Thank you.
I've been waiting for someone to do that.That looks one fuck of a lot more reasonable. Even if it does throw the election to the House of Reps, where Evan McMullin is declared President.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Alternative to the Electoral College
- Thread starter TheDude
- Start date
Thank you.
I've been waiting for someone to do that.That looks one fuck of a lot more reasonable. Even if it does throw the election to the House of Reps, where Evan McMullin is declared President.
EverCurious
Gold Member
As someone who was annexed by a large city and has been railing against their oppression and thievery for nearly 3 decades, who was forced to attend classes in barely heated outhouses because the big city refused to approve funding for a badly needed second HS for nearly 30 years, who has been given the shaft on taxes (My areas higher property values) in all areas ranging from funding schools down to fire and police coverage (We got lucky in both areas, first the police love living out here because it's basically crime free and second us and the other six annexed towns got together to form a volunteer fire department after the big city dwellers shafted us, we essentially had a privately funded fire department because the city figured we could wait for the trucks to drive the 30-50 miles to service our homes,) and who has been shafted on everything from patching up pot holes to snow removal, even getting "approval" of zoning alterations (which the big city votes against having no fucking clue what they're even looking at.)
Trust me, PV sucks fucking ass.
OH hell I forgot the DUMP the residents of the big city decided we got to host - such a fucking lovely smell - and the prison they decided to build out here... Bastards.
Trust me, PV sucks fucking ass.
OH hell I forgot the DUMP the residents of the big city decided we got to host - such a fucking lovely smell - and the prison they decided to build out here... Bastards.
Total semantics argument, but you've got a fair point. Monolithic is a poor way to describe many of the non-swing states. Let's say "predictable" in stead. Past the nitpicking of my wording, however, what you've just stead actually weakens your position. If many of the non-swing states are predictably granting their electoral votes to one party or the other based on a relatively small majority within the state, then it isn't all that inconceivable that they might shift and become less predictable.
In 1888, New York and New Jersey were swing states. In 1960, Illinois and Texas were the deciders, so whether you care to believe it or not, these patterns are relatively fluid.
I don't think you even begin to grasp what I've been saying about the EC all this time.
I don't accept the concept of "swing states". I don't accept "red states" or "blue states" or "battleground states". Those are all artificial bullshit dividing terms that simply would not exist -- at all -- if the Electoral College and its ridiculous "winner-take-all" bullshit weren't creating those divisions.
As I just said, states are not monoliths, nor do they vote unanimously for anybody ----- until the EC gets hold of the vote. Check out the proportional EV count laid out above.
Also, look into Nebraska and Main. Winner-take-all is not a mandate or even an inevitable feature of the EC. It's a state-by-state decision that, even if you wanted electoral votes to be universally proportionate to the PV results in each state, you wouldn't have to do away with the EC to remedy.
NO SHIT. That's what I've been saying all along too. Every time some whiner starts in with the old "you'll need a Constitutional Amendment and you'll never do that" song and dance.
That said, I'm not at all adverse to winner-take-all being the state by state norm.
--- why not? Do you actually think that every last voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump? Well I don't think so either. But the Electrical College does. In what universe does that make any sense?
Ever watch a football game that's a close contest but one team eventually wins 31-30?
Is that game then reported as "31 to nothing"?
Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:
States are free to use any of the three to allocate their electoral votes under the Constitution as is. That said, democracy ends at the State line, the feds are purely representative, that's why the EC will never go away.
Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.
Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Trump 269 Clinton 269
Interestingly here, Rump still gets an EC tie even while trailing by 2.65 million popular votes. The inevitable result of rounding off the numbers to a much smaller scale.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.
Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Trump 269 Clinton 269
You might have give to Johnson some somewhere along the line.
Lewdog
Gold Member
Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.
Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Trump 269 Clinton 269
Interestingly here, Rump still gets an EC tie even while trailing by 2.65 million popular votes. The inevitable result of rounding off the numbers to a much smaller scale.
BUT, it is a closer representation of the PV than the EC is. So it is a compromise.
Lewdog
Gold Member
Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.
Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Trump 269 Clinton 269
You might have give to Johnson some somewhere along the line.
Not when his percentage doesn't at least give him 0.6 of a vote. Plus even if I did have to give any EC votes to anyone else, there still would be no candidate that would hit 270.
Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.
Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Trump 269 Clinton 269
Interestingly here, Rump still gets an EC tie even while trailing by 2.65 million popular votes. The inevitable result of rounding off the numbers to a much smaller scale.
BUT, it is a closer representation of the PV than the EC is. So it is a compromise.
And here we have a tie with no 270 so it goes to the House who, aside from any other considerations, take the 2.65 million plurality into consideration and name Clinton. Which again leads to my perennial question when this is proposed --- if all we're going to do is microcosm the PV down to a 538 scale and that mathematical round-off would be swayed by the details in the PV anyway ---- then what's the point of sending the vote through a proxy at all?
Next calculation you might want to do on this if you're into it ---- how many more votes (and where) would either candy have needed to hit the 270 mark?
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.
Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Trump 269 Clinton 269
You might have give to Johnson some somewhere along the line.
Not when his percentage doesn't at least give him 0.6 of a vote. Plus even if I did have to give any EC votes to anyone else, there still would be no candidate that would hit 270.
According to my calc, in California, Johnson with 3% of the vote would get 1.6 out of 55. Rounding up that's 2.
The 270 rule should go out with a change in allocated EV's change. Either the election goes to the plurality winner, or you have a run off.
Lewdog
Gold Member
Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.
Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Trump 269 Clinton 269
You might have give to Johnson some somewhere along the line.
Not when his percentage doesn't at least give him 0.6 of a vote. Plus even if I did have to give any EC votes to anyone else, there still would be no candidate that would hit 270.
According to my calc, in California, Johnson with 3% of the vote would get 1.6 out of 55. Rounding up that's 2.
The 270 rule should go out with a change in allocated EV's change. Either the election goes to the plurality winner, or you have a run off.
Ok, so that means It would be 268/268/2. Does it matter?
Lewdog
Gold Member
Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.
Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Trump 269 Clinton 269
Interestingly here, Rump still gets an EC tie even while trailing by 2.65 million popular votes. The inevitable result of rounding off the numbers to a much smaller scale.
BUT, it is a closer representation of the PV than the EC is. So it is a compromise.
And here we have a tie with no 270 so it goes to the House who, aside from any other considerations, take the 2.65 million plurality into consideration and name Clinton. Which again leads to my perennial question when this is proposed --- if all we're going to do is microcosm the PV down to a 538 scale and that mathematical round-off would be swayed by the details in the PV anyway ---- then what's the point of sending the vote through a proxy at all?
Next calculation you might want to do on this if you're into it ---- how many more votes (and where) would either candy have needed to hit the 270 mark?
No!
Not2BSubjugated
Callous Individualist
Total semantics argument, but you've got a fair point. Monolithic is a poor way to describe many of the non-swing states. Let's say "predictable" in stead. Past the nitpicking of my wording, however, what you've just stead actually weakens your position. If many of the non-swing states are predictably granting their electoral votes to one party or the other based on a relatively small majority within the state, then it isn't all that inconceivable that they might shift and become less predictable.
In 1888, New York and New Jersey were swing states. In 1960, Illinois and Texas were the deciders, so whether you care to believe it or not, these patterns are relatively fluid.
I don't think you even begin to grasp what I've been saying about the EC all this time.
I don't accept the concept of "swing states". I don't accept "red states" or "blue states" or "battleground states". Those are all artificial bullshit dividing terms that simply would not exist -- at all -- if the Electoral College and its ridiculous "winner-take-all" bullshit weren't creating those divisions.
As I just said, states are not monoliths, nor do they vote unanimously for anybody ----- until the EC gets hold of the vote. Check out the proportional EV count laid out above.
Also, look into Nebraska and Main. Winner-take-all is not a mandate or even an inevitable feature of the EC. It's a state-by-state decision that, even if you wanted electoral votes to be universally proportionate to the PV results in each state, you wouldn't have to do away with the EC to remedy.
NO SHIT. That's what I've been saying all along too. Every time some whiner starts in with the old "you'll need a Constitutional Amendment and you'll never do that" song and dance.
That said, I'm not at all adverse to winner-take-all being the state by state norm.
--- why not? Do you actually think that every last voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump? Well I don't think so either. But the Electrical College does. In what universe does that make any sense?
Ever watch a football game that's a close contest but one team eventually wins 31-30?
Is that game then reported as "31 to nothing"?
So in the first two parts of your response, you first say that the EC gets ahold of a state's vote and then MAKES it unanimous, but then in your very next point you tell me that you've been saying all along that winner-take-all isn't a direct function of the EC. It cannot be a feature of the EC and not a feature of the EC at the same time. The purpose of pointing out the two states that are exceptions to the winner-take-all rule is to point out that the STATES decide how to direct their electoral votes, not the college itself.
Which brings me to your last bit. The universe in which winner-take-all makes sense is the universe in which the US is a federalist system, whereby the division of the country into states, counties and cities serves the purpose of allowing people in various communities more influence over those communities than it allows to people outside of those communities. It is my support for this decentralized self-determination of small communities that drives my preference away from any top-down effort to tell each state how it should go about deciding where to place its electoral votes.
I gotta say, I find it funny that you think it's an absolute travesty that one vote could potentially decide for an entire state, and yet you favor a national popular vote election, wherein a single vote could decide for the entire nation. I been scratching my head for a few minutes, and I just can't seem to figure out how you make yourself believe that a single individual being the deciding factor for 6 million people makes no sense, but a single individual being the deciding factor for 300 million people is perfectly reasonable. Maybe you could clue me in?
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.
Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Trump 269 Clinton 269
You might have give to Johnson some somewhere along the line.
Not when his percentage doesn't at least give him 0.6 of a vote. Plus even if I did have to give any EC votes to anyone else, there still would be no candidate that would hit 270.
According to my calc, in California, Johnson with 3% of the vote would get 1.6 out of 55. Rounding up that's 2.
The 270 rule should go out with a change in allocated EV's change. Either the election goes to the plurality winner, or you have a run off.
Ok, so that means It would be 268/268/2. Does it matter?
Well you have to go through every state. No it doesn't 'matter', because it's just a theoretical exercise.
Lewdog
Gold Member
Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.
Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Trump 269 Clinton 269
You might have give to Johnson some somewhere along the line.
Not when his percentage doesn't at least give him 0.6 of a vote. Plus even if I did have to give any EC votes to anyone else, there still would be no candidate that would hit 270.
According to my calc, in California, Johnson with 3% of the vote would get 1.6 out of 55. Rounding up that's 2.
The 270 rule should go out with a change in allocated EV's change. Either the election goes to the plurality winner, or you have a run off.
Ok, so that means It would be 268/268/2. Does it matter?
Well you have to go through every state. No it doesn't 'matter', because it's just a theoretical exercise.
But, even if I went through every state and took away votes for Gary Johnson, neither Clinton nor Trump would GAIN any votes, so they would both still be bellow the 270 needed.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
I gotta say, I find it funny that you think it's an absolute travesty that one vote could potentially decide for an entire state, and yet you favor a national popular vote election, wherein a single vote could decide for the entire nation. I been scratching my head for a few minutes, and I just can't seem to figure out how you make yourself believe that a single individual being the deciding factor for 6 million people makes no sense, but a single individual being the deciding factor for 300 million people is perfectly reasonable. Maybe you could clue me in?
Yes I can clue you in. The popular vote is currently not the final vote, therefore a state deciding for one candidate by 1 vote,
and then giving that candidate a 20 to zero vote (or whatever the electoral count is for that state) for the final phase of the election completely eliminates the voters on the losing side of that 1 vote win from having any voice in the final say of who will be president.
Deciding the presidency by popular vote, even if he or she wins by ONE vote, at least gave everyone a say in that final decision.
In the electoral system, your vote is not allowed to compete in the national election, you are only allowed to compete against the other residents of your state.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
You might have give to Johnson some somewhere along the line.
Not when his percentage doesn't at least give him 0.6 of a vote. Plus even if I did have to give any EC votes to anyone else, there still would be no candidate that would hit 270.
According to my calc, in California, Johnson with 3% of the vote would get 1.6 out of 55. Rounding up that's 2.
The 270 rule should go out with a change in allocated EV's change. Either the election goes to the plurality winner, or you have a run off.
Ok, so that means It would be 268/268/2. Does it matter?
Well you have to go through every state. No it doesn't 'matter', because it's just a theoretical exercise.
But, even if I went through every state and took away votes for Gary Johnson, neither Clinton nor Trump would GAIN any votes, so they would both still be bellow the 270 needed.
Like I said, the 270 requirement should either be dropped or decided with a runoff.
Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:
Governors are elected by the popular vote. Every state has urban areas. Does the election of governors by the popular vote result in chaos?
Has electing governors by the popular vote destroyed our states?
If the results were reversed (Hillary winning with EC, Trump the popular vote) you and a lot of other Clinton supporters would be quiet as mice.
Is that supposed to address my post?
No one has a good answer for what I've said above. I wonder why that is?
They can't... other than to say there is more at stake, and that a state is too much of a small sample.
But they go on and on and on and on about 'counties', which are really to the states just the equivalents of what the states are to the nation.
Wrong, State counties don't have the power to alter or abolish the State government, the States have the power to do that to the feds.
Not when his percentage doesn't at least give him 0.6 of a vote. Plus even if I did have to give any EC votes to anyone else, there still would be no candidate that would hit 270.
According to my calc, in California, Johnson with 3% of the vote would get 1.6 out of 55. Rounding up that's 2.
The 270 rule should go out with a change in allocated EV's change. Either the election goes to the plurality winner, or you have a run off.
Ok, so that means It would be 268/268/2. Does it matter?
Well you have to go through every state. No it doesn't 'matter', because it's just a theoretical exercise.
But, even if I went through every state and took away votes for Gary Johnson, neither Clinton nor Trump would GAIN any votes, so they would both still be bellow the 270 needed.
Like I said, the 270 requirement should either be dropped or decided with a runoff.
There's nothing that says the winner has to have 270 if more than 2 candidates gained electoral votes, the winner would be the one with the most.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 104
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 292
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 727
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 42
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 29
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 157
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8538
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-