Politics Official Predict The Electoral College Results

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
dviss1 said:
The electoral college is obselete.

This archaic system is another thing that desperately needs changing.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't feel this way if you lived in a state that is underrepresented. We are a united grouping of states. If we move to a system that dismisses the opinions of less populated states, those states will feel like their voices are not heard. This is how you end up dividing the people, and potentially breaking up the Union.... again.
 
Natebishop3 said:
You wouldn't feel this way if you lived in a state that is underrepresented. We are a united grouping of states. If we move to a system that dismisses the opinions of less populated states, those states will feel like their voices are not heard.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's much better to dismiss the opinions of the majority of people in the entire country and make them feel like their voices are not heard.

Natebishop3 said:
This is how you end up dividing the people, and potentially breaking up the Union.... again.
Click to expand...

Yeah cause we're not divided at all with the current system.
 
noknobs said:
Yeah it's much better to dismiss the opinions of the majority of people in the entire country and make them feel like their voices are not heard.



Yeah cause we're not divided at all with the current system.
Click to expand...

We're talking about 300k votes nationwide. Let's stop pretending like it was some huge gap. Have they even counted absentee ballots and mail in ballots yet? There were still people voting right up to 8 pm on election night.
 
Natebishop3 said:
We're talking about 300k votes nationwide. Let's stop pretending like it was some huge gap. Have they even counted absentee ballots and mail in ballots yet? There were still people voting right up to 8 pm on election night.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim it was a huge gap and was unaware I was pretending like it was. Just that one number was bigger than the other.
 
noknobs said:
I didn't claim it was a huge gap and was unaware I was pretending like it was. Just that one number was bigger than the other.
Click to expand...

Imagine the Republican uproar if they won the popular vote by 300K but lost the electoral vote. They'd hold many Congressional committee investigations, claiming crimes, etc.
 
Natebishop3 said:
You wouldn't feel this way if you lived in a state that is underrepresented. We are a united grouping of states. If we move to a system that dismisses the opinions of less populated states, those states will feel like their voices are not heard. This is how you end up dividing the people, and potentially breaking up the Union.... again.
Click to expand...

I disagree fully.
 
noknobs said:
Yeah it's much better to dismiss the opinions of the majority of people in the entire country and make them feel like their voices are not heard.



Yeah cause we're not divided at all with the current system.
Click to expand...

Neither Clinton ever got a MAJORITY of the vote.
 
jlprk said:
Only because you Republicans won't let Washington, D.C. into the Union.
Click to expand...
It's not a state. But the people voted.

I repeat, neither Clinton got a majority of the vote (for president).
 
Denny Crane said:
I repeat, neither Clinton got a majority of the vote (for president).
Click to expand...

Nixon got something like 43%, then justified overthrowing Allende because Allende won with a plurality of 45% or something like that, but it was more than Nixon got. You wanna talk about the 2000 election now?
 
Denny Crane said:
I repeat, neither Clinton got a majority of the vote (for president).
Click to expand...

Are you really gonna play semantics? Don't you ever get tired of that? They got the most votes of any candidate. That better?
 
noknobs said:
Are you really gonna play semantics? Don't you ever get tired of that? They got the most votes of any candidate. That better?
Click to expand...
The "semantics " are quite important.

In many places, they hold following elections between the top two vote recipients to assure an actual majority.

Clinton knew the rules, hired the best strategists money can buy, and had a $billion to spend.

She played to the rules.

AND LOST.

Trump got the most votes in 30 states. If not more.

A lopsided victory in one population dense area should not determine the entire election results.
 
Denny Crane said:
A lopsided victory in one population dense area should not determine the entire election results.
Click to expand...

Oh, see that's my problem. I didn't know it was just one population dense area. I got bad info. My bad.
 
noknobs said:
Oh, see that's my problem. I didn't know it was just one population dense area. I got bad info. My bad.
Click to expand...

Trump won everywhere but California by millions of votes. It was only a very lopsided victory in California that barely put her over the top in the popular vote.

Without the EV, you might have 5 candidates get 19% and 1 get 25%. Hardly a reasonable victory.

With the EC, nobody would get the 270 to win, which is more representative of the actual result.
 
Denny Crane said:
The "semantics " are quite important.

In many places, they hold following elections between the top two vote recipients to assure an actual majority.

Clinton knew the rules, hired the best strategists money can buy, and had a $billion to spend.

She played to the rules.

AND LOST.

Trump got the most votes in 30 states. If not more.

A lopsided victory in one population dense area should not determine the entire election results.
Click to expand...
So instead people in Wyoming should have their vote hold more weight in the electoral college (1 electoral vote for every 715,000 people) compared to Texas (1 electoral vote for every couple million people)? Rural states are overrepresented. That's why Republics have won the presidency without winning the popular vote 4 out of the 5 times it's happened (the other one was before modern parties existed), because rural votes republican. All votes should count as one, how does that make anyone underrepresented? If anything it'll get more people out to vote in a state that surely leans one way or another.
 
BonesJones said:
So instead people in Wyoming should have their vote hold more weight in the electoral college (1 electoral vote for every 715,000 people) compared to Texas (1 electoral vote for every couple million people)? Rural states are overrepresented. That's why Republics have won the presidency without winning the popular vote 4 out of the 5 times it's happened (the other one was before modern parties existed), because rural votes republican. All votes should count as one, how does that make anyone underrepresented? If anything it'll get more people out to vote in a state that surely leans one way or another.
Click to expand...

The reason republicans lost the popular vote is there was a lopsided victory in the most populous state, run by democrats. Even so, it was very close. If it was florida, there'd have been an automatic recount :)
 
Denny Crane said:
The reason republicans lost the popular vote is there was a lopsided victory in the most populous state, run by democrats. Even so, it was very close. If it was florida, there'd have been an automatic recount :)
Click to expand...
Well with the minimum 3 electoral votes per state it does give rural states more electoral votes per population, and usually that does take Republicans as well.
 
BonesJones said:
Well with the minimum 3 electoral votes per state it does give rural states more electoral votes per population, and usually that does take Republicans as well.
Click to expand...

By your logic, there shouldn't be any representatives in congress for Montana, right? Or should the House have 10's of thousands of members? If the latter, they wouldn't get anything done ever. Or... the senate is a bad idea because each Montana senator represents far fewer people?

Or maybe Montana should get some representation, which is the beauty of the system our founders came up with.

1 for the representative, 2 for the senators. That's how it goes.

California still gets ~20x the representation in the electoral college. And ~60x in the House.
 
im not sure how saying something like:

"we should determine the winner of elections based on who gets the most votes."

is some weird idea.

if the argument is "well, we do it a different way, so it will always be that way", then expect people to want to debate that.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
im not sure how saying something like:

"we should determine the winner of elections based on who gets the most votes."

is some weird idea.

if the argument is "well, we do it a different way, so it will always be that way", then expect people to want to debate that.
Click to expand...

5 candidates. 3 get 20%, 1 gets 21%, the other gets 19%.

Most votes?

I don't agree.

In that scenario, nobody would get the 270, so it would go to the House. Which is probably, no certainly, the way it should be.
 
Denny Crane said:
No :)

I'm calling for keeping the system as it is.

Politics is local.
Click to expand...
I'm torn about it but in fairness.....local to you is an urban center that benefits greatly from the electoral vote...Southern Cal has a lot of clout...I do understand the mess that would come with only a popular vote....could take half a first term to sort out the results
 
Denny Crane said:
Intersting. I watch a lot of YouTube videos from this site.

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/topics/electoral-college-math/arguments-in-favor

Be sure to click on the links within the article.
Click to expand...
Great site....I'll enjoy reading through these ...bookmarked it. Read one for and one against. I still like the idea of a popular vote first...with neck and neck electoral votes going to the popular vote leader at the end...the majority vote still wins but the popular vote is the deciding tie breaker and you have to win it to be elected....I'll read a few more of those articles later ...thanks for the link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top