infrastructure needs in California versus infrastructure needs in South Dakota, where do you think the money would go in a majority rule system?

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

This post has two dubious premises. First, it presumes without justification that people in small states are more deserving of representation than people in large states. Second, the EC does not protect small states. It protects swing states, including large ones like Florida. So even assuming that small states are somehow more worthy or representation than large states, it does not even accomplish that.

 

[MogCakes]

"Popular vote is meaningless and so is yours", etc.

I'm sure the alt-right is even more acutely aware of how much of a crutch the Electoral College is for them after this election.

 

[Toxi]

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

The check is called the Senate. And it's a pretty huge check.

Speaking of which, the part of our government that's supposed to be based on population representation...

2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Isn't actually representative thanks to the House of Representatives being stuck at 435. Which further affects the Presidential Election, since EC numbers are based on state representatives.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

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

Yea, Trump has a legislative mandate, but the Republicans would be completely idiotic if they think they can just run amok and implement all their shitty policies.

Clinton will destroy trump in the popular vote.

 

[gutter_trash]

she is now at +798,790 according the Wikipedia

 

[Micerider]

EC is not a "shit system." It's just that people don't understand how the electoral process works or what their votes are actually for. And when someone tries to tell them they just put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la doesn't matter, the system is broken."

It's both ignorant and disgusting that anyone would consider the votes of people in "flyover" states to be irrelevant. That's exactly the kind of thinking that the electoral college was created to defend against.


The U.S. Is a union of states. When people vote for president they're voting for who they want to represent their state, just like when they elect senators and representatives. The electoral college positions are awarded to the political party that wins the popular vote in the state. So every vote in California counts equally within the context of that state, just like every vote in Iowa does.

Saying that we should move to a national popular vote would disenfranchise small states. Why should California and New York decide the outcome of every election? Just because more people live there? Faced with infrastructure needs in California versus infrastructure needs in South Dakota, where do you think the money would go in a majority rule system?

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

Majority rule for all aspects is not great. But the current system is not exactly representative either. Why not a "two round" elections with the first round used for each State to decide who they want to run in the second one and the second round to be a "popular vote"? A majority of americans have all the right to be pissed at the system here, even if the victory of Trump is fair and not to be contested.

 

[JaggedSac]

Federalist paper #68 is the one arguing for the electoral college I think. Anti-federalist paper #72 is arguing for the popular vote.

 

[Elandyll]

...

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

So it's better that a bunch of small states with a disproportionate people-to-land ratio impose their way to the more populous states, de facto disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people of their vote just because they live there?

I thought the time of land owners being worth more than peasants were long gone, but maybe not after all...
The Senate and Congress are there to represent their constituents, State by State, District by District.

The President is supposed to be the President of All the people, not just the President of a bunch of Electors that do not accurately represent the population.
Biggest irony, the EC system exists to prevent what is happening Right Now (a demagogue populist opposed to freedom of speech in media, with Fascist ideas, getting to power with no checks and balances as his party controls every branch of gov).

EC system has now failed, and spectacularly so. So yes. It's, in 2016, a shit system.

 

[Chojin]

It should go but I'm sure rural republicans would fight it tooth and nail. If it were popular votes, I'm just guessing that minorities and white dems would most always outnumber white republicans. We're not going to get minorities to move out to South Dakota or some place

I'm a minority from South Dakota though I don't wanna move back ;_;

 

[Toxi]

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.

It's infuriating and indefensible.

 

[Joni]

I think people are



2008 Obama.

The theoretical list is:

1) 2008 Obama
2) 2016 Clinton
3) 2012 Obama

And 2012 Obama who got two million votes more than her theoretical max.

That total would be more than the votes received by any other presidential candidate in history except for Mr Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Trump will be fifth after bush 2004.

 

[numble]

EC is not a "shit system." It's just that people don't understand how the electoral process works or what their votes are actually for. And when someone tries to tell them they just put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la doesn't matter, the system is broken."

It's both ignorant and disgusting that anyone would consider the votes of people in "flyover" states to be irrelevant. That's exactly the kind of thinking that the electoral college was created to defend against.

The U.S. Is a union of states. When people vote for president they're voting for who they want to represent their state, just like when they elect senators and representatives. The electoral college positions are awarded to the political party that wins the popular vote in the state. So every vote in California counts equally within the context of that state, just like every vote in Iowa does.

Saying that we should move to a national popular vote would disenfranchise small states. Why should California and New York decide the outcome of every election? Just because more people live there? Faced with infrastructure needs in California versus infrastructure needs in South Dakota, where do you think the money would go in a majority rule system?

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

You are wrong. The EC system as it stands can be geared for California to decide, if it is a swing state. Whoever won Florida in 2000 and 2016 gets to 270. Texas is trending purple, and was closer than Ohio, in the future, campaigns will double down on Florida and Texas because they are swing states that can decide the election. Why should Texas and Florida decide the outcome of every future election? Just because they are swing states? They are the second and third largest states. Not small rural midwestern flyover states.

It is not designed to protect flyover states just because this specific election was decided by flyover states.

 

[Frankfurter]

EC is not a "shit system." It's just that people don't understand how the electoral process works or what their votes are actually for. And when someone tries to tell them they just put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la doesn't matter, the system is broken."

It's both ignorant and disgusting that anyone would consider the votes of people in "flyover" states to be irrelevant. That's exactly the kind of thinking that the electoral college was created to defend against.

The U.S. Is a union of states. When people vote for president they're voting for who they want to represent their state, just like when they elect senators and representatives. The electoral college positions are awarded to the political party that wins the popular vote in the state. So every vote in California counts equally within the context of that state, just like every vote in Iowa does.

Saying that we should move to a national popular vote would disenfranchise small states. Why should California and New York decide the outcome of every election? Just because more people live there? Faced with infrastructure needs in California versus infrastructure needs in South Dakota, where do you think the money would go in a majority rule system?

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

The first issue here is that California and New York wouldn't decide the outcome of every election, why would they? Both states combined have a population of approx. 59 million people, that's less than one fifth of the total population of the United States and therefore their combined weight in a popular vote system would be less than one fifth of the total. The second thing is: yes, they have more population, so they should count for more (and they do count for more anyway).
The theory about the infrastructure money really is bullshit. Just open your eyes and look at all the other countries in the world that do popular vote decisions (either in presidential or parliamentary systems). The reality is contrary to what you believe.

The balance is the senate. It's already there.

What the EC currently does, is that a couple swing states have much more to do with the outcome of the presidential race, than they should have. If you are a democrat or a republican in Ohio, your vote is very, very important and you are subject to heavy campaigning by both sides. If you are a republican in California? Just stay home, your vote doesn't matter and nobody cares about you.
In a popular vote system, every single vote counts. Even if your state was, is and will always be 99.9% republican vs. 0.1% democrats, your vote (either republican or democrat) is important.

 

[IrishNinja]

damn...everyone kinda came for this dude's post, nice

EC is not a "shit system." It's just that people don't understand how the electoral process works or what their votes are actually for. And when someone tries to tell them they just put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la doesn't matter, the system is broken."

Saying that we should move to a national popular vote would disenfranchise small states. Why should California and New York decide the outcome of every election? Just because more people live there? Faced with infrastructure needs in California versus infrastructure needs in South Dakota, where do you think the money would go in a majority rule system?.

yeah, let's dismiss complaints about this shit system as "la la la" and a quick civics 101 no one asked for.

46% of the electorate even showed up. as an FL resident, my vote counts tremendously more than CA, TX and many, many other places. the candidate with several million more votes from the people lost because she (stupidly) ignored the rust belt, which i get, but your argument is that artificially inflating that tiny vote to such a degree is good, because hey, fuck disenfranchised voters in large pockets of america because reasons.

the balance our republic requires operates via the house & senate. look at your own question: why should my state, ohio and others decide the outcome?

This post has two dubious premises. First, it presumes without justification that people in small states are more deserving of representation than people in large states. Second, the EC does not protect small states. It protects swing states, including large ones like Florida. So even assuming that small states are somehow more worthy or representation than large states, it does not even accomplish that.

thank you

 

[FyreWulff]

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

this gonna make me start drinking

 

[Modest Mauser]

The Trump supporters that I know irl have started circulating the conspiracy theory that Trump also won the popular vote, and that Wikipedia etc. are using out-of-date numbers to fuel the current protests

Social media has been doing some crazy things to people this election, I hope Zuckerberg backtracks on what he said about fake news on Facebook

 

[ProfessorLobo]

The Trump supporters that I know irl have started circulating the conspiracy theory that Trump also won the popular vote, and that Wikipedia etc. are using out-of-date numbers to fuel the current protests

Social media has been doing some crazy things to people this election, I hope Zuckerberg backtracks on what he said about fake news on Facebook

Yep I'm seeing it too. Popular vote numbers are yet another victim of liberal media.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

The Trump supporters that I know irl have started circulating the conspiracy theory that Trump also won the popular vote, and that Wikipedia etc. are using out-of-date numbers to fuel the current protests

Social media has been doing some crazy things to people this election, I hope Zuckerberg backtracks on what he said about fake news on Facebook

Just wait until Trump himself latches on to this one.

 

[Meowster]

More than any candidate except Obama.

More than any other (white) man as well..

People are (justifiably) upset at Hillary right now but that small bit of information does make me feel better in the direction. We are going to have to storm through a hellish four years but we are just that much closer.

 

[guek]

Just wait until Trump himself latches on to this one.

It's probably already up on his Facebook feed

 

[Joni]

More than any other (white) man as well..

People are (justifiably) upset at Hillary right now but that small bit of information does make me feel better in the direction. We are going to have to storm through a hellish four years but we are just that much closer.

To be fair, the voting age population seems to have grown a lot according to Wikipedia. Even compared to 2012.

 

[Wensih]

Winning the Electoral College IS winning. You don't change the rules after both candidates agreed from the get go. If you want change in the future, fine. This election is done.

What if the EC elects Hillary? It's fair right? I mean those are in the rules.

 

[mashoutposse]

EC is not a "shit system." It's just that people don't understand how the electoral process works or what their votes are actually for. And when someone tries to tell them they just put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la doesn't matter, the system is broken."

It's both ignorant and disgusting that anyone would consider the votes of people in "flyover" states to be irrelevant. That's exactly the kind of thinking that the electoral college was created to defend against.

The U.S. Is a union of states. When people vote for president they're voting for who they want to represent their state, just like when they elect senators and representatives. The electoral college positions are awarded to the political party that wins the popular vote in the state. So every vote in California counts equally within the context of that state, just like every vote in Iowa does.

Saying that we should move to a national popular vote would disenfranchise small states. Why should California and New York decide the outcome of every election? Just because more people live there? Faced with infrastructure needs in California versus infrastructure needs in South Dakota, where do you think the money would go in a majority rule system?

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

Precisely.

 

[digdug2k]

The first issue here is that California and New York wouldn't decide the outcome of every election, why would they? Both states combined have a population of approx. 59 million people, that's less than one fifth of the total population of the United States and therefore their combined weight in a popular vote system would be less than one fifth of the total. The second thing is: yes, they have more population, so they should count for more (and they do count for more anyway).
The theory about the infrastructure money really is bullshit. Just open your eyes and look at all the other countries in the world that do popular vote decisions (either in presidential or parliamentary systems). The reality is contrary to what you believe.

The balance is the senate. It's already there.

What the EC currently does, is that a couple swing states have much more to do with the outcome of the presidential race, than they should have. If you are a democrat or a republican in Ohio, your vote is very, very important and you are subject to heavy campaigning by both sides. If you are a republican in California? Just stay home, your vote doesn't matter and nobody cares about you.
In a popular vote system, every single vote counts. Even if your state was, is and will always be 99.9% republican vs. 0.1% democrats, your vote (either republican or democrat) is important.

I've been seeing a lot of this from midwestern friends this last week too. Its what we were taught as little kids when they were explaining the EC to us. Kids in Iowa are also taught that it totally makes sense for them to be the first primary/caucus because it forces the campaigns to focus on Iowa shit. blah, blah, blah, blah.

The funny thing is, most of those people don't remember their civics either, where they try to emphasize the STATE'S need to be represented (which again, is bullshit since the Senate gives them shitloads of representation) and instead fall back to "my opinion wouldn't even matter" (ignoring the millions of people who were ignored so that one little dipshit in Iowa's opinion could matter). Even that is bullshit though. Because the state is winner take all, they don't even represent half of the people in the actual state anyway. i.e. you wind up with a dumb ass system that just represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the people in the country.

 

[Wereroku]

What if the EC elects Hillary? It's fair right? I mean those are in the rules.

Then the rules state that congress gets to decide the candidate. So Trump will win again. Hillary won't be president no matter how many people wish for it.

 

[Toxi]

If the EC protects small rural states, why don't we see candidates campaigning more in Montana?

 

[whyamihere]

I was about to say, no one is campaigning for Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware, or Kansas.

One person, one vote must mean one person one vote. We knew the rules and we lost. That doesn't mean the rules aren't stupid.

 

[pixelation]

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

The EC can go jump off a cliff.

 

[frequency]

It won't change anything regarding who won but it gives me hope to know that the majority of the people of America rejected the campaign of hate and voted for Hillary Clinton despite her being so disliked.

 

[lyrick]

If the EC protects small rural states, why don't we see candidates campaigning more in Montana?

1 Million people, ~600+ miles wide, ~250 miles in length. population pretty much equally spread.

If you hit all four of those tiny red dots you still only would have gotten close to 1/4 of the state's small population.

 

[Wensih]

Then the rules state that congress gets to decide the candidate. So Trump will win again. Hillary won't be president no matter how many people wish for it.

I know it won't because the republic has become a one party ruling class, but I think a lot of people saying he won fair and square, rules are rules, the EC is fine, wouldn't be saying this if the EC elected Hillary and she somehow was sworn in.

 

[Toxi]

1 Million people, ~600+ miles wide, ~250 miles in length. population pretty much equally spread.

Montana has the third smallest population density in the US.

 

[Glass Joe]

If the rules are stupid, perhaps they should be changed in future elections. The same thing happened in 2000.

But I think if the rules were different, the campaigns would have been different. Trump was hitting Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania hard simply because of electoral votes. I don't happen to remember either candidate visiting California or New York, though perhaps I'm wrong. It just seemed more of a "we both have to win Florida or else!" type of campaign.

If it was simply about the popular vote, both Clinton and Trump would have campaigned differently. Like it or not, you can't just change the rules of the election after the result.

 

[mashoutposse]

If the EC protects small rural states, why don't we see candidates campaigning more in Montana?

First and foremost, because it went to one of the candidates by 20 points. This is obvious.

 

[Toxi]

Because it went to one of the candidates by 20 points. This is obvious.

So the Electoral College has nothing to do with protecting small rural states and everything to do with swing states.

Florida is not a small state. Pennsylvania is not a small state. Montana is.

 

[Ty4on]

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

It totally is majority rule in so many ways with winner takes all states. A Republican in a blue state and a Democrat in a red state barely have any say in who becomes president.

I agree majority rule is bad, but I don't think the electoral college does anything to protect against that. That has to be fixed with a better distribution of power so we don't have one party controlling all branches of the government with just 40-50% of the vote.

 

[FyreWulff]

There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones.

So.. the Senate and the 3/4ths requirement to pass any amendments?

 

[jayhawker]

So the Electoral College has nothing to do with protecting small rural states and everything to do with swing states.

Florida is not a small state. Pennsylvania is not a small state. Montana is.

Montana had a strong opinion on who should be president, and their opinion was weighted more, per citizen, than California's. That has nothing to do with how many hours were spent campaigning in helena.

 

[samn]

EC is not a "shit system." It's just that people don't understand how the electoral process works or what their votes are actually for. And when someone tries to tell them they just put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la doesn't matter, the system is broken."

It's both ignorant and disgusting that anyone would consider the votes of people in "flyover" states to be irrelevant. That's exactly the kind of thinking that the electoral college was created to defend against.

The U.S. Is a union of states. When people vote for president they're voting for who they want to represent their state, just like when they elect senators and representatives. The electoral college positions are awarded to the political party that wins the popular vote in the state. So every vote in California counts equally within the context of that state, just like every vote in Iowa does.

Saying that we should move to a national popular vote would disenfranchise small states. Why should California and New York decide the outcome of every election? Just because more people live there? Faced with infrastructure needs in California versus infrastructure needs in South Dakota, where do you think the money would go in a majority rule system?

Majority rule is probably the worst political system there is. There have to be checks and balances to protect the small states from the large ones. It sucks that this election turned out the way it did, but it wasn't a failure of the system.

Why should a small group of people get a disproportionate voice just because they've made themselves a group with a common flag?

 

[Dalibor68]

I prefer a proportional voting system in europe but I can definitely see the case for the majority voting system in the US. When you have so many states with so many different interests it would be unfair/dangerous politically to have basically the big population rich coast areas rule over everyone.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

It should simply be illegal not to vote, like jury duty.

And there should be heavy penalties for writing in shit like Harambe.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

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

Wow.

 

[whyamihere]

I prefer a proportional voting system in europe but I can definitely see the case for the majority voting system in the US. When you have so many states with so many different interests it would be unfair/dangerous politically to have basically the big population rich coast areas rule over everyone.

It's also dangerous and unfair that people in populated coastal areas have their votes matter less.

 

[Dalibor68]

And there should be heavy penalties for writing in shit like Harambe.

That is utterly undemocratic and basically asking to remove the secrecy of voting.

Afaik the US is very federal so it does make sense to have it count per state. Either way its kind of a "fuck you" to someone.