Hillary Clinton: What happened

benjs

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Kat said:

I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves. 

True- the Electoral College.  Time to dump that  one.  Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide.  Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us. 

I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).

this way has always made sense to me. winner take all is stupid to me. but the electoral college, as I've stated many times before, was never a problem for anyone until Trump won by it. I find it quite amazing the job that was done setting it up way back then, and it hasn't really been a question until now. 

One thing to note, is that if proportional allocation had occurred per State in 2016 as I suggested above, I've calculated what the outcome would've been:

Clinton - 256
Trump - 250
Johnson - 18
Stein - 6
Others - 1

For a total of 538 members of the Electoral College. 

The challenge here is that the 12th Amendment stipulates then that if less than half of the Electoral College votes for the the number one choice, this moves over to Congress, where they must decide on one vote per State, and the three highest vote recipients are the only eligible candidates (meaning Clinton, Trump, Johnson). 

I would assume that in the circumstance where over 50% of a population's vote went to one of the candidates remaining, Congress would likely place their vote for that candidate. In that situation, Clinton would have had 14 congressional votes, and Trump would have had 22.

The States remaining would have been Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin. If four of these States had cast their votes for Trump, he'd have won. If three had, then the winning Vice President (also picked by the Electoral College) would sit as President. 

Next challenge - the 12th Amendment majority requirement exists for the Vice Presidency as well. If the Electoral College majority voted for Pence - he would become President. If the Electoral College produced a tie for Vice President (likely, since it's typical for the Electoral College to cast votes for VP from the same party as the President they are casting votes for), the Senate then picks the Vice President. 

The Senate would likely toe party lines, and lo and behold - the Republican majority Senate would probably produce President Mike Pence. 

And so, with proportional representation in 2016 within the Electoral College - it's likely that Trump's greatest competition for President wouldn't have been Clinton at all - it would've been Pence. 

HughFreakingDillon

You lost me Benjs. the VP candidate would win the presidency? WTF?

JC29856

HughFreakingDillon said:b

You lost me Benjs. the VP candidate would win the presidency? WTF?

FYI: Benjs teaches typing class

brianlux

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:b

You lost me Benjs. the VP candidate would win the presidency? WTF?

FYI: Benjs teaches typing class

That's because CRTs went OTL especially with PHCs in the WP and HO making ABC so quick and easy on the QT.

josevolution

http://amp.usatoday.com/story/639587001/

Bentleyspop

brianlux said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:b

You lost me Benjs. the VP candidate would win the presidency? WTF?

FYI: Benjs teaches typing class

That's because CRTs went OTL especially with PHCs in the WP and HO making ABC so quick and easy on the QT.

That's FUBAR

brianlux

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:b

You lost me Benjs. the VP candidate would win the presidency? WTF?

FYI: Benjs teaches typing class

That's because CRTs went OTL especially with PHCs in the WP and HO making ABC so quick and easy on the QT.

That's FUBAR

You got it, dude!

MayDay10

HughFreakingDillon said

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Kat said:

I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves. 

True- the Electoral College.  Time to dump that  one.  Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide.  Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us. 

I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).

this way has always made sense to me. winner take all is stupid to me. but the electoral college, as I've stated many times before, was never a problem for anyone until Trump won by it. I find it quite amazing the job that was done setting it up way back then, and it hasn't really been a question until now. 

It was a problem in 2000 too... and 2004 where campaigning was only done in like 2 states

HughFreakingDillon

MayDay10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Kat said:

I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves. 

True- the Electoral College.  Time to dump that  one.  Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide.  Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us. 

I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).

this way has always made sense to me. winner take all is stupid to me. but the electoral college, as I've stated many times before, was never a problem for anyone until Trump won by it. I find it quite amazing the job that was done setting it up way back then, and it hasn't really been a question until now. 

It was a problem in 2000 too... and 2004 where campaigning was only done in like 2 states

I don't recall it being a problem with the EC in 2000, in that I don't remember anyone saying the EC needed to be scrapped because of that outcome. that was vote counting, plain and simple, from what I recall. 

benjs

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:b

You lost me Benjs. the VP candidate would win the presidency? WTF?

FYI: Benjs teaches typing class

If only... There are numerous within our business that need that. Plus, I learned from the best (Mavis Beacon).

HesCalledDyer

I've been an electoral college opponent since before I could even vote.

CM189191

HesCalledDyer said:

I've been an electoral college opponent since before I could even vote.

These guys keep showing up at brewery festivals around here http://www.fairvotemn.org

FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
 
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.  
 
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.

Halifax2TheMax

CM189191 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

I've been an electoral college opponent since before I could even vote.

These guys keep showing up at brewery festivals around here http://www.fairvotemn.org

FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
 
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.  
 
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.

Sounds like a George Soros plot.

HesCalledDyer

CM189191 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

I've been an electoral college opponent since before I could even vote.

These guys keep showing up at brewery festivals around here http://www.fairvotemn.org

FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
 
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.  
 
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.

At quick glance, I don't think I like that idea.  It's like making a college football poll.

MayDay10

HughFreakingDillon said:

MayDay10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Kat said:

I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves. 

True- the Electoral College.  Time to dump that  one.  Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide.  Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us. 

I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).

this way has always made sense to me. winner take all is stupid to me. but the electoral college, as I've stated many times before, was never a problem for anyone until Trump won by it. I find it quite amazing the job that was done setting it up way back then, and it hasn't really been a question until now. 

It was a problem in 2000 too... and 2004 where campaigning was only done in like 2 states

I don't recall it being a problem with the EC in 2000, in that I don't remember anyone saying the EC needed to be scrapped because of that outcome. that was vote counting, plain and simple, from what I recall. 

A lot of Americans felt disenfranchised through those 2 elections because it basically fell on Ohio and Florida.  You also had another popular vote loss with an EC winner.  I think at that time, we weren't so divided and lulled into a sense of security based on the economic prosperity and relative peace-time we experienced under Clinton.  There was also limited internet, social media, and the saturating news-cycle didn't yet fire up.  2004 it again was focused on few states.  If John Kerry convinced 66,000 more people in Cincinnati, Ohio to vote for him, he would have won, despite losing by 3,000,000 votes.   At least, in present day, there seem to be more states in play.  Still, 2/3 - 3/4 of the country is in 'fly-over' states in the presidential election.

There was a movement recently to get State governors to agree to assign their state's electoral votes to the popular vote winner.  I believe they had some states on board with this and were lobbying in 40 different states.  This was in like 2012, not sure what happened to that. 

Not only do you have large sections of the country who 'dont matter' in the election.... the weighting of the votes is off.  

In New York, we have 29 Electoral Votes for 19,745,000 people.  That is 1 vote per 680,862 people.

Wyoming has 3 Electoral Votes for 585,500 people, That is 1 vote per 195,167 people.

Go Beavers

HesCalledDyer said:

CM189191 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

I've been an electoral college opponent since before I could even vote.

These guys keep showing up at brewery festivals around here http://www.fairvotemn.org

FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
 
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.  
 
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.

At quick glance, I don't think I like that idea.  It's like making a college football poll.

Then Alabama would rule the country. NooOoOoooo!

HesCalledDyer

Go Beavers said:

HesCalledDyer said:

CM189191 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

I've been an electoral college opponent since before I could even vote.

These guys keep showing up at brewery festivals around here http://www.fairvotemn.org

FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
 
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.  
 
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.

At quick glance, I don't think I like that idea.  It's like making a college football poll.

Then Alabama would rule the country. NooOoOoooo!

The south would rise again, for sure.

dmaradona10

@ 4:30 Trump Creeping on Hillary. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVMW_1aZXRk

cincybearcat

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Kat said:

I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves. 

True- the Electoral College.  Time to dump that  one.  Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide.  Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us. 

I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).

I think it's a very interesting issue.  If you just go popular vote, the edges of a very large country is all that matters.  If you go electoral the way it is, people in a few states matter much more than they should.  

I honestly do not know the answer.  But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in.  Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system.  Weak sauce.

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Kat said:

I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves. 

True- the Electoral College.  Time to dump that  one.  Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide.  Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us. 

I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).

I think it's a very interesting issue.  If you just go popular vote, the edges of a very large country is all that matters.  If you go electoral the way it is, people in a few states matter much more than they should.  

I honestly do not know the answer.  But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in.  Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system.  Weak sauce.

agree 100%.