To those that advocate for a popular vote

by Guest Sun 27 Nov 2016 - 14:54

Do you want California to choose every President?

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser.

So far, Trump has won the popular vote in 29 states, to Clinton’s 20 states. (As of this writing, Michigan is still up in the air, although Trump currently leads in the vote count.) In other words, Trump carried 45% more states than Clinton.

Since winning state elections is what counts in the United States when running for president, Trump clearly outperformed Clinton. (Trump has 25% more electoral votes than Clinton.)

What’s more, Trump’s margin of victory in the states he won was, on average, higher than Clinton’s.

Of the state’s Trump won, he got 56.2% of the vote, on average. Of the states Clinton won, she got only 53.5% of the vote.

The only reason that Clinton is beating Trump in the overall popular vote is that California gave Clinton a huge margin of victory — which currently stands at 61% to 33%.

The thing is, California is a very populous and very liberal state — so far, it has counted more than 10.7 million ballots. As a result, California alone is dumping vast numbers of votes into the Clinton column — where she currently has 3 million more than Trump.

But what if California’s vote was in line with all the other Democratic states, where Clinton beat Trump 53.5% to 40.2%?

If that were the case, Clinton would have received 860,000 fewer votes in California. And if Trump had captured the same share he received in those same Democratic states, he’d have gotten 773,000 more California votes.

In other words, if California was more like the average Democratic state, Trump would currently have a 400,000 vote lead in the nationwide popular vote.

It’s no wonder Boxer wants to do away with the Electoral College, since it would let her state decide presidential elections, even if — as in this election — the Republican candidate did much better in far more states across the country.

As IBD pointed out in a recent editorial, the Electoral College was specifically designed to prevent candidates from winning the presidency simply by appealing to a few heavily-populated, highly partisan regions of the country. The Electoral College forces candidates to compete nationwide if they want to be president. That’s a good thing.

I think we should award electors by Congressional district.

Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser

by **Robert J Sakimano** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 9:49

quick reminder that Goose doesn't like nor did he vote for Trump.

by **DWags** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 10:30

Why even bring this stuff up. No way does the process change in our life. Not one bit. won't happen.

by **Turtleneck** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 10:38

DWags wrote:Why even bring this stuff up. No way does the process change in our life. Not one bit. won't happen.

I agree. Moving to a popular vote - which I do not support - requires amending the Constitution. No way 3/4 of the states ratify an amendment that abolishes the EC in favor of a popular vote.

by **DWags** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 10:59

Turtleneck wrote:
DWags wrote:Why even bring this stuff up. No way does the process change in our life. Not one bit. won't happen.

I agree. Moving to a popular vote - which I do not support - requires amending the Constitution. No way 3/4 of the states ratify an amendment that abolishes the EC in favor of a popular vote.

Yep. It's like Michigan guys arguing the 4th and one wasn't correct. Waste of air space.

by **GRR Spartan** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 11:13

So winning 3000+ counties regardless of poplulation counts but we should be happy the popular vote doesn't because its California and that state provided the most votes for the Electoral College's losing candidate.

by **DWags** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 11:36

GRR Spartan wrote:So winning 3000+ counties regardless of poplulation counts but we should be happy the popular vote doesn't because its California and that state provided the most votes for the Electoral College's losing candidate.

Realistically, do you see the Electoral College changing, or the big ten overturning the 4th and 1 call from this weekend?

I get the outrage, our forgathers didn't trust the general population. I think much has changed now, but if you think it's possible to change it, I' have a bridge to sell you. I wouldn't know where to start trying to get that ball rolling.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 11:40

DWags wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

I agree. Moving to a popular vote - which I do not support - requires amending the Constitution. No way 3/4 of the states ratify an amendment that abolishes the EC in favor of a popular vote.

Yep. It's like Michigan guys arguing the 4th and one wasn't correct. Waste of air space.

bump.

Solid UM reference.

by **steveschneider** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 13:01

DWags wrote:Why even bring this stuff up. No way does the process change in our life. Not one bit. won't happen.

Agree, but it's fun to discuss to a certain extent.

I personally think majority should rule even if the election is decided by California every four years. California is a far better state than any state that went red for Trump. I'd take the left coast over Trump Land any day of the week.

I already argued this in another thread but bottom line I think there's WAY too much power given to rural America through the electoral college.

by Guest Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 14:09

steveschneider wrote:
DWags wrote:Why even bring this stuff up. No way does the process change in our life. Not one bit. won't happen.

Agree, but it's fun to discuss to a certain extent.

I personally think majority should rule even if the election is decided by California every four years. California is a far better state than any state that went red for Trump. I'd take the left coast over Trump Land any day of the week.

I already argued this in another thread but bottom line I think there's WAY too much power given to rural America through the electoral college.

Says Steve about the State that has given us Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nancy Pelosi, B1 Bomber Bob Dornan, Dianne Feinstein, Leland Yee, Maxine Waters among others.

by **GRR Spartan** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 14:10

Not arguing. Asking why the posted article is cogent and how it relates to Trump winning 3050 counties.

California has 55 electoral votes with a population of 38.8M. North and South Dakota have 6 electoral votes total with 757,000 and 857,000 population respectively.

Each California elector represents about 705,000 people while each elector in the Dakotas represents about 269,000 people.

I'm not expecting changes but with 48-50 of the US biggest urban areas having at least 50% of the country's population I understand why the popular vote has become an issue.

by **GRR Spartan** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 14:14

So Californians are now less than Americans who should be feared by people living in the hinterlands whose population are the takers the GOP has railed against for at least 2 decades.

by Guest Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 15:02

GRR Spartan wrote:Not arguing. Asking why the posted article is cogent and how it relates to Trump winning 3050 counties.

California has 55 electoral votes with a population of 38.8M. North and South Dakota have 6 electoral votes total with 757,000 and 857,000 population respectively.

Each California elector represents about 705,000 people while each elector in the Dakotas represents about 269,000 people.

I'm not expecting changes but with 48-50 of the US biggest urban areas having at least 50% of the country's population I understand why the popular vote has become an issue.

So you missed the article that showed based on vote percentages that Hills actually overperformed on how many EC votes she's going to get?

by **GRR Spartan** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 15:15

I don't see the point of the post.

The current Electoral College system favors smaller urban (5000 or fewer) and rural areas compared to the 45-50 largest urban areas that have 50% of the population. I understand why people living in the larger urban areas feel left out. Don't expect it to change.

I didn't see the significance of the 3000 counties for Trump or this article.

by Guest Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 15:27

GRR Spartan wrote:I don't see the point of the post.

The current Electoral College system favors smaller urban (5000 or fewer) and rural areas compared to the 45-50 largest urban areas that have 50% of the population. I understand why people living in the larger urban areas feel left out. Don't expect it to change.

I didn't see the significance of the 3000 counties for Trump or this article.

Since it blows your theory up I understand why you don't see the significance. Hills got more EC votes then her vote totals would indicate, Trump got less. So your entire theory is built on sand.

by **GRR Spartan** Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 15:41

For a person who kept saying they didn't care about Trump as a candidate it's puzzling you keep finding and posting all the articles to show why Trump won the electoral vote.

You want to tell us about Trump winning 3054 counties to 57 okay. It appears those 57 had a high voter density. You want to argue the 269000 population per elector in the Dakotas compared to the 705000 per elector doesn't give voters in urban areas pause and wonder about a popular vote? Okay.

Hillary Clinton ran a well financed campaign that had more staff and more campaign offices in Florida, Ohio, MI, WI and PA than her opponent and with those advantages couldn't replicate the turnout of her predecessor. It's really that simple.

by Guest Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 15:45

GRR Spartan wrote:For a person who kept saying they didn't care about Trump as a candidate it's puzzling you keep finding and posting all the articles to show why Trump won the electoral vote.

So if I oppose a candidate I should let any falsehoods about them or the voting results go unchallenged? OK, got it.

by AnomanderRake Mon 28 Nov 2016 - 17:21

All of the data this article cites is completely pointless.

Using voter statistics from this election doesn't say anything about how a popular vote election might turn out. Republicans in California stay home on election day because they know their vote will never matter. Democrats in Oklahoma or any other deeply red state do the same.

If the popular vote were used we would see a huge increase in voter turnout, and the margins of victory would be drastically different than what we typically see using our electoral college and first past the post election system.

The electoral college isn't going anywhere any time soon. The concept behind the electoral college is and always was intentionally non-democratic in design and nature. I like to believe the founding fathers had the right intent, but the system was corrupted less than 50 years after its inception once the two parties were able to manipulate it to their advantage.

It no longer serves its purpose, it's no longer working as it was intended and designed to do. Will it get changed without some sort of massive grass roots movement? Absolutely not.

by Guest Tue 29 Nov 2016 - 21:46

Coons and other Dems now plumping that D Senate candidates won more votes. Silly, silly, silly - ONLY because not a single vote for R Senator was cast in CA because of their top 2 finisher primary. Once again eliminate CA's bullshit and the R's won the Senate vote.
And of course they're touting that before all the Senatorial elections are even over.

And he "regrets" eliminating the filibuster - well wah, wah, wah - you and Dingy Harry were warned repeatedly about the consequences.

by **Turtleneck** Tue 29 Nov 2016 - 22:05

AnomanderRake wrote:All of the data this article cites is completely pointless.

Using voter statistics from this election doesn't say anything about how a popular vote election might turn out. Republicans in California stay home on election day because they know their vote will never matter. Democrats in Oklahoma or any other deeply red state do the same.

If the popular vote were used we would see a huge increase in voter turnout, and the margins of victory would be drastically different than what we typically see using our electoral college and first past the post election system.

The electoral college isn't going anywhere any time soon. The concept behind the electoral college is and always was intentionally non-democratic in design and nature. I like to believe the founding fathers had the right intent, but the system was corrupted less than 50 years after its inception once the two parties were able to manipulate it to their advantage.

It no longer serves its purpose, it's no longer working as it was intended and designed to do. Will it get changed without some sort of massive grass roots movement? Absolutely not.

We have grown far more democratic than the framers ever intended us to be. While the people embrace some very undemocratic features of our government without realizing it, I am not sure they would knowingly move in a direction that honored the intentions of the framers.

by Guest Mon 5 Dec 2016 - 20:51

Read something tonight about the popular vote and went to verify it.....The statement was "if you remove NYC and CA that Trump was winning the rest of the country by a larger margin than Hills is now". That statement is true, but it doesn't take all that real estate.

If you remove 10 Counties in CA and 4 boroughs of NYC then Trump goes from a 2.6 million vote deficit to a 2.7 million vote win.

I know it's meaningless in light of the system we have in place but it does illustrate the intense geographic concentration of Democrat voters.

by Guest Mon 5 Dec 2016 - 21:10

Another way to look at it is this - if you removed Los Angeles County CA and 4 boroughs of NYC from the popular vote Hillary would go from winning by 2.5M to losing by 700,000.

Do we really want 2 large cities determining the outcome of our elections?

by **Turtleneck** Mon 5 Dec 2016 - 21:27

AnomanderRake had a pretty good reply to this thought process. Because the electoral college deincentivizes turnout in deeply blue or red states, it is difficult to imagine what popular vote results might look like in absence of the electoral college.

As a side note, I would ask two questions. First, because of over and underrepresenation associated with the electoral college, does it undermine the principle of one person one equally weighted vote? I would also ask, since several states are safe states, is it fair for an occasional election to be decided by fewer than a handful of swing states? I guess the second question is not much different from the first, as they both speak to some people/places having votes that are essentially worth more.

by **steveschneider** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 0:20

LooseGoose wrote:Another way to look at it is this - if you removed Los Angeles County CA and 4 boroughs of NYC from the popular vote Hillary would go from winning by 2.5M to losing by 700,000.

Do we really want 2 large cities determining the outcome of our elections?

Yes, clearly better than rural America. There was an excellent op-ed in the NYT the other day about how the blue states are subjected to taxation without proper representation.

The current electoral system gives more power to rural America, and rural America enjoys more benefit from taxes.

"For complicated reasons — some of which have to do with rural poverty, some of which have to do with the basic physics of supporting infrastructure in low-density regions — a disproportionate amount of per capita federal spending and benefits now flow down to the low-density states. According to a study by the Tax Foundation conducted several years ago, for every dollar New Jersey pays in federal taxes, it receives 61 cents in benefits and other federal spending. For the same dollar of taxes Wyoming spends, it gets $1.11 back."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/opinion/sunday/why-blue-states-are-the-real-tea-party.html

The majority of Americans are pretty much held hostage by uneducated white males in rural America.

by **xsanguine** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 0:28

Held hostage?

by **steveschneider** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 0:39

xsanguine wrote:Held hostage?

hos·tage (hŏs′tĭj)
n.
1. A person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by the opposing party.
2. One that serves as security against an implied threat: superpowers held hostage to each other by their nuclear arsenals.
3. One that is under the constraining control of another: "In becoming a mother one becomes a hostage to fortune" (Janna Malamud Smith).

by **xsanguine** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 0:53

Couldn't you say that vice versa with a popular vote? Someone is getting controlled one way or the other.

by **DWags** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 1:11

xsanguine wrote:Couldn't you say that vice versa with a popular vote? Someone is getting controlled one way or the other.

I'd vote for allowing the majority to control then. But that's just me.

by **xsanguine** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 1:41

DWags wrote:
xsanguine wrote:Couldn't you say that vice versa with a popular vote? Someone is getting controlled one way or the other.

I'd vote for allowing the majority to control then. But that's just me.

Mob rule. Nice.

Whoever loses the election always says they're being held hostage. That's what elections are; Someone wins and controls the losers... and the others lose and get controlled by the winners.

by AnomanderRake Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 12:06

xsanguine wrote:
DWags wrote:

I'd vote for allowing the majority to control then. But that's just me.

Mob rule. Nice.

Whoever loses the election always says they're being held hostage. That's what elections are; Someone wins and controls the losers... and the others lose and get controlled by the winners.

Blue States pay more in taxes, get less back, have more people and are better educated. I think all votes should be weighted equally but if anybody's vote should receive more weight it should be the wealthy blue states that are propping up the rest of the country and keeping us from descending back into the stone age.

by Guest Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 12:19

AnomanderRake wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Mob rule. Nice.

Whoever loses the election always says they're being held hostage. That's what elections are; Someone wins and controls the losers... and the others lose and get controlled by the winners.

If you want to begin this type of nit picking....wonder how long those blue States/cities would last without the food and energy from the red States?

Blue States pay more in taxes, get less back, have more people and are better educated. I think all votes should be weighted equally but if anybody's vote should receive more weight it should be the wealthy blue states that are propping up the rest of the country and keeping us from descending back into the stone age.

by AnomanderRake Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 13:04

That argument goes both ways Goose.

Anyway like I said I fully support 1 vote = 1 vote regardless of state. It's mind boggling to me that anyone actually believes their vote should be worth more than another citizen's.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 13:10

pretty funny that the fragile snowflake Republicans get all upset when their precious rural folks are dismissed...

yet they're the first to say "well, if you wanna let those limp-wristed California commies decide for the rest of the country"..

To those that advocate for a popular vote 502811600

To those that advocate for a popular vote 502811600

by **steveschneider** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 13:25

xsanguine wrote:Couldn't you say that vice versa with a popular vote? Someone is getting controlled one way or the other.

Not really, majority should rule plain and simple. Who cares if the majority is clustered in a few cities?

The best economic opportunities exist in NY and LA, the cities draw the best and the brightest, both cities pay a lot in taxes to this country, and a lot of our taxes goes out to assist a lot of rural America. We should have equal representation not less in the presidential elections.

by **GRR Spartan** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 14:55

LooseGoose wrote:Another way to look at it is this - if you removed Los Angeles County CA and 4 boroughs of NYC from the popular vote Hillary would go from winning by 2.5M to losing by 700,000.

Do we really want 2 large cities determining the outcome of our elections?

Put it this way. If we leave voting to bumpkins in the rural rustbelt there wouldn't be a Democrat elected to anythng for a century.

Dumb premises Goose. Why are you hellbent on marginalizing voters from large urban areas and inferring voters in low density population areas are the only people who can logically choose a President?

We get it. That's why you retired to the North half of the LP

by Guest Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 15:02

I love the usage of bumpkins.....show just where your mind is. People like you will ensure R's are in power for the next 20-30 years. Snobs.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 15:33

LooseGoose wrote:I love the usage of bumpkins.....show just where your mind is. People like you will ensure R's are in power for the next 20-30 years. Snobs.

I'm surprised to hear that you're into political correctness.

by **The_Dude** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 15:41

DWags wrote:
xsanguine wrote:Couldn't you say that vice versa with a popular vote? Someone is getting controlled one way or the other.

I'd vote for allowing the majority to control then. But that's just me.

How come you and the left only complain about the election process once you lose?

by **The_Dude** Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 15:44

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:I love the usage of bumpkins.....show just where your mind is. People like you will ensure R's are in power for the next 20-30 years. Snobs.
I'm surprised to hear that you're into political correctness.

Being PC and insulting people with unbridled arrogance for having different views are different things.

We on the right can only hope you continue to not understand--it will ensure Democrats continue to be historically weak for years to come. Its like the gift that keeps on giving. The more the left doubles down on identity politics and policies the American people rejected, the more irrelevant they become. Its awesome to see the complete and utter breakdown of the Democratic party.

by AnomanderRake Tue 6 Dec 2016 - 16:12

The_Dude wrote:
DWags wrote:

I'd vote for allowing the majority to control then. But that's just me.

How come you and the left only complain about the election process once you lose?

To be fair, the winner of the popular vote usually wins the EC as well. Only 5 times in our history has the EC and popular vote gone separate ways, and 2 of those times have been in the last 16 years.

by Sponsored content