Yeah, I have no problem with the electoral college. It only occasionally de-links from the popular vote because of high Democratic turnout in a few states/cities. And I'm fine with that because your vote counts in your state, not in a state on the other side of the country where you don't live and probably have pretty different views from the people who do.

Other good points I saw are what an absolute mess we'd have if every vote actually had to be "counted". It could be days/weeks before all the absentee ballots are counted, not to mention the potential for hundreds of recounts nationwide.

It would also change how campaigns are conducted. If Trump goes and spends time in CA and NY, Clinton in TX, etc. because now the the votes they can pick-up there matter to their election...who's to say how the popular vote might swing? And I don't think most of America wants candidates focusing on the big cities where they get the biggest return on their time spent there.

iclfan2;1824762 wrote: This is the biggest cry baby reaction to an election anyone has ever witnessed. My goodness

I'm enjoying it. A mirror has been held up, but to this point it seems most liberals are unwilling to look.

gut;1824764 wrote:Other good points I saw are what an absolute mess we'd have if every vote actually had to be "counted". It could be days/weeks before all the absentee ballots are counted, not to mention the potential for hundreds of recounts nationwide.

Agree on your other points but just to add to this one. Imagine a close popular national vote would their be a national recount? So many votes to mine and lawsuits to be had. It would be a total and complete shit fest. The founders got this right.

iclfan2;1824762 wrote:Thoughts? She is a fucking retard. What her and all of the cry baby liberals don't understand is that Trump didn't even campaign in New York or California because he knew he would lose those states. Had he, who knows what the popular vote would have been. Campaigns would be run completely different if it was up to a popular vote, and they would largely ignore a humongous sections of middle America, which is why it will never happen. Why would state representatives give in to something that would basically give them no consideration from candidates and leave elections largely up to a few large liberal, urban, city centers?

This is the biggest cry baby reaction to an election anyone has ever witnessed. My goodness

Bingo.

O-Trap;1824761 wrote:I don't mind the Electoral College. If nothing else, it complicates any attempt at voter fraud (which I don't think happens to the degree that some do, in part because of the EC). Just as well, it requires candidates to campaign in, and take seriously, the regions of the country that are less densely populated.

I see the value of the EC as being somewhat equitable to the value of the Senate. It allows for a place where the less-populated states have a voice that isn't drowned out by the more-populated states. It would seem to me that discrediting the value of one would, at least in part, discredit the value of the other.

Except no matter if you live in a blue state or red state, your vote matters because it goes to the national pool of votes.

If you are in California and you really wanted Trump to win, your vote doesn't matter since overwhelmingly those who live closest to you disagree. And no one is campaigning in the 3 electoral vote states anyways but they would if every vote mattered because a vote in Wyoming is worth the same as a vote in Ohio. It would also remove the so called "swing state" bias where candidates develop their campaign focus particularly on the issues of only a certain select group of states that aren't considered 'locks'. In a pure democratic vote, you wouldn't be able to do that.

EC needs to go. Doubtful it ever happens but this isn't the 1800's anymore.

majorspark;1824766 wrote:Agree on your other points but just to add to this one. Imagine a close popular national vote would their be a national recount? So many votes to mine and lawsuits to be had. It would be a total and complete shit fest. The founders got this right.

They did. I think it strikes a really good balance between geography and population. Maybe could be improved by breaking states into a few more districts, but then you have issues with how those lines are drawn.

I ran some numbers on the results, dividing each state's EC according to popular vote and came up with Clinton getting 270-271. But that ignores that Trump spent little time in CA or NY and other large population centers that lean heavily Democratic.

majorspark;1824766 wrote:Agree on your other points but just to add to this one. Imagine a close popular national vote would their be a national recount? So many votes to mine and lawsuits to be had. It would be a total and complete shit fest. The founders got this right.

Saw New Hampshire finally counted all 950 votes and the state was won by HRC. Not that it matters, but what the fuck is happening in Michigan?

sleeper;1824774 wrote:Except no matter if you live in a blue state or red state, your vote matters because it goes to the national pool of votes.

You're vote counts equally within your state, just as it does for the Senate (and in your district for the House). As the case with those, the popular vote in your district doesn't carry over into other districts and states.

I'm more than OK with CA not tilting elections by exporting the results of the liberal brainwashing that goes on there.

queencitybuckeye;1824776 wrote:Saw New Hampshire finally counted all 950 votes and the state was won by HRC. Not that it matters, but what the fuck is happening in Michigan?

I'd imagine they're into a recount. FWIW, the AP already called MI a few days ago.

gut;1824777 wrote:You're vote counts equally within your state, just as it does for the Senate (and in your district for the House). As the case with those, the popular vote in your district doesn't carry over into other districts and states.

I'm more than OK with CA not tilting elections by exporting the results of the liberal brainwashing that goes on there.

Except the President represents the interest of all people not just your state; that's what the Senate and House are for.

It would make sense to have the President elected by popular vote. Your vote counts regardless where you live and the President has to have a national platform vs. one that just focuses on swing states.

He is the President of the United States. Not the President of America. The states select the president. The president represents the interests of the states.

sleeper;1824785 wrote:Except the President represents the interest of all people not just your state; that's what the Senate and House are for.

But people's votes ARE strongly influenced by the people around them and their local situations. So there is no question, even with the POTUS, that geography influences how people vote. I don't see a good answer for why we would recognize it in the House and Senate but ignore it with the President.

If you don't like how Alaska votes, then you can move to Alaska and start voting there. But I think you'll actually see a loss as people assimilate and end-up flipping their vote.

Again, you CAN export your margin in CA....but not arbitrarily - you have to actually pick-up your feet and go move.

The EC is mostly based on popular vote, by state. Votes are allocated based on population (with the exception of the 2 for each seat in the Senate).

The ekectoral college won't be done away with anytime soon. The smaller states will block that. However, this could happen:
http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan

gut;1824787 wrote:But people's votes ARE strongly influenced by the people around them and their local situations. So there is no question, even with the POTUS, that geography influences how people vote. I don't see a good answer for why we would recognize it in the House and Senate but ignore it with the President.

If you don't like how Alaska votes, then you can move to Alaska and start voting there. But I think you'll actually see a loss as people assimilate and end-up flipping their vote.

Again, you CAN export your margin in CA....but not arbitrarily - you have to actually pick-up your feet and go move.

The EC is mostly based on popular vote, by state. Votes are allocated based on population (with the exception of the 2 for each seat in the Senate).

Or it makes sense to encourage people to vote, regardless of the political leanings of their neighbor because every vote counts in a true Democracy.

There really isn't a good argument for the EC anymore. This isn't the 1800's.

superman;1824798 wrote:The ekectoral college won't be done away with anytime soon. The smaller states will block that. However, this could happen:
http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan

Not a lawyer, but can't imagine such an effort to end-run the constitution would hold up to the inevitable challenge from the smaller states.

sleeper;1824805 wrote:Or it makes sense to encourage people to vote,.

Every vote does count, in your state and not every state. As pointed out, it's the United STATES.

Encouraging more jackasses to vote isn't a good argument. We need to encourage more educated votes. I'd be all for, for starters, removing the R and D from ballots and throwing in some false names to filter out the completely ignorant vote.

gut;1824808 wrote:Every vote does count, in your state and not every state. As pointed out, it's the United STATES.

Encouraging more jackasses to vote isn't a good argument. We need to encourage more educated votes. I'd be all for, for starters, removing the R and D from ballots and throwing in some false names to filter out the completely ignorant vote.

You're playing semantics and you know it.

Every vote does not count. Telling voters to move states if they want their voice heard is one step higher than just saying "All votes count no matter where you live". The Senate represents the States and the House represents the region in which you live; the Presidency should represent the will of the country. It should give those who don't have a voice in their region or their state because they don't share the same views as those closest to them. It's a good way to provide another check to the checks and balance system we have built.

The EC isn't going anywhere...like ever.

Hence, the conversation is pretty moot.

sleeper;1824774 wrote:Except no matter if you live in a blue state or red state, your vote matters because it goes to the national pool of votes.

Not necessarily. If you can win a large enough majority in enough densely populated areas, the remainder of the entire country won't matter. They'll go into the national pool, sure, but the portion of that national pool that can tip the election one way can come from a starkly small geographical percentage of the country.

This election, with the Electoral College in place, still allowed the less densely populated states to play a role.

sleeper;1824774 wrote:If you are in California and you really wanted Trump to win, your vote doesn't matter since overwhelmingly those who live closest to you disagree.

This doesn't really change without the EC. Without it, if you live in Montana, your entire state is mostly going to be an afterthought, because it's not densely populated enough to give a viable return on the campaign investment. More or less, virtually all the campaigning AND platforms will be focused on urban centers and the issues relevant to them. Were the popular vote the metric for winning the general election, no candidate would be giving a shit about the Dakotas, for example.

sleeper;1824774 wrote:And no one is campaigning in the 3 electoral vote states anyways but they would if every vote mattered because a vote in Wyoming is worth the same as a vote in Ohio. It would also remove the so called "swing state" bias where candidates develop their campaign focus particularly on the issues of only a certain select group of states that aren't considered 'locks'. In a pure democratic vote, you wouldn't be able to do that.

A vote in Wyoming would matter as much, but the 600,000 votes in Wyoming would mean dick compared to the 10 million plus in Los Angeles County alone.

Removing the EC wouldn't marginalize fewer areas. It would marginalize more areas.

As for the swing states, they're not all that matter. As we saw in this election, one of the biggest relevant events was the shift in the "safe" rust belt states. The fact that Clinton implemented the strategy to focus more on the swing states (the "swing state" bias you reference above, which is absolutely a thing) may have been why she lost those 'locks' up north.

Beyond this, it would also streamline the ability to engage in voter fraud. Like I said, I'm hardly so paranoid to think it happens on a wide-scale basis now, but that may be, in part, a result of the EC. It would be fairly easy to explain away an uptick in Democratic votes in already liberally-dense areas. Under the current system, stealing votes in California does little good, though, because Democrats typically don't need to, and Republicans would need to do it in such a quantity as to arouse suspicion. The Electoral Collage not only limits the locations in which realistic voter fraud would have any effect, it also builds in some guess work requirements.

I certainly don't think it's a perfect system, but I think it's better than just a popular vote, given the drastic differences in population density from one region to the next.

sleeper;1824812 wrote:You're playing semantics and you know it.

Every vote does not count. Telling voters to move states if they want their voice heard is one step higher than just saying "All votes count no matter where you live". The Senate represents the States and the House represents the region in which you live; the Presidency should represent the will of the country. It should give those who don't have a voice in their region or their state because they don't share the same views as those closest to them. It's a good way to provide another check to the checks and balance system we have built.

Oh for Gawds sake....Should? Do you think that is reality?... to use your favorite expression...."grow up".
Go back and study your history.
The founders set up our government based on the natural rights of man, the realities of human nature and the well documented tendencies of government. There is no "should".

Or it makes sense to encourage people to vote, regardless of the political leanings of their neighbor because every vote counts in a true Democracy.

The founders were specific in avoiding a "true democracy" because it would lead to tyranny of the majority.
No wonder you voted for Clinton...you are starting to sound like a SJW....put on John Lennon and turn up Imagine as loud as it will go.

Ahhh, look who CNN trots out on their program. Symone Sanders.

[video=youtube;EbEeHK2JiXs][/video]

Let's brush up our memory of who Symone Sanders is, shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symone_Sanders

Symone Sanders was the national press secretary for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.[SUP][1][/SUP] She resigned on June 26, 2016 after experiencing racism on the campaign trail.[SUP][2][/SUP] She is currently a Democratic strategist and political commentator on CNN.[SUP][3][/SUP]

It appears that CNN can't just get over the fact that Trump won. They're trash, almost on the level of MSNBC.

More or less, virtually all the campaigning AND platforms will be focused on urban centers and the issues relevant to them. Were the popular vote the metric for winning the general election, no candidate would be giving a shit about the Dakotas, for example.

Spot on. From the very beginning when the nation was in its infancy, the country was very diverse, with differing regional and local interests. It is more true even today.

If you look at the map on how the country voted on the local levels 90 % of the land mass voted red....except for almost all the city/urban areas. Absolutely, if only popular vote mattered, the cities would ride roughshod over the rural areas.

CenterBHSFan;1824818 wrote:Ahhh, look who CNN trots out on their program. Symone Sanders.

[video=youtube;EbEeHK2JiXs][/video]

Let's brush up our memory of who Symone Sanders is, shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symone_Sanders



It appears that CNN can't just get over the fact that Trump won. They're trash, almost on the level of MSNBC.

Saw that clip last night. That lady is trash and will say anything.

Man, I get protesting, but it seems like it is just a waste right now.
People in groups are also just dumb.
The EC is not going anywhere. I like it as it gives the rural areas some say in the process as other have said.
It seems more attention should be paid to what Trump is doing thus far and what he will do. All the energy needs to be channeled into that, to ensure the guy does not screw up.

Save until after 1/20/17. Until then, it is a waste.

ptown_trojans_1;1824830 wrote:Man, I get protesting, but it seems like it is just a waste right now.
People in groups are also just dumb.
The EC is not going anywhere. I like it as it gives the rural areas some say in the process as other have said.
It seems more attention should be paid to what Trump is doing thus far and what he will do. All the energy needs to be channeled into that, to ensure the guy does not screw up.

Save until after 1/20/17. Until then, it is a waste.

All the energy should be focused on making sure Obama doesn't fuck up the country anymore on the way out.