Revisiting That Dirty Popular Vote Thing Again

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, he cares.

I'm sure he's thinking about it as he signs executive orders that dismantle The Obama's legacy.

Don't put your back out moving those goal posts.

Truth hurts, eh?

He's sure having a difficult time of it. Anyway, Trump trying to erase Obama's legacy says more about how insecure Trump is than anything else. Just can't stand being less liked.

What else do ya' got, right?

 

[candycorn]

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Nobody would campaign outside of large population centers if we had straight PV determination of the President Elect. Also consider if in 20 years or so we get a popular citizen who decides to run and gets 25% of the vote—Dwayne Johnson, George Clooney or Rush Limbo are capable of doing so.

So the eventual victor will likely be someone who got 40%. We could have that now of course but it is more likely under the PV.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sure he's thinking about it as he signs executive orders that dismantle The Obama's legacy.

Don't put your back out moving those goal posts.

Truth hurts, eh?

He's sure having a difficult time of it. Anyway, Trump trying to erase Obama's legacy says more about how insecure Trump is than anything else. Just can't stand being less liked.

What else do ya' got, right?

Well, I have you, and you keep me laughing, so...

 

[beautress]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

The Dummies stirred up an angry hornets net? Well, around here hornets start stinging, and people start shooting them. It seems to be a winless situation.

 

[candycorn]

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Some Republicans routinely favor getting rid of the EC when they lose


Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Correct... some. Notice I caught it before you deleted it.

Question for you, is what they're doing, or talking about doing, wrong?

I think so. I skimmed the source but from what I recall, it was about proportional awarding of electors based on congressional districts. A terrible idea given that federal courts are routinely ordering redraws.

OK, you think it's wrong for reason you said. Now, do you think it's wrong to give all state's EV to winner of national PV? If you think that is fair, that proportional EV split would be even more fair, because it would represent will of voters from both sides, reciprocally.

I do agree it's wrong, but for different reason. We already have election process that works for the interests of all states, regardless of how big or small they are. Reason they're doing it is to counter what left is doing in states where they have full control.

Yes. States can allocate however they want. I don’t see the “rightness” of MI awarding its electoral votes based on how other states voted. When this came up last year, I said the same thing.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about in Paragraph 2

 

[Slade3200]

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

"Many feel?"

LOL

That feeling is somehow always related to losing the elections: "we lost, we have to do something".

The electoral college protects the interests of smaller states, so their vote counts too. What's wrong with that?

OK, let me ask you this: should non citizens be counted by census towards state representation in Congress?

How does It protect the smaller states? Can you give an example?

I think it makes sense for residents to be represented and I think the citizenship issue needs to be addressed and fixed by congress

 

[Slade3200]

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Let me ask again: Do you think it would be fair if two cities (not states) have more power than 12 entire states?

For example?

 

[Slade3200]

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Nobody would campaign outside of large population centers if we had straight PV determination of the President Elect. Also consider if in 20 years or so we get a popular citizen who decides to run and gets 25% of the vote—Dwayne Johnson, George Clooney or Rush Limbo are capable of doing so.

So the eventual victor will likely be someone who got 40%. We could have that now of course but it is more likely under the PV.

Sure they would why would it change where they campaign?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Let me ask again: Do you think it would be fair if two cities (not states) have more power than 12 entire states?

For example?

The population of LA and NYC have more people in those two cities alone than the lowest populated 12 states. Should those two cities have more power to elect a President than those 12 states?

 

[Slade3200]

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Let me ask again: Do you think it would be fair if two cities (not states) have more power than 12 entire states?

For example?

The population of LA and NYC have more people in those two cities alone than the lowest populated 12 states. Should those two cities have more power to elect a President than those 12 states?

They have even more power with the EC system...
How many more electoral votes do CA and NY have compared to the 12 states you’re comparing them to?

run the numbers...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Let me ask again: Do you think it would be fair if two cities (not states) have more power than 12 entire states?

For example?

The population of LA and NYC have more people in those two cities alone than the lowest populated 12 states. Should those two cities have more power to elect a President than those 12 states?

They have even more power with the EC system...
How many more electoral votes do CA and NY have compared to the 12 states you’re comparing them to?

The EC brings it a little closer to equal. They will always have more power because of more electors. But currently, a President has to be concerned about the states that have less. In a PV, who would care?

 

[Slade3200]

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Let me ask again: Do you think it would be fair if two cities (not states) have more power than 12 entire states?

For example?

The population of LA and NYC have more people in those two cities alone than the lowest populated 12 states. Should those two cities have more power to elect a President than those 12 states?

They have even more power with the EC system...
How many more electoral votes do CA and NY have compared to the 12 states you’re comparing them to?

The EC brings it a little closer to equal. They will always have more power because of more electors. But currently, a President has to be concerned about the states that have less. In a PV, who would care?

Have you actually ran the numbers Ray?

would it surprise you to learn that. California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue is over 10% of the electorate, while if you were to divide up the popular vote Blue would get approx 7% and Red 3%... that’s a 6 point swing.

Also rough numbers... I did the math a while back and am now going off top of my head. But run the numbers yourself and let me know your thoughts.

 

[beautress]

The SCOTUS can't change the electoral college. That requires changing the constitution and that's not the SCOTUS's job.

You know, how we have a lot of congresscritters who are hating on the Constutition? Why don't we trade them to the Communist country they want to turn the USA into, and all the unhappy communists there who want freedom and a chance to escape poverty, and make an even exchange with them? That way, Siberia can go back to nature, and Russia can give us our islands back that Obama exchanged for who knows what, except, well, he graduated his presidency with $10 million dollars not in a numbered account that we know of when he started out with around $200,000. Didn't I hear that he sold a Senate Chair in Illinois to someone for a 100% profit in another life?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let me ask again: Do you think it would be fair if two cities (not states) have more power than 12 entire states?

For example?

The population of LA and NYC have more people in those two cities alone than the lowest populated 12 states. Should those two cities have more power to elect a President than those 12 states?

They have even more power with the EC system...
How many more electoral votes do CA and NY have compared to the 12 states you’re comparing them to?

The EC brings it a little closer to equal. They will always have more power because of more electors. But currently, a President has to be concerned about the states that have less. In a PV, who would care?

Have you actually ran the numbers Ray?

would it surprise you to learn that. California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue is over 10% of the electorate, while if you were to divide up the popular vote Blue would get approx 7% and Red 3%... that’s a 6 point swing.

Also rough numbers... I did the math a while back and am now going off top of my head. But run the numbers yourself and let me know your thoughts.

I compared cities to states, not states to states.

 

[toobfreak]

Let me ask again: Do you think it would be fair if two cities (not states) have more power than 12 entire states?

For example?

The population of LA and NYC have more people in those two cities alone than the lowest populated 12 states. Should those two cities have more power to elect a President than those 12 states?

They have even more power with the EC system...
How many more electoral votes do CA and NY have compared to the 12 states you’re comparing them to?

The EC brings it a little closer to equal. They will always have more power because of more electors. But currently, a President has to be concerned about the states that have less. In a PV, who would care?

California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue

Curious claim considering that before 1992, California was actually often a RED state! Or at least went both ways actually responding to the actual people running rather than purely on blind ideology.

 

[Slade3200]

For example?

The population of LA and NYC have more people in those two cities alone than the lowest populated 12 states. Should those two cities have more power to elect a President than those 12 states?

They have even more power with the EC system...
How many more electoral votes do CA and NY have compared to the 12 states you’re comparing them to?

The EC brings it a little closer to equal. They will always have more power because of more electors. But currently, a President has to be concerned about the states that have less. In a PV, who would care?

Have you actually ran the numbers Ray?

would it surprise you to learn that. California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue is over 10% of the electorate, while if you were to divide up the popular vote Blue would get approx 7% and Red 3%... that’s a 6 point swing.

Also rough numbers... I did the math a while back and am now going off top of my head. But run the numbers yourself and let me know your thoughts.

I compared cities to states, not states to states.

those cities have even more pull within their states in deciding which way the state goes and the results are both CA and NY go blue and give the Dems their EC votes. So run those numbers and compare to the popular vote numbers of those 12 states you were comparing to. It’s simple division. Let me know what you find and if you can still make an argument that LA and NYC or CA and NY gain power for the Dems with a popular vote situation

 

[Slade3200]

For example?

The population of LA and NYC have more people in those two cities alone than the lowest populated 12 states. Should those two cities have more power to elect a President than those 12 states?

They have even more power with the EC system...
How many more electoral votes do CA and NY have compared to the 12 states you’re comparing them to?

The EC brings it a little closer to equal. They will always have more power because of more electors. But currently, a President has to be concerned about the states that have less. In a PV, who would care?

California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue

Curious claim considering that before 1992, California was actually often a RED state! Or at least went both ways actually responding to the actual people running rather than purely on blind ideology.


View attachment 310284

I’m not talking about pre 1992 I’m talking about modern times

 

[candycorn]

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Nobody would campaign outside of large population centers if we had straight PV determination of the President Elect. Also consider if in 20 years or so we get a popular citizen who decides to run and gets 25% of the vote—Dwayne Johnson, George Clooney or Rush Limbo are capable of doing so.

So the eventual victor will likely be someone who got 40%. We could have that now of course but it is more likely under the PV.

Sure they would why would it change where they campaign?

Are you serious? Picking up 25% in a metropolitan area will get you more votes than getting 25% in some states. No reason to go to Iowa.

 

[HappyJoy]

Don't put your back out moving those goal posts.

Truth hurts, eh?

He's sure having a difficult time of it. Anyway, Trump trying to erase Obama's legacy says more about how insecure Trump is than anything else. Just can't stand being less liked.

What else do ya' got, right?

Well, I have you, and you keep me laughing, so...

How do you have me He lost the popular vote and every indication is that he cares very much about it. No matter how much you switch and bounce around on the subject that is still where we are at.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Truth hurts, eh?

He's sure having a difficult time of it. Anyway, Trump trying to erase Obama's legacy says more about how insecure Trump is than anything else. Just can't stand being less liked.

What else do ya' got, right?

Well, I have you, and you keep me laughing, so...

How do you have me

Um...
You say funny things, and I laugh at them - thus, when you ask what else I have -- I have you.
You people are cats to Trump's laser pointer. Keep up the good work.