Posts: 11,051
Threads: 753
Joined: Sep 2012
In the 2016 presidential election Clinton received 62% of the popular vote, but 100% of the Electoral College delegate vote from our state.
In California, Clinton also received 62% of the popular vote, and 100% of the Electoral College vote.
For a large state such as California, doesn’t that give the winning candidate disproportionate influence over the election far beyond the vote count?
In the case of a small state such as Hawaii, if hypothetically the popular vote was too close to call, wouldn’t the candidates be out here until the last moment, stumping for every single vote if the election decided by popular vote? Wouldn’t news organizations wait until Hawaii polls closed to announce the election results, because our individual votes actually mattered?
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 1,674
Threads: 81
Joined: Aug 2014
In the case of a small state such as Hawaii, if hypothetically the popular vote was too close to call, wouldn’t the candidates be out here until the last moment, stumping for every single vote if the election decided by popular vote? Wouldn’t news organizations wait until Hawaii polls closed to announce the election results, because our individual votes actually mattered?
Exactly! I couldn't have worded it in that articulate manner but it is part of precisely what I was thinking.
Well Leilanidude?
Dear EW,
im not sure why u seeking this answer here, other rhan its fun to get opinions from PW.
That said, i think you could just type in importance of the electoral college and get the real answer. I know u know this .. but just wanted to add ..
we want canoes, alaska wants snowmobile, Midwest wants new tractor, just because higher number votes for surfboard, does not mean its best for Midwest.
let them sort that out local kine.
If the vote was for real pizza and a normal taco shop, wake me up.
Posts: 7,743
Threads: 686
Joined: Jun 2011
"there will still be a mix of votes amongst such states"
When has there ever been a "mix of votes" in Hawaii? California? New York?
Hawaii is not a populous state, I threw that in there because I think we can all agree there is only one political party and voting block in Hawaii. But the majority of the USA population lives in states that vote the same way and in the same manner as Hawaii. But the people living in the majority of states do not. This is exactly what the founding fathers were afraid of, and the reason why they came up with this system. They didn't want 1 state out of 13, or 5 among 50, determining the president for the majority of states.
The electoral college was developed specifically to give the populations in EVERY state equal representation regardless of their population density. Because one-party rule sounded to them a lot like the monarchies and oppression they fled from.
Our country is not, and has never been a "democracy". Our founding fathers feared the mob rule of democracy almost more than anything else. This country is a federal republic. Each state elects leaders who they entrust to represent them. The President, likewise, is supposed to be a representative of every state, or as close as possible as we can get. Not just the states with the most people in them.
The electoral college system isn't perfect, and could probably be improved, but the idea of the "popular" vote is only "popular" if you are in one of the few states that contain the majority "populous". So what do the other 45 states do, secede? How much are you willing to pay for their grain? Their energy?
eta: grammar, last paragraph
Posts: 14,121
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Our country is not, and has never been a "democracy".
True. The bigger problem is government overreach because "some people" can't think for themselves and want "someone else" to deal with "all the problems".
we want canoes, alaska wants snowmobile, Midwest wants new tractor
Perfect example of something that should not be managed at the Federal level.
One size does not fit all.
Posts: 7,743
Threads: 686
Joined: Jun 2011
Here's one interesting article. Clinton's popular vote win was only relevent in 1 state. It just happened to be the state with the most people in it. If you want to get rid of the electoral college system, just let California decide who every president is going to be, because that is what you would effectively be doing. Let me guess, Pelosi, Feinstein, other CA reps pushing this?
https://www.investors.com/politics/comme...alifornia/
Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
_________________
Trump: +10
Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
_________________
Trump: + 68
Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
_________________
Trump: + 2.5 points
Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
_________________
Clinton: + 2.8 million
Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
_________________
Trump: + 1.4 million
Posts: 11,051
Threads: 753
Joined: Sep 2012
The electoral college was developed specifically to give the populations in EVERY state equal representation regardless of their population density.
Isn’t the number of electoral college votes mostly based on a state’s population? It’s certainly not equal representation for each state.
Also, the founding fathers weren’t particularly concerned with giving people in every state equal representation, only white male landowners could vote. No women, no blacks, no Native Americans who it might be noted were the actual landowners. The Electoral College was a safety check on voters who might elect someone the Electoral College representatives didn’t want as president.
Trying to claim Trump would have lost due to one state, California, ignores Hawaii and the 20 total states that voted for Clinton. That California explanation is certainly inventive, I’ll give you that.
“The President just said wind energy causes cancer and please young people save us from this nightmare...” - Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz, 4/2/19
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 14,121
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
The electoral college was developed specifically to give the populations in EVERY state equal representation
Then the electoral college system should only be used to decide issues that are equally important to all states.
Posts: 1,674
Threads: 81
Joined: Aug 2014
When has there ever been a "mix of votes" in Hawaii? California? New York?
Are you saying there are no Republicans in Hawaii? There are. Not lots. I think the fewest in percentages for all the states but they are there. Then there are states that are heavily republican. So what? Tally them all up and decide!!
Popular vote is the only fair way and takes some of the corruption out of our government. Not lots. Some.
This stat here you posted rang loudest. Not the one in bold.
Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
_________________
Clinton: + 2.8 million
Posts: 7,743
Threads: 686
Joined: Jun 2011
"This stat here you posted rang loudest. Not the one in bold.
Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318"
The way our government is framed, the only way to truly get to a popular vote would be to abolish all the states and start over with some other form of government. One can argue it could be accomplished via amending the constitution, however that will never happen. The "smelly Walmart people" that live in the majority of the states that voted against the prior losing candidate would never ratify such an amendment, and it takes 3/4 of them to agree.
"Popular vote is the only fair way and takes some of the corruption out of our government."
I'm assuming you have some way to back such a claim up?
|
