Trump now ahead in the Popular Vote

[Revoltingest]

It does more than that. If divided the electoral votes up strictly by population a state like California would get 65 votes, not 55. New York would also get more electoral votes than it does right now (did the math once, to lazy to do it again right now, but if you doubt me do the math yourself). This means that if you live in a low population state your vote actually counts more than someone who lives in a high population state.

(I am making no comment on whether this is a good or a bad thing, but this is the way your system is)

Sounds about right to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. But as a representative of the entire country, the president should be picked by the entire country.

I like it when you make my point for me!

Hey, I am here to please.
(I'm just usually really bad at it.)

 

[fantome profane]

No, I am valuing the ideals of the human beings that live in these geographical areas.
I and the others that voted President Elect Trump do not agree with the others.

I am even arguing that you are wrong to value geography over population. I am just pointing out that is what you are doing. One candidate has more people, and one has more territory. I get that.

Tough it up, we had to live through 8 years of your ideals.

You ain't gotta clue what my ideals are, and I assure you, you have never lived through them.

 

[YmirGF]

I am even arguing that you are wrong to value geography over population. I am just pointing out that is what you are doing. One candidate has more people, and one has more territory. I get that.

"What difference at this point does it make?”



Totally unrelated...
I wonder if Trump will drop his moniker, realDonaldTrump, and go by the new name, #FearlessTweeter

 

[fantome profane]

"What difference at this point does it make?”

I am staying neutral on the issue of the U.S. electoral system. But I understand the issue, as I am sure you do, of trying to balance democratic input from high population areas and low population areas. Trying to respect the value of one person one vote, but also trying to respect different regional voices. It is difficult, if not impossible.

If my memory serves you are from the Canadian west. You get this.

 

[YmirGF]

I am staying neutral on the issue of the U.S. electoral system. But I understand the issue, as I am sure you do, of trying to balance democratic input from high population areas and low population areas. Trying to respect the value of one person one vote, but also trying to respect different regional voices. It is difficult, if not impossible.

If my memory serves you are from the Canadian west. You get this.

Rural Canadian far west... only a rock and a big ocean between me and Japan

 

[esmith]

The following is in reference to post #77

You are making a choice to value geographical area over human beings.

No, I am valuing the ideals of the human beings that live in these geographical areas.
I and the others that voted President Elect Trump do not agree with the others. Tough it up, we had to live through 8 years of your ideals.

I am even arguing that you are wrong to value geography over population. I am just pointing out that is what you are doing. One candidate has more people, and one has more territory. I get that.

'
No what I am saying is that for the past 8 years we have had to accept the idea of those shown in the map in post #77. We did not like it but we accepted it but complained about it. I just don't ascribe to the liberal/progressive ideas of the Obama administration. We now have a President Elect who seems to understand what we want and we have the Congress and Senate. We also took control of a number of State legislatures. So it's our turn, because the Hillary was too stupid to see that just because you own the liberal/progressive vote does not mean you can win the election.

You ain't gotta clue what my ideals are, and I assure you, you have never lived through them.

My comment "Tough it up, we had to live through 8 years of your ideals" the your was referencing those that put the Obama in office.

 

[Underhill]

You mean largest in terms of population. Cause America's largest state (Alaska) has 1 less electoral vote than America's smallest state (Rhode Island). There's not even a close 2nd to how big Alaska is in terms of size, compared to any other U.S. state.

So you think land should get a vote?

 

[esmith]

No what I think is I like the results of this election.
President Elect Trump played by the rules and won. I'm sure that if he had won the popular vote and lost the Electoral vote his supporters would not be happy. At least they wouldn't be acting like the children are now.

 

[Acim]

So you think land should get a vote?

I'm glad what I said (in post #76) followed from what you wrote (in post #75).

 

[Underhill]

No what I think is I like the results of this election.
President Elect Trump played by the rules and won. I'm sure that if he had won the popular vote and lost the Electoral vote his supporters would not be happy. At least they wouldn't be acting like the children are now.

That is all well and good. Some of us just think the rules should change for future elections.

 

[SkepticThinker]

On what planet??

 

[idav]

No what I think is I like the results of this election.
President Elect Trump played by the rules and won. I'm sure that if he had won the popular vote and lost the Electoral vote his supporters would not be happy. At least they wouldn't be acting like the children are now.

No way this has been the most underhanded election in history.

 

[esmith]

No way this has been the most underhanded election in history.

Why do you say that?
Is it because of Article 2 of the Constitution which has been amended twice by the 12th and 23rd Amendments? In other words the Electoral College.
Or is there something else that you have perceived as underhanded?

As far as the Electoral College issue, there are many who say it is the "fairest" means of electing a president. All you have to do is search for why and you will get many different articles. But the one that seems to say it best is from: Defending the EC
The statement from the article says: and I quote

The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president

.
Another Source says it this way: and I quote

If the United States does away with the Electoral College, future presidential elections will go to candidates and parties willing to cater to urban voters and skew the nation’s policies toward big-city interests. Small-town issues and rural values will no longer be their concern.
Cities already are the homes of America’s major media, donor, academic and government centers. A simple, direct democracy will centralize all power — government, business, money, media and votes — in urban areas to the detriment of the rest of the nation.

Or picking from another Source

Vermont's population is only 621,000, while California has over 36 million. Mathematically, California is 57 times larger than Vermont. However, it is only 18 times more powerful in the Electoral College. It is designed to make sure that Vermont and all the other smaller states have political influence.
Because of the Electoral College, a presidential candidate must garner a minimum of 270 votes in order to win. It takes a minimum of 11 states to win the White House, thanks to the Electoral College. If it were pure popular vote, the voice of most of the states would not be heard. In fact, without the Electoral College several cities would only have a voice. In 2008, for example, 138 million voted for President. In fact, urban areas would be the only ones that would matter to presidential candidates.

So as person living in a state that is considered a "rural" state I think my vote counts whereas without the EC a candidate would not have to worry about what I think they would only focus their attention on regions containing a large population say like NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, or any other metropolitan area. And I do not think that the majority of the voters in those areas agree with my values or opinions, as was seen in this election.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

If the Electoral College is such a good idea, how come no other country has copied it? It's possible to have a federal system that represents minority areas without giving them the enormous power they have in the College and the Senate: look at the German Bundesrat.