Electors (R) TX, NOT Voting for Trump - Fox News

[Johann]

They've been talking about this same guy for a while.

RNC keeps close tabs on Electoral College vote

So one guy has so far said he would vote against trump.

but...

"Most are also longtime party loyalists, selected by state GOP leaders for the sole purpose of confirming Trump’s election, which means violating that expectation would all but assure permanent excommunication from the party."

They work for the Republican party and are 306 of the most loyal Republicans in the country. you might have one or two go sideways, but they're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Give it up. on the 19th, when the electoral college chooses Trump, i'm going to make a thread making fun of the people who drank the electoral kool aid.

 

[Pogo]

They've been talking about this same guy for a while.

RNC keeps close tabs on Electoral College vote

So one guy has so far said he would vote against trump.

but...

"Most are also longtime party loyalists, selected by state GOP leaders for the sole purpose of confirming Trump’s election, which means violating that expectation would all but assure permanent excommunication from the party."

They work for the Republican party and are 306 of the most loyal Republicans in the country. you might have one or two go sideways, but they're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Give it up. on the 19th, when the electoral college chooses Trump, i'm going to make a thread making fun of the people who drank the electoral kool aid.

And what electoral kool aid would that be, hm?

 

[Johann]

They've been talking about this same guy for a while.

RNC keeps close tabs on Electoral College vote

So one guy has so far said he would vote against trump.

but...

"Most are also longtime party loyalists, selected by state GOP leaders for the sole purpose of confirming Trump’s election, which means violating that expectation would all but assure permanent excommunication from the party."

They work for the Republican party and are 306 of the most loyal Republicans in the country. you might have one or two go sideways, but they're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Give it up. on the 19th, when the electoral college chooses Trump, i'm going to make a thread making fun of the people who drank the electoral kool aid.

And what electoral kool aid would that be, hm?

The idea that 36+ Republican electors out of 306 of the most trusted Republicans in the country would back anyone other than Trump at this point. It's a pipe dream.

Just like that so-called 'hillary landslide' the libs were declaring several days before they got their asses handed to them on November 8.

 

[Pogo]

They've been talking about this same guy for a while.

RNC keeps close tabs on Electoral College vote

So one guy has so far said he would vote against trump.

but...

"Most are also longtime party loyalists, selected by state GOP leaders for the sole purpose of confirming Trump’s election, which means violating that expectation would all but assure permanent excommunication from the party."

They work for the Republican party and are 306 of the most loyal Republicans in the country. you might have one or two go sideways, but they're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Give it up. on the 19th, when the electoral college chooses Trump, i'm going to make a thread making fun of the people who drank the electoral kool aid.

And what electoral kool aid would that be, hm?

The idea that 36+ Republican electors out of 306 of the most trusted Republicans in the country would back anyone other than Trump at this point. It's a pipe dream.

Just like that so-called 'hillary landslide' the libs were declaring several days before they got their asses handed to them on November 8.

Seems to me this thread is about two electors. In Texas.

 

[Johann]

They've been talking about this same guy for a while.

RNC keeps close tabs on Electoral College vote

So one guy has so far said he would vote against trump.

but...

"Most are also longtime party loyalists, selected by state GOP leaders for the sole purpose of confirming Trump’s election, which means violating that expectation would all but assure permanent excommunication from the party."

They work for the Republican party and are 306 of the most loyal Republicans in the country. you might have one or two go sideways, but they're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Give it up. on the 19th, when the electoral college chooses Trump, i'm going to make a thread making fun of the people who drank the electoral kool aid.

And what electoral kool aid would that be, hm?

The idea that 36+ Republican electors out of 306 of the most trusted Republicans in the country would back anyone other than Trump at this point. It's a pipe dream.

Just like that so-called 'hillary landslide' the libs were declaring several days before they got their asses handed to them on November 8.

Seems to me this thread is about two electors. In Texas.

It's all 36+ or nothing for the dems.

 

[Pogo]

They've been talking about this same guy for a while.

RNC keeps close tabs on Electoral College vote

So one guy has so far said he would vote against trump.

but...

"Most are also longtime party loyalists, selected by state GOP leaders for the sole purpose of confirming Trump’s election, which means violating that expectation would all but assure permanent excommunication from the party."

They work for the Republican party and are 306 of the most loyal Republicans in the country. you might have one or two go sideways, but they're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Give it up. on the 19th, when the electoral college chooses Trump, i'm going to make a thread making fun of the people who drank the electoral kool aid.

And what electoral kool aid would that be, hm?

The idea that 36+ Republican electors out of 306 of the most trusted Republicans in the country would back anyone other than Trump at this point. It's a pipe dream.

Just like that so-called 'hillary landslide' the libs were declaring several days before they got their asses handed to them on November 8.

Seems to me this thread is about two electors. In Texas.

It's all 36+ or nothing for the dems.

And the title/topic of this thread is......................................................................................?

 

[Johann]

They've been talking about this same guy for a while.

RNC keeps close tabs on Electoral College vote

So one guy has so far said he would vote against trump.

but...

"Most are also longtime party loyalists, selected by state GOP leaders for the sole purpose of confirming Trump’s election, which means violating that expectation would all but assure permanent excommunication from the party."

They work for the Republican party and are 306 of the most loyal Republicans in the country. you might have one or two go sideways, but they're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Give it up. on the 19th, when the electoral college chooses Trump, i'm going to make a thread making fun of the people who drank the electoral kool aid.

And what electoral kool aid would that be, hm?

The idea that 36+ Republican electors out of 306 of the most trusted Republicans in the country would back anyone other than Trump at this point. It's a pipe dream.

Just like that so-called 'hillary landslide' the libs were declaring several days before they got their asses handed to them on November 8.

Seems to me this thread is about two electors. In Texas.

It's all 36+ or nothing for the dems.

And the title/topic of this thread is......................................................................................?

Electors in Texas not voting for trump.

If the goal is not to prevent Trump from getting the presidency, then what is the fucking point?

Let's get real -- the whole reason this is news is because of the dem effort to harass Republican electors into denying Trump the presidency he fairly won.

Don't try to block any criticism of that assinine, undemocratic and long-shot strategy by trying to limit discussion to one elector from Texas, who, outside of such a campaign, is completely irrelevant.

 

[Pogo]

And what electoral kool aid would that be, hm?

The idea that 36+ Republican electors out of 306 of the most trusted Republicans in the country would back anyone other than Trump at this point. It's a pipe dream.

Just like that so-called 'hillary landslide' the libs were declaring several days before they got their asses handed to them on November 8.

Seems to me this thread is about two electors. In Texas.

It's all 36+ or nothing for the dems.

And the title/topic of this thread is......................................................................................?

Electors in Texas not voting for trump.

Thank you. So you're wrong.

If the goal is not to prevent Trump from getting the presidency, then what is the fucking point?

The Electoral College and how it works is in the news, because this is that period when it's always in the news -- between what we laughingly call "Election Day" and the day the election actually happens. Obviously within that buzz there are untold numbers of wags who really don't know how it works. Hence any news that challenges that information gap ---- is news. And here we are.

Let's get real -- the whole reason this is news is because of the dem effort to harass Republican electors into denying Trump the presidency he fairly won.

Actually I just recounted the reason this is news but do go ahead and show the class where in the OP that is.

Don't try to block any criticism of that assinine, undemocratic and long-shot strategy by trying to limit discussion to one elector from Texas, who, outside of such a campaign, is completely irrelevant.

It's the thread topic here, Sparky. Read much?

 

[Johann]

The idea that 36+ Republican electors out of 306 of the most trusted Republicans in the country would back anyone other than Trump at this point. It's a pipe dream.

Just like that so-called 'hillary landslide' the libs were declaring several days before they got their asses handed to them on November 8.

Seems to me this thread is about two electors. In Texas.

It's all 36+ or nothing for the dems.

And the title/topic of this thread is......................................................................................?

Electors in Texas not voting for trump.

Thank you. So you're wrong.

If the goal is not to prevent Trump from getting the presidency, then what is the fucking point?

The Electoral College and how it works is in the news, because this is that period when it's always in the news -- between what we laughingly call "Election Day" and the day the election actually happens. Obviously within that buzz there are untold numbers of wags who really don't know how it works. Hence any news that challenges that information gap ---- is news. And here we are.

Let's get real -- the whole reason this is news is because of the dem effort to harass Republican electors into denying Trump the presidency he fairly won.

Actually I just recounted the reason this is news but do go ahead and show the class where in the OP that is.

Don't try to block any criticism of that assinine, undemocratic and long-shot strategy by trying to limit discussion to one elector from Texas, who, outside of such a campaign, is completely irrelevant.

It's the thread topic here, Sparky. Read much?

Trump is going to win th electoral college. several imbeciles paid off by Correct the Record is not going to change that. When the electoral college chooses Trump, we're all going to sit here and have a laugh.

 

[Pogo]

Seems to me this thread is about two electors. In Texas.

It's all 36+ or nothing for the dems.

And the title/topic of this thread is......................................................................................?

Electors in Texas not voting for trump.

Thank you. So you're wrong.

If the goal is not to prevent Trump from getting the presidency, then what is the fucking point?

The Electoral College and how it works is in the news, because this is that period when it's always in the news -- between what we laughingly call "Election Day" and the day the election actually happens. Obviously within that buzz there are untold numbers of wags who really don't know how it works. Hence any news that challenges that information gap ---- is news. And here we are.

Let's get real -- the whole reason this is news is because of the dem effort to harass Republican electors into denying Trump the presidency he fairly won.

Actually I just recounted the reason this is news but do go ahead and show the class where in the OP that is.

Don't try to block any criticism of that assinine, undemocratic and long-shot strategy by trying to limit discussion to one elector from Texas, who, outside of such a campaign, is completely irrelevant.

It's the thread topic here, Sparky. Read much?

Trump is going to win th electoral college. several imbeciles paid off by Correct the Record is not going to change that. When the electoral college chooses Trump, we're all going to sit here and have a laugh.

Understood -- you can't defend your attempt to hijack this thread.

Kinda figured.

 

[Johann]

It's all 36+ or nothing for the dems.

And the title/topic of this thread is......................................................................................?

Electors in Texas not voting for trump.

Thank you. So you're wrong.

If the goal is not to prevent Trump from getting the presidency, then what is the fucking point?

The Electoral College and how it works is in the news, because this is that period when it's always in the news -- between what we laughingly call "Election Day" and the day the election actually happens. Obviously within that buzz there are untold numbers of wags who really don't know how it works. Hence any news that challenges that information gap ---- is news. And here we are.

Let's get real -- the whole reason this is news is because of the dem effort to harass Republican electors into denying Trump the presidency he fairly won.

Actually I just recounted the reason this is news but do go ahead and show the class where in the OP that is.

Don't try to block any criticism of that assinine, undemocratic and long-shot strategy by trying to limit discussion to one elector from Texas, who, outside of such a campaign, is completely irrelevant.

It's the thread topic here, Sparky. Read much?

Trump is going to win th electoral college. several imbeciles paid off by Correct the Record is not going to change that. When the electoral college chooses Trump, we're all going to sit here and have a laugh.

Understood -- you can't defend your attempt to hijack this thread.

Kinda figured.

I didn't hijack it. The only purpose of this thread is to talk about electors rejecting trump to choose someone else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah that guy wrote an editorial a couple of days ago.. His whole statement is here.

>> The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.

.... Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again. <<​

Yo, what happen when they elected Obama?

"GTP"

Nothing. Nobody came up with this kind of objection. About either candidate.

"GFY"

That's because Republicans are simply a better class of people than are Democrats. They don't run around protesting and showing their collective asses the way the Democrats do.

You're kidding me, right? 8 years of moaning...

 

[emilynghiem]

No they signed a pledge to vote the will of the State. And I find it absolutely appalling that this elector has the arrogance to break his pledge.

He's a lying piece of garbage. Like Kasich. The person he is voting for.

And to think that electors can and should go against the will of the people is outrageous. Faithless to be sure.

Actually the "will of the state" --- in this case Texas --- was, to be exact:

3,877,868 Clinton (43.2%)

4,685,047 Rump (52.2%)

406,311 Others (4.5%)

Texas has a total of 38 EVs. If they were apportioned per the "will of the state" the Electrical Vote would be:

Rump 20 EVs (rounded off)
Clinton 16 EVs
others 2 EVs

Seems to me "faithless" would more aptly describe a body that goes to Congress and says, "everybody in Texas done voted for the Orange Rumpy" when in fact they did no such thing.

But there's your "will of the state". Thank you for agreeing with what we critics of the EC have been saying all along.

Dear Pogo:
Thanks for calculating proportional votes for TX.
Has this been calculated for the top EV states:
TX CA NY FL PA IL OH

I asked this before in an earlier thread.
If just the top 5-7 states split their Electoral
Votes PROPORTIONALLY among the
candidates by popular vote,
would Trump still win by a large margin
over 270 or would they be closer to a tie?

Rank State Electoral Votes
1. California 53
3. Texas 36
2. New York 27
4. Florida 27
5. Pennsylvania 18
6. Illinois 18
7. Ohio 16
8. Michigan 14
9. Georgia 14
9. North Carolina 13
9. New Jersey 12

 

[Pogo]

No they signed a pledge to vote the will of the State. And I find it absolutely appalling that this elector has the arrogance to break his pledge.

He's a lying piece of garbage. Like Kasich. The person he is voting for.

And to think that electors can and should go against the will of the people is outrageous. Faithless to be sure.

Actually the "will of the state" --- in this case Texas --- was, to be exact:

3,877,868 Clinton (43.2%)

4,685,047 Rump (52.2%)

406,311 Others (4.5%)

Texas has a total of 38 EVs. If they were apportioned per the "will of the state" the Electrical Vote would be:

Rump 20 EVs (rounded off)
Clinton 16 EVs
others 2 EVs

Seems to me "faithless" would more aptly describe a body that goes to Congress and says, "everybody in Texas done voted for the Orange Rumpy" when in fact they did no such thing.

But there's your "will of the state". Thank you for agreeing with what we critics of the EC have been saying all along.

Dear Pogo:
Thanks for calculating proportional votes for TX.
Has this been calculated for the top EV states:
TX CA NY FL PA IL OH

I asked this before in an earlier thread.
If just the top 5-7 states split their Electoral
Votes PROPORTIONALLY among the
candidates by popular vote,
would Trump still win by a large margin
over 270 or would they be closer to a tie?

Rank State Electoral Votes
1. California 53
3. Texas 36
2. New York 27
4. Florida 27
5. Pennsylvania 18
6. Illinois 18
7. Ohio 16
8. Michigan 14
9. Georgia 14
9. North Carolina 13
9. New Jersey 12

Actually another poster in another thread took the trouble to work it out for all 57 states. I should have saved it somewhere but I didn't. Anyway he worked it all out and it came to an exact tie -- 269 to 269.

Which if nothing else tells us that a candy who comes up over two percentage points behind in the popular vote still gets a bump from the EC even when it's done proportionally. That's basically because where Clinton won she won big, and where Rump won he just barely edged it.

Now what the House would have done with that tie score where both contestants have high negatives, we can only guess. But they would not be limited to those two.

By the way the Carolina total is incorrect. We have 15. And they seem to think every last person in this state voted for a giant Cheeto with mold growing out of its head.


PS matter of fact without looking it up I think several of those totals are off. Possibly by two each.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's all 36+ or nothing for the dems.

And the title/topic of this thread is......................................................................................?

Electors in Texas not voting for trump.

Thank you. So you're wrong.

If the goal is not to prevent Trump from getting the presidency, then what is the fucking point?

The Electoral College and how it works is in the news, because this is that period when it's always in the news -- between what we laughingly call "Election Day" and the day the election actually happens. Obviously within that buzz there are untold numbers of wags who really don't know how it works. Hence any news that challenges that information gap ---- is news. And here we are.

Let's get real -- the whole reason this is news is because of the dem effort to harass Republican electors into denying Trump the presidency he fairly won.

Actually I just recounted the reason this is news but do go ahead and show the class where in the OP that is.

Don't try to block any criticism of that assinine, undemocratic and long-shot strategy by trying to limit discussion to one elector from Texas, who, outside of such a campaign, is completely irrelevant.

It's the thread topic here, Sparky. Read much?

Trump is going to win th electoral college. several imbeciles paid off by Correct the Record is not going to change that. When the electoral college chooses Trump, we're all going to sit here and have a laugh.

Understood -- you can't defend your attempt to hijack this thread.

Kinda figured.

Dear Pogo and Johann:
I believe in free speech and right to petition for equal representation and due process.
All these posts appear to be related to the topic.
And especially on any threads I start, I am open to any ideas or thoughts people want to share.

The only thing I find that "derails" threads is attacking people personally (especially attacking
groups that are blamed on people sought out for punishment, judgment and rejection)
instead of sticking to the content and related issues or ideas.

On my threads, any content that people bring up is part of THEIR process of addressing the conflicts, so that's fair game.
I don't mind people criticizing other comments, which is part of the process too, but attacking people PERSONALLY gets off topic.

Trying to cut people out or down, with bullying by coercion, exclusion, dominance or manipulation
tends to be detracting and derailing, where it is "mean" spirited with "ill will" towards a group but directed at a person.

If you are offering information, insights, or reactions you believe are important enough to SHARE,
that's welcome on my threads. [Venting is also part of free speech and airing out grievances,
it's okay to express strong anger, emotion or other response, but not to tear "someone else down" as a target.]

I just ask that we all respect the same when others add and share what they think is important.

Thanks for doing that, and respecting the same process for others.

These problems we are addressing are bigger than all of us combined,
so of course it's overwhelming, and any discussion is going to open up a Pandora's Box!
Let's keep trying our best, to get the most we can out of the issues and ideas we are sharing.

Thanks again, and no problem at all.
Please keep up the great work and open exchange.
We need this discussion and so does the rest of the country.

 

[emilynghiem]

No they signed a pledge to vote the will of the State. And I find it absolutely appalling that this elector has the arrogance to break his pledge.

He's a lying piece of garbage. Like Kasich. The person he is voting for.

And to think that electors can and should go against the will of the people is outrageous. Faithless to be sure.

Actually the "will of the state" --- in this case Texas --- was, to be exact:

3,877,868 Clinton (43.2%)

4,685,047 Rump (52.2%)

406,311 Others (4.5%)

Texas has a total of 38 EVs. If they were apportioned per the "will of the state" the Electrical Vote would be:

Rump 20 EVs (rounded off)
Clinton 16 EVs
others 2 EVs

Seems to me "faithless" would more aptly describe a body that goes to Congress and says, "everybody in Texas done voted for the Orange Rumpy" when in fact they did no such thing.

But there's your "will of the state". Thank you for agreeing with what we critics of the EC have been saying all along.

Dear Pogo:
Thanks for calculating proportional votes for TX.
Has this been calculated for the top EV states:
TX CA NY FL PA IL OH

I asked this before in an earlier thread.
If just the top 5-7 states split their Electoral
Votes PROPORTIONALLY among the
candidates by popular vote,
would Trump still win by a large margin
over 270 or would they be closer to a tie?

Rank State Electoral Votes
1. California 53
3. Texas 36
2. New York 27
4. Florida 27
5. Pennsylvania 18
6. Illinois 18
7. Ohio 16
8. Michigan 14
9. Georgia 14
9. North Carolina 13
9. New Jersey 12

Actually another poster in another thread took the trouble to work it out for all 57 states. I should have saved it somewhere but I didn't. Anyway he worked it all out and it came to an exact tie -- 269 to 269.

Which if nothing else tells us that a candy who comes up over two percentage points behind in the popular vote still gets a bump from the EC even when it's done proportionally. That's basically because where Clinton won she won big, and where Rump won he just barely edged it.

Now what the House would have done with that tie score where both contestants have high negatives, we can only guess. But they would not be limited to those two.

By the way the Carolina total is incorrect. We have 15. And they seem to think every last person in this state voted for a giant Cheeto with mold growing out of its head.


PS matter of fact without looking it up I think several of those totals are off. Possibly by two each.

Here Pogo I found this:
============
Who would have won the presidency if all states' electors were allocated proportionally?


Brandon Bonds:

I calculated the vote allocation using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method
(based on results as of November 9, 2016) applied to each individual state:

• Clinton 263
• Trump 262
• Johnson 10
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote, and the remainder allocated via Webster/Sainte-Laguë:

• Trump 269
• Clinton 259
• Johnson 7
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

For comparison, here I applied Webster/Sainte-Laguë to the entire United States population without splitting them based on state:

• Clinton 256
• Trump 255
• Johnson 17
• Stein 1
• McMullin 1
• Other 8 (these were not separated in the data source)

Joël:

"Okay, I have made some excel computations. Giving each candidates a number of delegates proportional to its share of the vote in the state, without rounding (I know, if we're talking of living human delegates, it will be very cruel and unusual to sends 2.34 delegates to Washington, but abstractly why not?), I get 256 delegates for Clinton, 252 for Trump, the rest for small party candidates.

My interpretation: a result quite close to the national popular vote. So the non-proportionality of the number of delegates doesn't seem to be, in this election at least, biased toward any of the candidates. (Sure, voters of Wyoming are over-represented, but so are voters of Vermont.) What advantaged Trump seems to be the majority-take-all system with the way his electors were shared among states, with a short majority in many of the major swing states (nothing new or surprising, in other words).

You can find my excel file here"
=================================================

 

[Pogo]

No they signed a pledge to vote the will of the State. And I find it absolutely appalling that this elector has the arrogance to break his pledge.

He's a lying piece of garbage. Like Kasich. The person he is voting for.

And to think that electors can and should go against the will of the people is outrageous. Faithless to be sure.

Actually the "will of the state" --- in this case Texas --- was, to be exact:

3,877,868 Clinton (43.2%)

4,685,047 Rump (52.2%)

406,311 Others (4.5%)

Texas has a total of 38 EVs. If they were apportioned per the "will of the state" the Electrical Vote would be:

Rump 20 EVs (rounded off)
Clinton 16 EVs
others 2 EVs

Seems to me "faithless" would more aptly describe a body that goes to Congress and says, "everybody in Texas done voted for the Orange Rumpy" when in fact they did no such thing.

But there's your "will of the state". Thank you for agreeing with what we critics of the EC have been saying all along.

Dear Pogo:
Thanks for calculating proportional votes for TX.
Has this been calculated for the top EV states:
TX CA NY FL PA IL OH

I asked this before in an earlier thread.
If just the top 5-7 states split their Electoral
Votes PROPORTIONALLY among the
candidates by popular vote,
would Trump still win by a large margin
over 270 or would they be closer to a tie?

Rank State Electoral Votes
1. California 53
3. Texas 36
2. New York 27
4. Florida 27
5. Pennsylvania 18
6. Illinois 18
7. Ohio 16
8. Michigan 14
9. Georgia 14
9. North Carolina 13
9. New Jersey 12

Actually another poster in another thread took the trouble to work it out for all 57 states. I should have saved it somewhere but I didn't. Anyway he worked it all out and it came to an exact tie -- 269 to 269.

Which if nothing else tells us that a candy who comes up over two percentage points behind in the popular vote still gets a bump from the EC even when it's done proportionally. That's basically because where Clinton won she won big, and where Rump won he just barely edged it.

Now what the House would have done with that tie score where both contestants have high negatives, we can only guess. But they would not be limited to those two.

By the way the Carolina total is incorrect. We have 15. And they seem to think every last person in this state voted for a giant Cheeto with mold growing out of its head.


PS matter of fact without looking it up I think several of those totals are off. Possibly by two each.

Here Pogo I found this:
============
Who would have won the presidency if all states' electors were allocated proportionally?


Brandon Bonds:

I calculated the vote allocation using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method
(based on results as of November 9, 2016) applied to each individual state:

• Clinton 263
• Trump 262
• Johnson 10
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote, and the remainder allocated via Webster/Sainte-Laguë:

• Trump 269
• Clinton 259
• Johnson 7
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

For comparison, here I applied Webster/Sainte-Laguë to the entire United States population without splitting them based on state:

• Clinton 256
• Trump 255
• Johnson 17
• Stein 1
• McMullin 1
• Other 8 (these were not separated in the data source)

Joël:

"Okay, I have made some excel computations. Giving each candidates a number of delegates proportional to its share of the vote in the state, without rounding (I know, if we're talking of living human delegates, it will be very cruel and unusual to sends 2.34 delegates to Washington, but abstractly why not?), I get 256 delegates for Clinton, 252 for Trump, the rest for small party candidates.

My interpretation: a result quite close to the national popular vote. So the non-proportionality of the number of delegates doesn't seem to be, in this election at least, biased toward any of the candidates. (Sure, voters of Wyoming are over-represented, but so are voters of Vermont.) What advantaged Trump seems to be the majority-take-all system with the way his electors were shared among states, with a short majority in many of the major swing states (nothing new or surprising, in other words).

You can find my excel file here"
=================================================

Interesting. The only things I would add would be that taking the numbers of November 9 would be way too early, as millions of votes were not counted yet. I actually went looking for something like this earlier in November and found one site that did it for 2012 but they too noted the current one couldn't be done until all the votes were counted. And in that one Romney won.

To be exact I think sure they should count 0.719 of a vote or whatever, and just let those fractions add up until you get totals. After all we were willing to count black people as three-fifths of a person when the EC was set up, so there's a precedent. It would sound like this: an elector would go, "well I'm of two minds on this. Part of me wants to go with ....Rump but I'm leaning to Clinton -- if I had to put a number on it I'd say .38469 Rump, .61531 Clinton"

Also interesting that in all three of these models --- NOBODY wins. Which seems to indicate the electorate voted for "None of the Above" after all.

 

[Pogo]

No they signed a pledge to vote the will of the State. And I find it absolutely appalling that this elector has the arrogance to break his pledge.

He's a lying piece of garbage. Like Kasich. The person he is voting for.

And to think that electors can and should go against the will of the people is outrageous. Faithless to be sure.

Actually the "will of the state" --- in this case Texas --- was, to be exact:

3,877,868 Clinton (43.2%)

4,685,047 Rump (52.2%)

406,311 Others (4.5%)

Texas has a total of 38 EVs. If they were apportioned per the "will of the state" the Electrical Vote would be:

Rump 20 EVs (rounded off)
Clinton 16 EVs
others 2 EVs

Seems to me "faithless" would more aptly describe a body that goes to Congress and says, "everybody in Texas done voted for the Orange Rumpy" when in fact they did no such thing.

But there's your "will of the state". Thank you for agreeing with what we critics of the EC have been saying all along.

Dear Pogo:
Thanks for calculating proportional votes for TX.
Has this been calculated for the top EV states:
TX CA NY FL PA IL OH

I asked this before in an earlier thread.
If just the top 5-7 states split their Electoral
Votes PROPORTIONALLY among the
candidates by popular vote,
would Trump still win by a large margin
over 270 or would they be closer to a tie?

Rank State Electoral Votes
1. California 53
3. Texas 36
2. New York 27
4. Florida 27
5. Pennsylvania 18
6. Illinois 18
7. Ohio 16
8. Michigan 14
9. Georgia 14
9. North Carolina 13
9. New Jersey 12

Actually another poster in another thread took the trouble to work it out for all 57 states. I should have saved it somewhere but I didn't. Anyway he worked it all out and it came to an exact tie -- 269 to 269.

Which if nothing else tells us that a candy who comes up over two percentage points behind in the popular vote still gets a bump from the EC even when it's done proportionally. That's basically because where Clinton won she won big, and where Rump won he just barely edged it.

Now what the House would have done with that tie score where both contestants have high negatives, we can only guess. But they would not be limited to those two.

By the way the Carolina total is incorrect. We have 15. And they seem to think every last person in this state voted for a giant Cheeto with mold growing out of its head.


PS matter of fact without looking it up I think several of those totals are off. Possibly by two each.

Here Pogo I found this:
============
Who would have won the presidency if all states' electors were allocated proportionally?


Brandon Bonds:

I calculated the vote allocation using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method
(based on results as of November 9, 2016) applied to each individual state:

• Clinton 263
• Trump 262
• Johnson 10
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote, and the remainder allocated via Webster/Sainte-Laguë:

• Trump 269
• Clinton 259
• Johnson 7
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

For comparison, here I applied Webster/Sainte-Laguë to the entire United States population without splitting them based on state:

• Clinton 256
• Trump 255
• Johnson 17
• Stein 1
• McMullin 1
• Other 8 (these were not separated in the data source)

Joël:

"Okay, I have made some excel computations. Giving each candidates a number of delegates proportional to its share of the vote in the state, without rounding (I know, if we're talking of living human delegates, it will be very cruel and unusual to sends 2.34 delegates to Washington, but abstractly why not?), I get 256 delegates for Clinton, 252 for Trump, the rest for small party candidates.

My interpretation: a result quite close to the national popular vote. So the non-proportionality of the number of delegates doesn't seem to be, in this election at least, biased toward any of the candidates. (Sure, voters of Wyoming are over-represented, but so are voters of Vermont.) What advantaged Trump seems to be the majority-take-all system with the way his electors were shared among states, with a short majority in many of the major swing states (nothing new or surprising, in other words).

You can find my excel file here"
=================================================

Another thing this exercise demonstrates is how the Electoral College as it's currently used, shuts out third (and fourth, and fifth) parties and perpetuates the entrenched Duopoly. Every one of these models finds votes for Johnson, Stein or McMullin. In a race that tight with no automatic winner that would be especially meaningful.

Of course if we actually did run it this way the incoming vote totals would be totally different, since we'd have many more voters in a turnout more on par with the rest of the world since now people could feel their vote actually counted for something. Tens of millions more votes. Heady stuff.

 

[koshergrl]

In breaking news Chris Suprun of Dallas was found hanging from a Mesquite tree with a sign reading "traitor" on it. Police ruled the death obvious suicide.

that's what most electors that do not want to cast their vote for Trump, ARE AFRAID OF.......ending up dead....

Death is traditionally meted out to traitors.

 

[emilynghiem]

No they signed a pledge to vote the will of the State. And I find it absolutely appalling that this elector has the arrogance to break his pledge.

He's a lying piece of garbage. Like Kasich. The person he is voting for.

And to think that electors can and should go against the will of the people is outrageous. Faithless to be sure.

Actually the "will of the state" --- in this case Texas --- was, to be exact:

3,877,868 Clinton (43.2%)

4,685,047 Rump (52.2%)

406,311 Others (4.5%)

Texas has a total of 38 EVs. If they were apportioned per the "will of the state" the Electrical Vote would be:

Rump 20 EVs (rounded off)
Clinton 16 EVs
others 2 EVs

Seems to me "faithless" would more aptly describe a body that goes to Congress and says, "everybody in Texas done voted for the Orange Rumpy" when in fact they did no such thing.

But there's your "will of the state". Thank you for agreeing with what we critics of the EC have been saying all along.

Dear Pogo:
Thanks for calculating proportional votes for TX.
Has this been calculated for the top EV states:
TX CA NY FL PA IL OH

I asked this before in an earlier thread.
If just the top 5-7 states split their Electoral
Votes PROPORTIONALLY among the
candidates by popular vote,
would Trump still win by a large margin
over 270 or would they be closer to a tie?

Rank State Electoral Votes
1. California 53
3. Texas 36
2. New York 27
4. Florida 27
5. Pennsylvania 18
6. Illinois 18
7. Ohio 16
8. Michigan 14
9. Georgia 14
9. North Carolina 13
9. New Jersey 12

Actually another poster in another thread took the trouble to work it out for all 57 states. I should have saved it somewhere but I didn't. Anyway he worked it all out and it came to an exact tie -- 269 to 269.

Which if nothing else tells us that a candy who comes up over two percentage points behind in the popular vote still gets a bump from the EC even when it's done proportionally. That's basically because where Clinton won she won big, and where Rump won he just barely edged it.

Now what the House would have done with that tie score where both contestants have high negatives, we can only guess. But they would not be limited to those two.

By the way the Carolina total is incorrect. We have 15. And they seem to think every last person in this state voted for a giant Cheeto with mold growing out of its head.


PS matter of fact without looking it up I think several of those totals are off. Possibly by two each.

Here Pogo I found this:
============
Who would have won the presidency if all states' electors were allocated proportionally?


Brandon Bonds:

I calculated the vote allocation using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method
(based on results as of November 9, 2016) applied to each individual state:

• Clinton 263
• Trump 262
• Johnson 10
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote, and the remainder allocated via Webster/Sainte-Laguë:

• Trump 269
• Clinton 259
• Johnson 7
• Stein 2
• McMullin 1

For comparison, here I applied Webster/Sainte-Laguë to the entire United States population without splitting them based on state:

• Clinton 256
• Trump 255
• Johnson 17
• Stein 1
• McMullin 1
• Other 8 (these were not separated in the data source)

Joël:

"Okay, I have made some excel computations. Giving each candidates a number of delegates proportional to its share of the vote in the state, without rounding (I know, if we're talking of living human delegates, it will be very cruel and unusual to sends 2.34 delegates to Washington, but abstractly why not?), I get 256 delegates for Clinton, 252 for Trump, the rest for small party candidates.

My interpretation: a result quite close to the national popular vote. So the non-proportionality of the number of delegates doesn't seem to be, in this election at least, biased toward any of the candidates. (Sure, voters of Wyoming are over-represented, but so are voters of Vermont.) What advantaged Trump seems to be the majority-take-all system with the way his electors were shared among states, with a short majority in many of the major swing states (nothing new or surprising, in other words).

You can find my excel file here"
=================================================

Another thing this exercise demonstrates is how the Electoral College as it's currently used, shuts out third (and fourth, and fifth) parties and perpetuates the entrenched Duopoly. Every one of these models finds votes for Johnson, Stein or McMullin. In a race that tight with no automatic winner that would be especially meaningful.

Of course if we actually did run it this way the incoming vote totals would be totally different, since we'd have many more voters in a turnout more on par with the rest of the world since now people could feel their vote actually counted for something. Tens of millions more votes. Heady stuff.

Dear Pogo What Third Parties do is play a different role in influencing policy.
This puts pressure on the other parties not to lose votes by ignoring those interests.

So they can still petition and compel other parties to push for change, if they want to keep
their side of the fence united, and not lose to the other side that is better able to unite their third party factions.

Also, perhaps it's an advantage that Third Parties have to rely on developing their own solutions
since they can't depend on govt or getting their leadership elected into positions that way.
The Greens and Libertarians end up creating their own model reforms and solutions
because they don't have millions to waste on campaigning to get and keep offices as their main focus.
This has KILLED the Democrats who have bled their constituents dry directing all resources to elections
and media campaigns lobbying, instead of getting anything done IRL.