Electoral College and Popular Vote split?

[Dr.Traveler]

How Trump Could Win The White House While Losing The Popular Vote

This came up earlier in another discussion, but the article above demonstrates why it's more likely for Trump to win the Electoral College and lose the popular than the reverse. From the article:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s why: Several of Trump’s worst demographic groups happen to be concentrated in states, such as California, New York, Texas and Utah, that are either not competitive or that aren’t on Trump’s must-win list. Conversely, whites without a college degree — one of Trump’s strongest groups — represent a huge bloc in three blue states he would need to turn red to have the best chance of winning 270 electoral votes: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FiveThirtyEight posits this as having a 6% chance of happening so it isn't likely, but as the race tightens those odds will grow.

 

[martybegan]

How Trump Could Win The White House While Losing The Popular Vote

This came up earlier in another discussion, but the article above demonstrates why it's more likely for Trump to win the Electoral College and lose the popular than the reverse. From the article:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s why: Several of Trump’s worst demographic groups happen to be concentrated in states, such as California, New York, Texas and Utah, that are either not competitive or that aren’t on Trump’s must-win list. Conversely, whites without a college degree — one of Trump’s strongest groups — represent a huge bloc in three blue states he would need to turn red to have the best chance of winning 270 electoral votes: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FiveThirtyEight posits this as having a 6% chance of happening so it isn't likely, but as the race tightens those odds will grow.

It's happened before, and in similar times of political angst.

To me, I would make the electors in each State go by their congressional districts, with the 2 electors for senator determined by State-wide vote.

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

How Trump Could Win The White House While Losing The Popular Vote

This came up earlier in another discussion, but the article above demonstrates why it's more likely for Trump to win the Electoral College and lose the popular than the reverse. From the article:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s why: Several of Trump’s worst demographic groups happen to be concentrated in states, such as California, New York, Texas and Utah, that are either not competitive or that aren’t on Trump’s must-win list. Conversely, whites without a college degree — one of Trump’s strongest groups — represent a huge bloc in three blue states he would need to turn red to have the best chance of winning 270 electoral votes: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FiveThirtyEight posits this as having a 6% chance of happening so it isn't likely, but as the race tightens those odds will grow.

It's happened before, and in similar times of political angst.

To me, I would make the electors in each State go by their congressional districts, with the 2 electors for senator determined by State-wide vote.

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

If there is a split this year, popular outcry would be to finally do away with the Electoral College. If the Electors really are bound by their state votes, the Electoral College makes no sense anyways. Electors that blindly follow the popular vote wasn't the real point.

As for State selected Senators: I'm in favor of that in theory but you'd need to look at why that as a process went away. Most states willingly abandoned the process and were directly electing Senators. Those that didn't abandon it on their own were having a remarkably hard time getting it together and selecting Senators meaning the Senate would sometimes have issue meeting quorum and frequently had multiple empty seats. On top of that, the State selecting the Electors encouraged the patronage system we've since moved away from.

At this point in US History the States are so weak as political entities I'm not sure they'd even be interested in holding on to the Electoral College or reclaiming Senator selection.

 

[martybegan]

How Trump Could Win The White House While Losing The Popular Vote

This came up earlier in another discussion, but the article above demonstrates why it's more likely for Trump to win the Electoral College and lose the popular than the reverse. From the article:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s why: Several of Trump’s worst demographic groups happen to be concentrated in states, such as California, New York, Texas and Utah, that are either not competitive or that aren’t on Trump’s must-win list. Conversely, whites without a college degree — one of Trump’s strongest groups — represent a huge bloc in three blue states he would need to turn red to have the best chance of winning 270 electoral votes: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FiveThirtyEight posits this as having a 6% chance of happening so it isn't likely, but as the race tightens those odds will grow.

It's happened before, and in similar times of political angst.

To me, I would make the electors in each State go by their congressional districts, with the 2 electors for senator determined by State-wide vote.

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

If there is a split this year, popular outcry would be to finally do away with the Electoral College. If the Electors really are bound by their state votes, the Electoral College makes no sense anyways. Electors that blindly follow the popular vote wasn't the real point.

As for State selected Senators: I'm in favor of that in theory but you'd need to look at why that as a process went away. Most states willingly abandoned the process and were directly electing Senators. Those that didn't abandon it on their own were having a remarkably hard time getting it together and selecting Senators meaning the Senate would sometimes have issue meeting quorum and frequently had multiple empty seats. On top of that, the State selecting the Electors encouraged the patronage system we've since moved away from.

At this point in US History the States are so weak as political entities I'm not sure they'd even be interested in holding on to the Electoral College or reclaiming Senator selection.

I agree it would be difficult to arrange, but the fact that the States are so weak is one of my primary complaints. Federalism was supposed to allow different States to go about things in different ways, as long as the Federal Constitution was followed, (and after the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights is followed).

Now people seem to demand that everyone follow the same rules as they do, think the same way they do, and live the same way they do. And all of this is being done via federal action, from all 3 branches (but recently, mostly from the SC).

Federalism would correct a ton of the animosity we are seeing now, but since one party is hell bent on making most issues federal ones (and the other often goes along, grudgingly, but along), that isn't going to happen.

 

[nat4900]

Just a reminder of the very first paragraph of your cite...So we don't offer right wingers false hope.....LOL

OK, before I say anything, a quick disclaimer: This piece is not a prediction. In fact, I’m a religious (maybe fanatical) adherent of FiveThirtyEight’s 2016 election forecast model, which I find to be both methodologically rigorous and intellectually honest. I don’t dispute its assessment that Hillary Clinton has a 63 or 64 percent chance of winning the election.

 

[rightwinger]

How Trump Could Win The White House While Losing The Popular Vote

This came up earlier in another discussion, but the article above demonstrates why it's more likely for Trump to win the Electoral College and lose the popular than the reverse. From the article:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s why: Several of Trump’s worst demographic groups happen to be concentrated in states, such as California, New York, Texas and Utah, that are either not competitive or that aren’t on Trump’s must-win list. Conversely, whites without a college degree — one of Trump’s strongest groups — represent a huge bloc in three blue states he would need to turn red to have the best chance of winning 270 electoral votes: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FiveThirtyEight posits this as having a 6% chance of happening so it isn't likely, but as the race tightens those odds will grow.

It's happened before, and in similar times of political angst.

To me, I would make the electors in each State go by their congressional districts, with the 2 electors for senator determined by State-wide vote.

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

Let's you gerrymander the presidential election

 

[martybegan]

How Trump Could Win The White House While Losing The Popular Vote

This came up earlier in another discussion, but the article above demonstrates why it's more likely for Trump to win the Electoral College and lose the popular than the reverse. From the article:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s why: Several of Trump’s worst demographic groups happen to be concentrated in states, such as California, New York, Texas and Utah, that are either not competitive or that aren’t on Trump’s must-win list. Conversely, whites without a college degree — one of Trump’s strongest groups — represent a huge bloc in three blue states he would need to turn red to have the best chance of winning 270 electoral votes: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FiveThirtyEight posits this as having a 6% chance of happening so it isn't likely, but as the race tightens those odds will grow.

It's happened before, and in similar times of political angst.

To me, I would make the electors in each State go by their congressional districts, with the 2 electors for senator determined by State-wide vote.

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

Let's you gerrymander the presidential election

I also support using computer models to figure out the congressional districts, and that they remove ANY preference when doing so.

A combination of centers of population, and using natural boundaries and county boundaries should do the trick.

For places like NYC, major transportation arteries could be used as the dividers.

 

[Rambunctious]

If the election were held today Trump would win...we will see which way the electorate will turn but if we voted today it is president Trump. like it or not.

 

[nat4900]

I am, of course, reminded that Gore received over half a million more popular votes but (with the help of the SCOTUS) GWB won anyway based on the electoral college breakdown.

Mathematically, if Clinton carries Pennsylvania AND Virginia (justifying the choice of Tim Kaine as VP), the election is over based on EC votes......When polls close in a couple of eastern states, the election will be pretty much decided. At that point, Ohio and Florida siding with Trump will not matter.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I am, of course, reminded that Gore received over half a million more popular votes but (with the help of the SCOTUS) GWB won anyway based on the electoral college breakdown.

mathematically,if Clinton carries Pennsylvania AND Virginia (justifying the choice of Tim Kaine as VP), the election is over based on EC votes......When polls close in a couple of eastern states, the election will be pretty much decided.

Trump has a much more narrow path to the White House than Clinton, but he's about where he needs to be in order to be on that path. Trump winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida isn't looking that unlikely.

 

[nat4900]

ump winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida isn't looking that unlikely.

partially true, EXCEPT for Pennsylvania with the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh democratic advantage.

 

[Timmy]

Don't hate the player , hate the game .

Smart pols play the EC because that's how you are going to win.

If state X is a 60- 40 loss to me, I'm not putting any money or effort to win state X . The result is that I end up losing 80-20 . But what do I care. The EC count decides the winner , not pop vote .

 

[nat4900]

The EC count decides the winner , not pop vote .

Correct,.....and, again, if the EC didn't matter, Gore would have been president for at least the first term.

 

[rightwinger]

Don't hate the player , hate the game .

Smart pols play the EC because that's how you are going to win.

If state X is a 60- 40 loss to me, I'm not putting any money or effort to win state X . The result is that I end up losing 80-20 . But what do I care. The EC count decides the winner , not pop vote .

The presidency is decided by ten swing states. That is where the money and attention goes

 

[mvymvy]

To me, I would make the electors in each State go by their congressional districts, with the 2 electors for senator determined by State-wide vote.
.

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts. In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.
Nationwide, there are now only 10 "battleground" districts that are expected to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 38+ states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 98% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President
In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the only state in the past century that has split its electoral votes between presidential candidates from two different parties, Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any district or state or throughout the country.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[mvymvy]

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College – more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

National Popular Vote

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump is leading in Fl Ohio Colorado and even Nevada....It's over. Say hello to the next president of the United States Donald J Trump!

 

[SwimExpert]

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

That became a catastrophic flaw. Got to find some other way to compensate.

 

[SwimExpert]

Trump is leading in Fl Ohio Colorado and even Nevada....It's over. Say hello to the next president of the United States Donald J Trump!

That is....premature. CO and NV has had recent polls showing a slight lead for Trump, against a backdrop of additional polls in the past few months showing Clinton leading. While this does indicate the race may be tightening in these states, at best it is too close to call at the moment. If additional polling continues to show Trump with leads, then your statements would be more sound.

 

[owebo]

Don't hate the player , hate the game .

Smart pols play the EC because that's how you are going to win.

If state X is a 60- 40 loss to me, I'm not putting any money or effort to win state X . The result is that I end up losing 80-20 . But what do I care. The EC count decides the winner , not pop vote .

Actually, idiots play the EC right now....it launders the loser, in this case hitlery, to the ignorant, in this case you......