It would have been different. That doesn't mean we know who would have won. Maybe Hillary wins by millions. Maybe Trump does. We don't know. That's my point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Popular Vote is Irrelevant
- Thread starter Watchmen
- Start date
It would have been different. That doesn't mean we know who would have won. Maybe Hillary wins by millions. Maybe Trump does. We don't know. That's my point.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Only about 6 or 7 states are ever swing states so we are looking at about 80% of states that would benifit from better representation. But the real question is if political powers that be want to change it.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
That is true and I would never deny it.
I read protested instead of protected.
Sure makes a world of difference what one letter does.
True fat!
So what measure do you suggest to use instead of the popular vote to see how well the electoral rules are working?
Or maybe step back a bit: what goal do you think the rules around presidential elections should be set up to achieve?
You do realize the popular vote is an accurate count of people who voted in the United States. If it is not we need to do the election over again. Our system is set up so that the popular vote does not decide the election. I have no problem with this. That does not mean that just because Trump won the election that all those that voted against him now suddenly support him. The election numbers which decided the electoral votes also gave us the popular vote. This is significant even though it did not decide the election.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The change in power depends on the level of popularity of a candidate. The thing that matters isn't the raw number of voters in each state; it's the difference between the popular vote in a state and its current "plurality" threshold for winning, so the question of whether a state would increase or decrease in power varies from election to election and candidate to candidate.
And it could be that partisanship will end up driving any change. If a party in power thinks it can hold onto that power better with a popular vote system but feels like there's a looming threat with the electoral college, then I could see partisans being willing to give up power of their state to create an advantage for their party.
It would take some pretty interesting star alignment to make that happen... for instance, maybe statehood for Puerto Rico: if another 9-ish electoral votes are about to enter the mix, that might be the kick needed for both parties to reflect on how best to hold onto power after the change. Or maybe a large population swing in an existing state.
Sigh.
I think a state's electoral votes should be divided up by district rather than winner take all. I think that will get us to a closer representation of what the people want.
I can go for this.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
I don't understand. What does the plurality threshold for winning mean?
But what's your measure of "what the people want" that you're trying to get closer to?
It means the candidate with the most votes wins.
Example: consider two different states in a winner-take-all setup:
State 1:
- Party A: 2,000,045 votes (40%)
- Party B: 2,000,000 votes (40%)
- Party C: 999,955 votes (20%)
State 2:
- Party A: 3,000,000 votes (60%)
- Party B: 2,000,000 votes (40%)
- Party C: 0 votes (0%)
In both cases, Party A wins. In both cases, Party A needed 2,000,001 votes to get a plurality - anything beyond that isn't reflected in the results.
Assuming the two states are the same size, there's no difference in the electoral college representation the two states will get, despite the fact that in State 1, Party A just got in by the skin of their teeth and in State 2, Party A won by a landslide.
Just considering the votes on the winning side, in State 1, 44 votes didn't matter. In State 2, 999,999 votes didn't matter.
Do you think there might be scenarios where the winning party would want to change the system so that those 999,999 votes did matter?
Then gerrymandering would rule.
Why not just make it proportional?
JakofHearts
2 Tim 1.7
Yeah, they are called "counties" and Trump won 2,626, Hillary reportedly got 487. Trump also won over 30 states which sounds pretty popular to me.
There are 62 counties in New York State, and Trump won 46 of them, Clinton won 16 according to Snopes - a heavily liberal site. Other sources vary slightly but there is no doubt that Trump won by a considerable amount against HIllary.
Source: See a Map That Shows Exactly Why Trump Won
Liberals just want to whine because Trump won.
Why are you treating counties with very different populations as equal?Yeah, they are called "counties" and Trump won 2,626, Hillary reportedly got 487. Trump also won over 30 states which sounds pretty popular to me.
There are 62 counties in New York State, and Trump won 46 of them, Clinton won 16 according to Snopes - a heavily liberal site. Other sources vary slightly but there is no doubt that Trump won by a considerable amount against HIllary.
Source: See a Map That Shows Exactly Why Trump Won
Liberals just want to whine because Trump won.
JakofHearts
2 Tim 1.7
States are divided up into "counties" mainly for administrative, political and for legal significance. I do not treat counties as equal due to number of people, but by historical relevance.
These counties also contain subdivisions we know as "towns", which are relevant not because of population, but because they are historically significant by how the electoral college provides them a equal voice relatively comparable to a large town.