Support NeoGAF

[netBuff]

As far as I can tell, an electoral college system in which every state awards its votes proportionally to each candidate is far superior to either the current system or a pure popular vote system.

How is that a better system in any way? Why should state lines matter for national elections?

California is massively underrepresented in terms of electoral college votes, popular vote, seats in the House of Commons (and Senate, of course).

The EC is garbage and has no reason for existing. An electoral system should ensure that every vote counts, not some votes are worthless while others are more important.

 

[jfkgoblue]

Let's say that was true. So what?

There is NOTHING,that should give one segment of the population a weighted say in a national election. Peoe who live in small states already have their interests protected by having equal voice in the Senate. A national election should be a vote by the people, and every vote should count equally. Screw this minority rule crap.

But voting for President is not a national vote. The way our country was set up is that all elections are state elections, this is a core tenant of our founding.

This is never going to change, the PV will never be the determining factor as you need 39 state legislatures to approve it. Which will not happen.

Also don't bring up that compact that has been discussed in other threads, it would never make it into law before being struck down by the SCOTUS.

 

[Dsyndrome]

Haha are you ok? Tell me where the popular vote hurt you.

Because the popular vote means jack shit for this election. Ask Gore. Her votes going up in CA doesn't change the count in WI, PA, MI...

 

[Xe4]

did i say that? no, i said that people placing the blame for losing squarely on hillary existing are clearly wrong.

To add to that, I don't think people who think she's a historically bad candidate know much about history. Sure, she wasn't great like Obama, but worst candidate in recent times? Nah. Try Mondale or Dukakis for starters. Shit, I'd say she was better than Gore and maybe even Kerry, and was at least on par with both.

Certaibly she shoulders some responsibility for her loss, especilly for not focusing on midwestern states. But to place the loss entirely on her? Nah, there's a ton of blame to go around.

 

[Finalizer]

Is there any way to know the percentage of votes that have been tallied in CA? Wanna get an idea of how many votes are left, especially to see just how close she might get to Obama's 2012 count. We've already got Trump surpassing Romney's 2012 numbers (and, afaik, getting more votes than any republican candidate in US history) which already throws one of the popular election night narratives out the window; it'd be comical to see some notions over Hillary thrown on their head as well. Frustrating that all this will only further reinforce the (heavily misguided) notion that the EC protects small states though.

 

[netBuff]

Also don't bring up that compact that has been discussed in other threads, it would never make it into law before being struck down by the SCOTUS.

There's no way to know how the SCOTUS would rule on this; anyone claiming otherwise is being ridiculous. Why not put it to the test?

 

[gutter_trash]

How is that a better system in any way? Why should state lines matter for national elections?

California is massively underrepresented in terms of electoral college votes, popular vote, seats in the House of Commons (and Senate, of course).

The EC is garbage and has no reason for existing. An electoral system should ensure that every vote counts, not some votes are worthless while others are more important.

yup, and it's ridiculous that CA only gets 2 senators the same as Wyoming

 

[Garrett Hawke]

To add to that, I don't think people who think she's a historically bad candidate know much about history. Sure, she wasn't great like Obama, but worst candidate in recent times? Nah. Try Mondale or Dukakis for starters. Shit, I'd say she was better than Gore and maybe even Kerry, and was at least on par with both.

Certaibly she shoulders some responsibility for her loss, especilly for not focusing on midwestern states. But to place the loss entirely on her? Nah, there's a ton of blame to go around.

exactly. she was not a perfect candidate and her campaign - although fed some useless data - according to reports had at least some awareness of troubles in states that she would eventually lose and did nothing. but a combination of so many factors led to her losing that it's ridiculous to try and claim that it was 100% her fault, that bernie would've won, etc.

 

[jfkgoblue]

There's no way to know how the SCOTUS would rule on this; anyone claiming otherwise is being ridiculous.

Yes there, it is a conservative majority, who read the constitution closely, and with Aritcle 1 section 10.

No State shall, without the consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.

There are further arguments against it, but this would be the one to do it in.

yup, and it's ridiculous that CA only gets 2 senators the same as Wyoming

The country would literally not exist without this.

 

[Hyperactivity]

yup, and it's ridiculous that CA only gets 2 senators the same as Wyoming

Wait Wait no are you kidding me?

I understand the issue with the electoral college, but the difference between assigned representatives and assigned senators is so purposeful its ridiculous. The USA is a BICAMERAL legislature, and one of our houses specifically is meant to avoid larger state dominance in a pretty fair way

California should get its fair share of Representatives, but the Senate system makes sense. Even if I want EC to go away, smaller states getting some say through Senate is a good thing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

 

[Eidan]

Because the popular vote means jack shit for this election. Ask Gore. Her votes going up in CA doesn't change the count in WI, PA, MI...

It's actually multiple states causing her lead to increase. Hell, Clinton has cut Trump's lead in MI from 17,000 the day after election night, to a little over 9,000.

 

[gutter_trash]

Yes there, it is a conservative majority, who read the constitution closely, and with Aritcle 1 section 10.



There are further arguments against it, but this would be the one to do it in.



The country would literally not exist without this.

what is more important? many people who's vote counts less? or an empty swath of land with only one guy in itt hat has more voting power ?

 

[Hyperactivity]

Now, there is a major argument to be had that if the Senate is supposed to allow for the will of the small states to be heard, that the house is also unbalanced is messed up

If the house expanded to day, 900 members, Wyoming would still have 1 rep but California, Texas, and new York would get a whole bunch more representatives

 

[jfkgoblue]

It's actually multiple states causing her lead to increase. Hell, Clinton has cut Trump's lead in MI from 17,000 the day after election night, to a little over 9,000.

Pretty sure what he is getting at is without, Cali, she loses PV as well, but running up the score in California means jack shit.

 

[Hyperactivity]

what is more important? many people who's vote counts less? or an empty swath of land with only one guy in itt hat has more voting power ?

That's the point of the house. The EC being the way is busted, the Senate being this way in a world where the house is districted fairly is fine and purposeful

 

[gutter_trash]

That's the point of the house. The EC being the way is busted, the Senate bring this way in a world where the house is districted fairly is fine and purposeful

LOL, fairly, yeah okay

 

[jfkgoblue]

what is more important? many people who's vote counts less? or an empty swath of land with only one guy in itt hat has more voting power ?

It was the agreement that was decided on to get smaller states to ratify the constitution, without this agreement, there would be no United States. States rights have always been important, no matter how much you feel it is unfair.

Also Wyoming isnt the only state with unequal rep. Democratic strongholds of Vermont and DC are the next two on the list of "EC voter power"

 

[Eidan]

Pretty sure what he is getting at is without, Cali, she loses PV as well, but running up the score in California means jack shit.

I'm not sure how that works.

"Well if you take out the largest state in the country, she loses the popular vote as well."

Well, yeah I guess. I'm not sure what is so salient about that point. This thread is literally just people lamenting the fact that in the past five presidential elections, two have had a winner lose the popular vote and win the presidency, and discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the electoral college. Coming in to remind people that a candidate needs to win the electoral college is kind of pointless. No fucking shit genius.

 

[Hyperactivity]

LOL, fairly, yeah okay

Well, that's the fucked up thing. The Senate is supposed to allow for the rural community to have their say, but because of gerrymandering that's so so BUSTED, its gotten to the point that now the Senate represents the urban vote better because you can't gerrymander it

EDIT: I live in Houston, no need to tell me how fucked Texas districts are

 

[mo60]

OMG her lead is growing in CA, one of the bluest states in the nation. If she keeps going, she surely win!

CA swung like 6 points more democratic in this election. CA is technically the second bluest state in the nation in this election unless you want to count D.C. It's usually not in the top 5 if I recall for decomrats in a typically presidental election because Vermont, MA, III,(In 08), NY(depending on the election) , Md,RI and etc are more blue then CA usually.

 

[Eidan]

That's the point of the house. The EC being the way is busted, the Senate bring this way in a world where the house is districted fairly is fine and purposeful

Actually the house is fairly unrepresentative as well.

Pretty much no matter how you look at it, large states like California and Texas are getting screwed.

 

[MIMIC]

do you?

No numbers, but it was WIDELY known that this was a "hold your nose" election.

 

[Hyperactivity]

Actually the house is fairly unrepresentative as well.

Pretty much no matter how you look at it, large states like California and Texas are getting screwed.

That's the issue. The house ought to be representative

 

[Jobbs]

the house is districted fairly

lol


the house is utterly rigged, the EC is fucking ridiculous, and the senate wholly completely utterly overrepresents people living in rural areas.

California has 38 million people in it and 2 senators. Montana has 5 people in it and two of them are senators.

We don't really have a representative democracy. We have a bunch of people living in cities being ruled by the wishes of uneducated rural people

 

[mo60]

Is there any way to know the percentage of votes that have been tallied in CA? Wanna get an idea of how many votes are left, especially to see just how close she might get to Obama's 2012 count. We've already got Trump surpassing Romney's 2012 numbers (and, afaik, getting more votes than any republican candidate in US history) which already throws one of the popular election night narratives out the window; it'd be comical to see some notions over Hillary thrown on their head as well. Frustrating that all this will only further reinforce the (heavily misguided) notion that the EC protects small states though.

Around 95% of the votes have been tallied right now looking at the votes left to count in CA on the secretary of state site. Over a million votes are left to count in CA I think.

 

[Eidan]

No numbers, but it was WIDELY known that this was a "hold your nose" election.

I could've sworn the Monday night quarterbacks said that "this election shows that you need to have someone to vote FOR, and voters don't go to polls when they're voting AGAINST someone, it should have been Bernie!" I guess that narrative made a lot more sense before we saw that turnout was actually historically high.

 

[Dalibor68]

We have a bunch of people living in cities being ruled by the wishes of uneducated rural people

And you wonder why this election was lost. Could you be any more arrogant? If you don't like it feel free to start a California secession petition. Otherwise you should recognize that it's a union of 50 states with different interests in mind. And aside from that what you suggest would probably just turn it around, meaning you have cities dominate over multiple smaller states.

 

[Hyperactivity]

Alright, is really that hard to read?

"the Senate being this way IN A WORLD WHERE the house is districted fairly is fine"

The original post acknowledged the issue with the house, I explicitly said the house wasn't districted fairly

 

[Breads]

OMG her lead is growing in CA, one of the bluest states in the nation. If she keeps going, she surely win!

Fuck the will of the people amiright.

All those votes. Who cares how many million more prefer her over Trump. Like they fucking matter.

Nothing says will of the people like gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the ec.

Lazy dem turnout etc etc

 

[Eidan]

Alright, is really that hard to read?

"the Senate being this way IN A WORLD WHERE the house is districted fairly is fine"

The original post acknowledged the issue with the house, I explicitly said the house wasn't districted fairly

Haha, I hear you. The most important thing is that we all agree, the Electoral College is bullshit. I learned it in 2000, and it was only further solidified in 2016.

 

[Jobbs]

And you wonder why this election was lost. Could you be any more arrogant? If you don't like it feel free to start a California secession petition. Otherwise you should recognize that it's a union of 50 states with different interests in mind. And aside from that what you suggest would probably just turn it around, meaning you have cities dominate over multiple smaller states.

The interests of lower populous states matter more, though, why don't you recognize we have people all over who deserve to be represented?

I propose representation be proportional to population and I propose districts not be hacked up into bits as housemembers choose their own voters rather than vise versa

What we have isn't democracy and doesn't represent people

And yea, it is uneducated fucking fools who got us into this mess and who pretty much ruin everything. Call it a bubble if it makes you feel better. I would suggest these morons who invent their own reality with facebook news and conservative radio are the ones in the bubble.

 

[Mike M]

Well, that's the fucked up thing. The Senate is supposed to allow for the rural community to have their say, but because of gerrymandering that's so so BUSTED, its gotten to the point that now the Senate represents the urban vote better because you can't gerrymander it

EDIT: I live in Houston, no need to tell me how fucked Texas districts are

?

The senate represents the urban vote? In a system where every state has the same number of senators regardless of population?

No, it does not represent the urban vote.

 

[Dalibor68]

The interests of lower populous states matter more, though, why don't you recognize we have people all over who deserve to be represented?

Because it leads to Big A having to compromise/finding common ground with small B, C and D instead of A dominating and essentially doing whatever it pleases, even if it only follows its own interests which go completely against the interests of B, C and D, but hey popular vote, the others should just procreate more!

And I'm absolutely pro proportionality voting on a small-scale, but in a union of 50 different states I just don't see it working. If it was changed to accurately represent the populations, what do you think would be the consequences of that?

 

[Hyperactivity]

?

The senate represents the urban vote? In a system where every state has the same number of senators regardless of population?

No, it does not represent the urban vote.

Just go back and read that again

Take your time to process it and everything

 

[Finalizer]

Around 95% of the votes have been tallied right now looking at the votes left to count in CA on the secretary of state site. Over a million votes are left to count in CA I think.

Thanks for this. So near impossible to actually trounce Obama 2012 numbers, but could get within a million.

 

[Jobbs]

If it was changed to accurately represent the populations, what do you think would be the consequences of that?

Someone who believes in science and facts and stuff in the whitehouse and not a giant orange manchild?

We're about to suffer 4 years of maybe the most aggressive ignorance and regression and destructive policies in my lifetime that will do *lasting* damage to us on many levels, and you're worried about the consequences of proportional representation? LOL

 

[Mike M]

Just go back and read that again

Take your time to process it and everything

Reading comprehension is for losers!

 

[Dalibor68]

Someone who believes in science and facts and stuff in the whitehouse?

I mean from a pragmatic pointof view of daily politics. Do you think the small states would just accept being made essentially redundant politcally with no more real influence? Do you think it would give stabiltiy?

 

[Malakai]

Our country is not the United States of New York, Texas, Florida and California. We're the United States of America. Every state matters and that's why the electoral college exists.

Nope. It was created due slavery. Slaves couldn't vote. South would have had gotten wrecked if the president was elected by popular vote in the U.S.'s early years as a nation.

 

[Jobbs]

I mean from a pragmatic pointof view of daily politics. Do you think the small states would just accept being made essentially redundant politcally with no more real influence? Do you think it would give stabiltiy?

Yes, I do.

 

[Breads]

I mean from a pragmatic pointof view of daily politics. Do you think the small states would just accept being made essentially redundant politcally with no more real influence? Do you think it would give stabiltiy?

From a pragmatic point of view do you think it's fair to ignore millions of people because of arbitrary lines drawn in the sand? We're smart people. I'm sure there could have been a better way to represent more people's best interest than to fuck over the majority.

 

[MIMIC]

I could've sworn the Monday night quarterbacks said that "this election shows that you need to have someone to vote FOR, and voters don't go to polls when they're voting AGAINST someone, it should have been Bernie!" I guess that narrative made a lot more sense before we saw that turnout was actually historically high.

Yeah, turnout may have been up nationally, but down where it mattered: the battleground states.

 

[Hyperactivity]

Because it leads to Big A having to compromise/finding common ground with small B, C and D instead of A dominating and essentially doing whatever it pleases, even if it only follows its own interests which go completely against the interests of B, C and D, but hey popular vote, the others should just procreate more!

And I'm absolutely pro proportionality voting on a small-scale, but in a union of 50 different states I just don't see it working. If it was changed to accurately represent the populations, what do you think would be the consequences of that?

I don't think that's the thing.

There being checks on the power of the majority makes sense. That's what the Senate is supposed to represent.

But that the system is so messed up that it favors the minority??? No.

If the presidency and the house used a proportional system while the Senate kept its 2 senators per state system, and even better, if the presidency proportionally allocated votes so rural votes couldn't be drowned out, that would be a fair system to represent the majority while checking the possibility of tyranny of the msjotiyt.

But if it becomes so lopsided as to favor a minority, it no more checks the majority so much as let's the minority rule

 

[Jobbs]

I mean, we're seeing the consequences right now of people in low populous states having all the power. We're about to live it. We're about to be fucked for 4 years straight and the supreme court is gone for a generation which will be doing us harm over and over and over again through the years. I don't see how it could be any worse, and at least it'd be fair if our people were all represented equally.

 

[Malakai]

Forgot where I got this link from but here is a spread sheet of poll tracker by states:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...73R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

It has received constant updates.

 

[Eidan]

Yeah, turnout may have been up nationally, but down where it mattered: the battleground states.

? Voter turnout was highest in swing states. Hell, Clinton got more votes in Florida in 2016 than Obama did in 2012.

 

[mo60]

Thanks for this. So near impossible to actually trounce Obama 2012 numbers, but could get within a million.

It's just an estimate, but it's definitely over 90%.There are around 1.8 million more votes left to count in the state. She will get close to Obama 2012 numbers once all of the votes are counted.

 

[Hyperactivity]

Nope. It was created due slavery. Slaves couldn't vote. South would have had gotten wrecked if the president was elected by popular vote in the U.S.'s early years as a nation.

Bahaha that was to slave states interest, yes, but that was a different compromise. The big states plan of proportional representation was called the VIRGINIA plan, the small states equal congressional representatives was called the NEW JERSEY plan.

In general, the north WAS more populous, but saying the large state small states conflict wasnt real is ridiculous. The United States gives power to the states because the Constitution was working from the context of the Confederated Articles, which gave states even MORE power. A complete loss in power wasn't about to happen

 

[KillGore]

So when is the counting expected to finish? 1 week? 2?

 

[turtle553]

Now, there is a major argument to be had that if the Senate is supposed to allow for the will of the small states to be heard, that the house is also unbalanced is messed up

If the house expanded to day, 900 members, Wyoming would still have 1 rep but California, Texas, and new York would get a whole bunch more representatives

The house of representatives is actually fine with the distribution for California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

You can sort this chart with how many people per representative and there are 22 other states that have more population per representative than California. The next state that would actually get more reps would be Montana.