What are you talking about? Do you think they're making up fake voters now to give her the popular vote? I don't really care who has the popular vote either way and wouldn't question if it was being rigged.
What am I talking about? Americans just finished a ridiculously long election process and President-elect Trump won. Now you guys say not really. Which is it?
What are you talking about? Do you think they're making up fake voters now to give her the popular vote? I don't really care who has the popular vote either way and wouldn't question if it was being rigged.
What am I talking about? Americans just finished a ridiculously long election process and President-elect Trump won. Now you guys say not really. Which is it?
I never said not really. I was responding to your comment about "phantom" votes like the popular vote totals aren't accurate. I never questioned who has been elected by the electoral college.
What are you talking about? Do you think they're making up fake voters now to give her the popular vote? I don't really care who has the popular vote either way and wouldn't question if it was being rigged.
What am I talking about? Americans just finished a ridiculously long election process and President-elect Trump won. Now you guys say not really. Which is it?
I never said not really. I was responding to your comment about "phantom" votes like the popular vote totals aren't accurate. I never questioned who has been elected by the electoral college.
What are you talking about? Do you think they're making up fake voters now to give her the popular vote? I don't really care who has the popular vote either way and wouldn't question if it was being rigged.
What am I talking about? Americans just finished a ridiculously long election process and President-elect Trump won. Now you guys say not really. Which is it?
I never said not really. I was responding to your comment about "phantom" votes like the popular vote totals aren't accurate. I never questioned who has been elected by the electoral college.
What are you talking about? Do you think they're making up fake voters now to give her the popular vote? I don't really care who has the popular vote either way and wouldn't question if it was being rigged.
What am I talking about? Americans just finished a ridiculously long election process and President-elect Trump won. Now you guys say not really. Which is it?
I never said not really. I was responding to your comment about "phantom" votes like the popular vote totals aren't accurate. I never questioned who has been elected by the electoral college.
And I never said that 2+1 = 4 to some.
Alright, great discussion. Have a nice night!
I questioned the electoral vote. The phantom votes are as accurate as the popular ones. I never said they are making up fake voters I merely said that these phantom voters never came out to vote for her.
Well as of this moment 400,000 more people put their x in the box for Clinton and that number is likely to increase to about a million by the time California is done being counted. And Trump is likely to have received less votes than Romney or McCain so his victory in the EC is not due to a groundswell of support but rather a suppressed Clinton vote (She will receive about 4mil less total votes than Obama). There are a lot of potential reasons for a suppressed vote (part of which could be from a media and poll projected victory) but I won't dive into that here and try to keep the discussion to the EC.
Truth is I'm torn on the EC. This will be the second time in the past 20 yrs that the president will be elected by a minority of the population and that just seems wrong. However, the founders designed the EC because they were afraid that the people weren't informed enough to make such an important decision. So they put in the EC as a safeguard in case the populous went and voted for President Kardashian, or President Ted Nugent. I think that's an important thing to have in place especially as we enter move through the digital age where it's so much easier to spread misinformation.
i think it might be a bigger deal if it allowed for a winner with a much wider margin of the vote. it is so close, i don't see how anyone can really cry foul.
How is President Kardashian or Nugent different than Trump? Celebrities with no political experience and no grasp of basic policy or global affairs? What, exactly, did the electoral college protect us against here?
This should be an election by popular vote. Every other office in the country is, and pretty much every other western democracy does the same.
Just a quick example (quoting math from a news talk show): Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and 300k+ people. California has 55 and 39 million people. If CA had equivalent electoral votes to WY based on population, it would have 199 electoral votes.
So, the electoral college did not protect us from a wholly unqualified candidate, nor does it fairly represent the population as a whole.
I am not crying foul for Trump winning. These are our rules, and he won. However, in a more sane system (because states have wildly differing populations), we would not be discussing how Clinton failed or Trump pulled off a miracle (or has a mandate, as idiotically stated by Paul Ryan), because more people in this country chose her.
The argument that a certain group of states would always control the election in a popular vote doesn't hold water. Say, for example, the final margin in a vote is 200K votes. That's fewer people than Wyoming has, and it overwhelmingly votes one way. The electoral college already forces candidates to focus on "swing states", and guess the extra few that might come into play. In a popular vote, they need to campaign everywhere, because they can't take a state for granted. A small state of 500K people could make a huge difference.
i think it might be a bigger deal if it allowed for a winner with a much wider margin of the vote. it is so close, i don't see how anyone can really cry foul.
I agree. She won the popular vote but it wasn't like she won by 10%. The popular vote was basically a tie and people are acting like she got this mandate by winning the popular vote by .1% of the nation.
How is President Kardashian or Nugent different than Trump? Celebrities with no political experience and no grasp of basic policy or global affairs? What, exactly, did the electoral college protect us against here?
This should be an election by popular vote. Every other office in the country is, and pretty much every other western democracy does the same.
Just a quick example (quoting math from a news talk show): Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and 300k+ people. California has 55 and 39 million people. If CA had equivalent electoral votes to WY based on population, it would have 199 electoral votes.
So, the electoral college did not protect us from a wholly unqualified candidate, nor does it fairly represent the population as a whole.
I am not crying foul for Trump winning. These are our rules, and he won. However, in a more sane system (because states have wildly differing populations), we would not be discussing how Clinton failed or Trump pulled off a miracle (or has a mandate, as idiotically stated by Paul Ryan), because more people in this country chose her.
The argument that a certain group of states would always control the election in a popular vote doesn't hold water. Say, for example, the final margin in a vote is 200K votes. That's fewer people than Wyoming has, and it overwhelmingly votes one way. The electoral college already forces candidates to focus on "swing states", and guess the extra few that might come into play. In a popular vote, they need to campaign everywhere, because they can't take a state for granted. A small state of 500K people could make a huge difference.
My problem with the electoral college is the winner take all policy. I wish more state would be like Maine and Nebraska and proportionally split their electoral votes. If I'm a republican voter in California or a democratic voter in Texas my vote means nothing.
My problem with the electoral college is the winner take all policy. I wish more state would be like Maine and Nebraska and proportionally split their electoral votes. If I'm a republican voter in California or a democratic voter in Texas my vote means nothing.
This. It's not easy to have to hold your nose every.single. time you vote, but I do. It literally took me about 20 seconds to vote Tuesday because other than a few races, all were 'R' with no opposition.
the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote
I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go
did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???
1) It basically suggests that all people from a state are the same or conversely, that people from one state are different that people from other states. Hardly a concept befitting "United" States.
2) The "winner-take-all" allocation of electoral votes is dumb. Let's use Pennsylvania for the sake of exercise. PA has 20 electoral votes and had about 6 million voters this year. If candidate A wins PA 5,000,000 to 1,000,000, he/she gets 20 electoral votes. Is that fair to candidate A? Now what if candidate A wins PA 3,000,001 to 2,999,999, he/she also gets 20 electoral votes. Is that fair to candidate B?
3) Above, mcgruff10 noted "If I'm a republican voter in California or a democratic voter in Texas my vote means nothing." He's half-right. Really, if you're ANY voter in CA or TX, your vote means nothing. If you're a democrat in CA, your vote isn't really contributing to the possibility of a Clinton victory. Trump was already declared the winner when there were still millions of votes from CA to count.
4) But it's not like CA and TX are the only states like this, there are several. Leading the election to come down to only a few sections of people in the country. Again, hardly a concept befitting "United States." I joked during the 2004 election, that came down to Ohio, that "I can't believe the leader of the world is going to be decided by people that willingly cheer for the Cleveland Browns." I was joking. But really, the vote of a "college-educated white person from Detroit" or a "a middle-aged African-American woman from the Philly suburbs" shouldn't have any more importance than a "vote from a person in the United States."
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote
I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go
did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???
currently california has 55 electoral college votes ... that currently ALL go towards the democrat in the election ... that's 55 out of 538 or just over 10% ...
there are about 18 million registered voters in california ... 146 million in the US ... so, if ALL californians voted democrat - that would be 12% ... but we know that 62% of californians voted democrat ... so, if there was some format that considered popular vote or proportional representation - californian democrats would only be able to influence 8% of the national vote ... at least now the 32% who voted republican in california would get a say ... instead of 100% of the electoral college votes going for the democrat ...
the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote
I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go
did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???
currently california has 55 electoral college votes ... that currently ALL go towards the democrat in the election ... that's 55 out of 538 or just over 10% ...
there are about 18 million registered voters in california ... 146 million in the US ... so, if ALL californians voted democrat - that would be 12% ... but we know that 62% of californians voted democrat ... so, if there was some format that considered popular vote or proportional representation - californian democrats would only be able to influence 8% of the national vote ... at least now the 32% who voted republican in california would get a say ... instead of 100% of the electoral college votes going for the democrat ...
how does that not make any sense...what i explained was exactly why the electoral college was set up
a state like California can sway an election due to the population size...the EC was set up so that the same few states wouldn't determine an election and its worked no matter how hard people try to tell us that FL, OH, and PA are the swing states?
for example: people said that Florida was the reason why Bush won against Gore but thats not true...if Bush didn't flip West Virginia then the conversation of Florida never would have happened
the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote
I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go
did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???
currently california has 55 electoral college votes ... that currently ALL go towards the democrat in the election ... that's 55 out of 538 or just over 10% ...
there are about 18 million registered voters in california ... 146 million in the US ... so, if ALL californians voted democrat - that would be 12% ... but we know that 62% of californians voted democrat ... so, if there was some format that considered popular vote or proportional representation - californian democrats would only be able to influence 8% of the national vote ... at least now the 32% who voted republican in california would get a say ... instead of 100% of the electoral college votes going for the democrat ...
how does that not make any sense...what i explained was exactly why the electoral college was set up
a state like California can sway an election due to the population size...the EC was set up so that the same few states wouldn't determine an election and its worked no matter how hard people try to tell us that FL, OH, and PA are the swing states?
for example: people said that Florida was the reason why Bush won against Gore but thats not true...if Bush didn't flip West Virginia then the conversation of Florida never would have happened
How is President Kardashian or Nugent different than Trump? Celebrities with no political experience and no grasp of basic policy or global affairs? What, exactly, did the electoral college protect us against here?
This should be an election by popular vote. Every other office in the country is, and pretty much every other western democracy does the same.
Just a quick example (quoting math from a news talk show): Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and 300k+ people. California has 55 and 39 million people. If CA had equivalent electoral votes to WY based on population, it would have 199 electoral votes.
So, the electoral college did not protect us from a wholly unqualified candidate, nor does it fairly represent the population as a whole.
I am not crying foul for Trump winning. These are our rules, and he won. However, in a more sane system (because states have wildly differing populations), we would not be discussing how Clinton failed or Trump pulled off a miracle (or has a mandate, as idiotically stated by Paul Ryan), because more people in this country chose her.
The argument that a certain group of states would always control the election in a popular vote doesn't hold water. Say, for example, the final margin in a vote is 200K votes. That's fewer people than Wyoming has, and it overwhelmingly votes one way. The electoral college already forces candidates to focus on "swing states", and guess the extra few that might come into play. In a popular vote, they need to campaign everywhere, because they can't take a state for granted. A small state of 500K people could make a huge difference.
I think President Trump is as bad as President Kardashian or President Nugent. The Electoral College has not voted yet. As mentioned by another poster the Electors vote Dec 19th. This is where they have the ability to say "No America, you voted for a know nothing child. The adults are going to take over now." I would argue that this is the exact scenario the EC was put in place for, but I highly doubt it will happen.
The the number of electorates are determined by the number of representatives each state has. So each state gets at least 2 (1 for each Senator) and then + however many reps they have in the House. # of reps are determined by population and can increase or decrease over time, but because each state gets 2 Senators there will be variances in the ratio of EC votes to population.
I think it is terrible that a Minority party will get to push forth its agenda for the next 4 years and affect the Supreme Court for a generation. That Clinton who is currently ahead by 400k in popular vote would have won the EC if she got 30k more in WI, 12k more in MI and 70k more in PA. So basically 112k votes are the difference between a well qualified thoughtful president and a know nothing racist, sexist, fascist bafoon.
the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote
I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go
did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???
currently california has 55 electoral college votes ... that currently ALL go towards the democrat in the election ... that's 55 out of 538 or just over 10% ...
there are about 18 million registered voters in california ... 146 million in the US ... so, if ALL californians voted democrat - that would be 12% ... but we know that 62% of californians voted democrat ... so, if there was some format that considered popular vote or proportional representation - californian democrats would only be able to influence 8% of the national vote ... at least now the 32% who voted republican in california would get a say ... instead of 100% of the electoral college votes going for the democrat ...
how does that not make any sense...what i explained was exactly why the electoral college was set up
a state like California can sway an election due to the population size...the EC was set up so that the same few states wouldn't determine an election and its worked no matter how hard people try to tell us that FL, OH, and PA are the swing states?
for example: people said that Florida was the reason why Bush won against Gore but thats not true...if Bush didn't flip West Virginia then the conversation of Florida never would have happened
pjalive, I'm curious what would you say to a deviation from Winner Takes All per-state to the congressional district method used by Maine and Nebraska to factor the popular vote distribution into the EC vote distribution? It sounds like what you're saying is that the design of the Electoral College is necessary because it applies a floor (one seat minimum per state) and a ceiling (equal proportion apportionment to attempt to mandate a ratio of population to EC seats). Mandating the congressional district method would permit the best of both worlds.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I just read that only 56.8% of eligible america voters went to the polls this year. The real question is, how do we get more people to participate in voting? Another interesting number: in 14 states more people voted for the senate races than presidency. Wtf?!
the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote
I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go
did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???
currently california has 55 electoral college votes ... that currently ALL go towards the democrat in the election ... that's 55 out of 538 or just over 10% ...
there are about 18 million registered voters in california ... 146 million in the US ... so, if ALL californians voted democrat - that would be 12% ... but we know that 62% of californians voted democrat ... so, if there was some format that considered popular vote or proportional representation - californian democrats would only be able to influence 8% of the national vote ... at least now the 32% who voted republican in california would get a say ... instead of 100% of the electoral college votes going for the democrat ...
how does that not make any sense...what i explained was exactly why the electoral college was set up
a state like California can sway an election due to the population size...the EC was set up so that the same few states wouldn't determine an election and its worked no matter how hard people try to tell us that FL, OH, and PA are the swing states?
for example: people said that Florida was the reason why Bush won against Gore but thats not true...if Bush didn't flip West Virginia then the conversation of Florida never would have happened
pjalive, I'm curious what would you say to a deviation from Winner Takes All per-state to the congressional district method used by Maine and Nebraska to factor the popular vote distribution into the EC vote distribution? It sounds like what you're saying is that the design of the Electoral College is necessary because it applies a floor (one seat minimum per state) and a ceiling (equal proportion apportionment to attempt to mandate a ratio of population to EC seats). Mandating the congressional district method would permit the best of both worlds.
the points brought up about California for example are legitimate points to bring up...if you are republican in California im sure you do feel like you dont have a voice, but on the bright side can rest assure that the state as a whole is limited due to the EC
i would like to read up more and get educated on the congressional district method and see how that would have impacted the past few elections
Congressional district method has the same results on a smaller scale. My county is 85% red so why bother with a blue vote? It should be proportional to the percentage of the vote. That makes it almost a straight popular vote, but not quite.
Congressional district method would open itself to the extreme gerrymandering that already takes place at the state level. This would be bad as whichever party is in charge would look to constantly redraw the districts to their advantage.
the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote
I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go
did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???
currently california has 55 electoral college votes ... that currently ALL go towards the democrat in the election ... that's 55 out of 538 or just over 10% ...
there are about 18 million registered voters in california ... 146 million in the US ... so, if ALL californians voted democrat - that would be 12% ... but we know that 62% of californians voted democrat ... so, if there was some format that considered popular vote or proportional representation - californian democrats would only be able to influence 8% of the national vote ... at least now the 32% who voted republican in california would get a say ... instead of 100% of the electoral college votes going for the democrat ...
how does that not make any sense...what i explained was exactly why the electoral college was set up
a state like California can sway an election due to the population size...the EC was set up so that the same few states wouldn't determine an election and its worked no matter how hard people try to tell us that FL, OH, and PA are the swing states?
for example: people said that Florida was the reason why Bush won against Gore but thats not true...if Bush didn't flip West Virginia then the conversation of Florida never would have happened
dude ... i just proved to you mathematically that your theory holds no water ...
I just read that only 56.8% of eligible america voters went to the polls this year. The real question is, how do we get more people to participate in voting? Another interesting number: in 14 states more people voted for the senate races than presidency. Wtf?!
Why are you surprised? The two most unpopular candidates in US history brings out low turnout.
Congressional district method has the same results on a smaller scale. My county is 85% red so why bother with a blue vote? It should be proportional to the percentage of the vote. That makes it almost a straight popular vote, but not quite.
You're completely right - and that's my fault for quick foggy-headed reading on Congressional District and not understanding it properly. What I was looking for was proportional vote allocations: California is 60% Democrat, 40% Republican, with a total of 50 seats? Democrats get 30 seats, Republicans get 20.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I just read that only 56.8% of eligible america voters went to the polls this year. The real question is, how do we get more people to participate in voting? Another interesting number: in 14 states more people voted for the senate races than presidency. Wtf?!
I am not sure at all that we actually want higher participation. Uneducated voters coming out in droves for a figure like Trump year after year? Scary thought.
I just read that only 56.8% of eligible america voters went to the polls this year. The real question is, how do we get more people to participate in voting? Another interesting number: in 14 states more people voted for the senate races than presidency. Wtf?!
I am not sure at all that we actually want higher participation. Uneducated voters coming out in droves for a figure like Trump year after year? Scary thought.
Founders actually feared this as well. Were afraid the people might not be informed enough to make such an important decision.
Comments
Americans just finished a ridiculously long election process and President-elect Trump won.
Now you guys say not really.
Which is it?
The phantom votes are as accurate as the popular ones.
I never said they are making up fake voters I merely said that these phantom voters never came out to vote for her.
Truth is I'm torn on the EC. This will be the second time in the past 20 yrs that the president will be elected by a minority of the population and that just seems wrong. However, the founders designed the EC because they were afraid that the people weren't informed enough to make such an important decision. So they put in the EC as a safeguard in case the populous went and voted for President Kardashian, or President Ted Nugent. I think that's an important thing to have in place especially as we enter move through the digital age where it's so much easier to spread misinformation.
www.headstonesband.com
This should be an election by popular vote. Every other office in the country is, and pretty much every other western democracy does the same.
Just a quick example (quoting math from a news talk show): Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and 300k+ people. California has 55 and 39 million people. If CA had equivalent electoral votes to WY based on population, it would have 199 electoral votes.
So, the electoral college did not protect us from a wholly unqualified candidate, nor does it fairly represent the population as a whole.
I am not crying foul for Trump winning. These are our rules, and he won. However, in a more sane system (because states have wildly differing populations), we would not be discussing how Clinton failed or Trump pulled off a miracle (or has a mandate, as idiotically stated by Paul Ryan), because more people in this country chose her.
The argument that a certain group of states would always control the election in a popular vote doesn't hold water. Say, for example, the final margin in a vote is 200K votes. That's fewer people than Wyoming has, and it overwhelmingly votes one way. The electoral college already forces candidates to focus on "swing states", and guess the extra few that might come into play. In a popular vote, they need to campaign everywhere, because they can't take a state for granted. A small state of 500K people could make a huge difference.
Trump 306
the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote
I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go
did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???
1) It basically suggests that all people from a state are the same or conversely, that people from one state are different that people from other states. Hardly a concept befitting "United" States.
2) The "winner-take-all" allocation of electoral votes is dumb. Let's use Pennsylvania for the sake of exercise. PA has 20 electoral votes and had about 6 million voters this year. If candidate A wins PA 5,000,000 to 1,000,000, he/she gets 20 electoral votes. Is that fair to candidate A? Now what if candidate A wins PA 3,000,001 to 2,999,999, he/she also gets 20 electoral votes. Is that fair to candidate B?
3) Above, mcgruff10 noted "If I'm a republican voter in California or a democratic voter in Texas my vote means nothing." He's half-right. Really, if you're ANY voter in CA or TX, your vote means nothing. If you're a democrat in CA, your vote isn't really contributing to the possibility of a Clinton victory. Trump was already declared the winner when there were still millions of votes from CA to count.
4) But it's not like CA and TX are the only states like this, there are several. Leading the election to come down to only a few sections of people in the country. Again, hardly a concept befitting "United States." I joked during the 2004 election, that came down to Ohio, that "I can't believe the leader of the world is going to be decided by people that willingly cheer for the Cleveland Browns." I was joking. But really, the vote of a "college-educated white person from Detroit" or a "a middle-aged African-American woman from the Philly suburbs" shouldn't have any more importance than a "vote from a person in the United States."
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
currently california has 55 electoral college votes ... that currently ALL go towards the democrat in the election ... that's 55 out of 538 or just over 10% ...
there are about 18 million registered voters in california ... 146 million in the US ... so, if ALL californians voted democrat - that would be 12% ... but we know that 62% of californians voted democrat ... so, if there was some format that considered popular vote or proportional representation - californian democrats would only be able to influence 8% of the national vote ... at least now the 32% who voted republican in california would get a say ... instead of 100% of the electoral college votes going for the democrat ...
a state like California can sway an election due to the population size...the EC was set up so that the same few states wouldn't determine an election and its worked no matter how hard people try to tell us that FL, OH, and PA are the swing states?
for example: people said that Florida was the reason why Bush won against Gore but thats not true...if Bush didn't flip West Virginia then the conversation of Florida never would have happened
The the number of electorates are determined by the number of representatives each state has. So each state gets at least 2 (1 for each Senator) and then + however many reps they have in the House. # of reps are determined by population and can increase or decrease over time, but because each state gets 2 Senators there will be variances in the ratio of EC votes to population.
I think it is terrible that a Minority party will get to push forth its agenda for the next 4 years and affect the Supreme Court for a generation. That Clinton who is currently ahead by 400k in popular vote would have won the EC if she got 30k more in WI, 12k more in MI and 70k more in PA. So basically 112k votes are the difference between a well qualified thoughtful president and a know nothing racist, sexist, fascist bafoon.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Another interesting number: in 14 states more people voted for the senate races than presidency. Wtf?!
i would like to read up more and get educated on the congressional district method and see how that would have impacted the past few elections
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Uneducated voters coming out in droves for a figure like Trump year after year? Scary thought.