Originally posted by BackFire
Of course, I know they won't. It seems that using a system that subverts actual democracy is the only way republicans can win the Presidency these days.
Seriously though, popular vote would be even less fair for a good reason.
America isn't a homogeneous state. It's basically more like a bunch of countries, l with their own culture, dialect, unique problems ect.
So voting by STATE, and tallying what the majority of each region says really is the best way to do this.
Originally posted by cdtm
Seriously though, popular vote would be even less fair for a good reason.America isn't a homogeneous state. It's basically more like 52 countries, all with it's own culture, dialect, unique problems ect.
So voting by STATE, and tallying what the majority of each region says really is the best way to do this.
I know there are valid arguments for the electoral college, I'm simply saying perhaps it's time to look at it and consider if it can be improved to better reflect the will of the people voting. Having this happen two times in the last 16 years doesn't speak well to it.
Also want to say that I don't think Trump did anything wrong here, nor am I saying he is not president or anything - he won fair and square using the system that is in place. I simply think the system itself could be looked at and probably improved.
Originally posted by BackFire
And there's still lots of votes to count in California, she may end up winning the popular vote by almost a million and still lose.Perhaps it's time to look at the electoral college. 2 of the last 3 presidents will have won their first term in office while losing the popular vote. I think that should rub everyone the wrong way.
If you eliminate the top 2 states the voted for Hillary and the top 2 states that voted for Trump, then the popular vote significantly leans towards Trump. I think the Popular vote is not very telling of what actually happened as NY and CA are way out of wack compared to most other states. This is why the Electoral College exists. When it was conceived, states like Virginia had much different ideas on the direction we should go and as a compromise, we came up with the Electoral college that guaranteed smaller, less populous states, at least 3 votes.
So I believe the top two pro-Hillary states were CA and HA.
Let's use this data:
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
The top 2 pro-Trump states were W.VA and WY.
So the popular vote swings towards Trump by over 2 million if you eliminate the 2 most favorable states for each candidate. Isn't that really telling of how America feels? It gets much worse if you eliminate the top 5 from both sides.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you eliminate the top 2 states the voted for Hillary and the top 2 states that voted for Trump, then the popular vote significantly leans towards Trump. I think the Popular vote is not very telling of what actually happened as NY and CA are way out of wack compared to most other states. This is why the Electoral College exists. When it was conceived, states like Virginia had much different ideas on the direction we should go and as a compromise, we came up with the Electoral college that guaranteed smaller, less populous states, at least 3 votes.So I believe the top two pro-Hillary states were CA and HA.
Let's use this data:
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
The top 2 pro-Trump states were W.VA and WY.
So the popular vote swings towards Trump by over 2 million if you eliminate the 2 most favorable states for each candidate. Isn't that really telling of how America feels? It gets much worse if you eliminate the top 5 from both sides.
Why remove any states in this discussion?
Originally posted by BackFire
Why remove any states in this discussion?
I stated why in the post your quoted:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the Popular vote is not very telling of what actually happened as NY and CA are way out of wack compared to most other states. This is why the Electoral College exists. When it was conceived, states like Virginia had much different ideas on the direction we should go and as a compromise, we came up with the Electoral college that guaranteed smaller, less populous states, at least 3 votes.
But you probably want more than just this, correct?
Some states always vote a certain direction. Some states have much more of a say in the election simply due to their population which marginalizes the input/votes of the other states. That's why the Electoral College exists: to give each state at least some input.
If you really want to see what's happening with the vote, compare it to past elections or eliminate the outliers (this is what we do in stats). CA and NY really skew the popular vote and being concerned because Hillary won the popular vote but not the election is not very telling of what is actually happening in the US; a lot of voters who didn't want Hillary.
We wouldn't really be having this discussion if Trump won the popular vote. And the popular vote is very close this election.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I stated why in the post your quoted:But you probably want more than just this, correct?
Some states always vote a certain direction. Some states have much more of a say in the election simply due to their population which marginalizes the input/votes of the other states. That's why the Electoral College exists: to give each state at least some input.
If you really want to see what's happening with the vote, compare it to past elections or eliminate the outliers (this is what we do in stats). CA and NY really skew the popular vote and being concerned because Hillary won the popular vote but not the election is not very telling of what is actually happening in the US; a lot of voters who didn't want Hillary.
We wouldn't really be having this discussion if Trump won the popular vote. And the popular vote is very close this election.
Pretty much.
As if New York City and California don't already think they're the center of the universe.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I stated why in the post your quoted:But you probably want more than just this, correct?
Some states always vote a certain direction. Some states have much more of a say in the election simply due to their population which marginalizes the input/votes of the other states. That's why the Electoral College exists: to give each state at least some input.
If you really want to see what's happening with the vote, compare it to past elections or eliminate the outliers (this is what we do in stats). CA and NY really skew the popular vote and being concerned because Hillary won the popular vote but not the election is not very telling of what is actually happening in the US; a lot of voters who didn't want Hillary.
We wouldn't really be having this discussion if Trump won the popular vote. And the popular vote is very close this election.
It doesn't marginalize anything, though. If more people live in a state then that state should have a significantly greater impact. As it is now you have votes from states with smaller populations weighing more than votes from states with larger populations. Don't think that's any better, in fact I think it's much worse. I don't think it should even go state by state necessarily, just a nationwide vote. That way every vote will count exactly the same, regardless of where you live, a vote would be a vote.