(01-28-2020 09:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why should Californian votes matter less than, say, Nebraskan votes?

They don't.

Uh, yes, they do.

California = 37.3 million residents and 55 votes = 1.47 electoral college votes per million residents

Nebraska = 1.8 million residents and 5 votes = 2.78 electoral college votes per million residents

(01-28-2020 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This debate highlights one of the downfalls of the EC, that a pretty sizable margin of votes can essentially be wiped out. But like most things, pros and cons exist.

Well, of the 2.9 million plurality margin in the 2016 presidential election, 4.9 million of it came from 2 states (CA 3.4 million and New York 1.5 million). So Trump won the popular vote plurality in the other 48 states plus DC by 2 million votes.

That is not a downfall, but rather the purpose of the EC, to ensure that one or two states don't drown out the rest.

A better, less biased way to evaluate the influence of outliers would be to remove outliers from both ends of the spectrum, not just one. My guess is that if you remove the outliers that went Republican, you'd be a lot closer to a 50/50 split.

Regardless, what you highlight is that smaller states hold more weight and drown out other voices, which is a distinctly and obvious downside to the EC. I mean, in order to make sure smaller states are heard, you inherently have to water down the voting power of larger states.

Hence why the EC isn't perfect. Why should Californian votes matter less than, say, Nebraskan votes? It's an imperfect system, but I don't think there is a perfect system out there that exists.

It is only a downside when you take a giant piss on the concept of state sovereignty. Which you seemingly really think is a decent idea when you start down the 'how unfair' mantra you invoke above.

No, it's a downside when you clearly see that a plurality of Americans did not vote for the person who won the election.

I have no issue if you want to argue that this downside is necessary to protect state rights, minority opinions, etc. But don't act all righteous and pretend that it isn't a downside of the current system. Christ on a cracker.

(01-28-2020 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why should Californian votes matter less than, say, Nebraskan votes?

They don't.

Uh, yes, they do.
California = 37.3 million residents and 55 votes = 1.47 electoral college votes per million residents
Nebraska = 1.8 million residents and 5 votes = 2.78 electoral college votes per million residents

And that is what was intended, so that the big states couldn't dominate. Actually neither CA nor NE matter in the current calculus, because both are pretty certainly decided. But if they were battleground states, you can be sure that CA's 55 EVs would mean a lot more than NE's 5. So that kind of balances things up.

(01-28-2020 10:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In fairness, I have zero issue with how any single state *chooses* to select electors. It is the state's prerogative. Period.

In all fairness, if a state chooses to maximize its singular influence and send every elector one way --- that is their choice. Or, if a state chooses to become a non-participant and go with sending a slate based on a national vote --- so be it; that is their choice to exercise.

But notions of 'fairness' are kind of garbage. It is only 'unfair' to those ignorant on how and why this Union was formed.

How and why this union was formed has ZILCH to do with fairness in today's world.

There is a difference between arguing whether a current system is fair/just/right and whether it is constitutional, no matter how hard you want to conflate the two of those.

To make this point clear - let's say EVERY elector of the EC went rogue and decided to cast their ballot for Gary Johnson in 2016. Are you actually going to argue that this outcome was fair or just?

(01-28-2020 10:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why should Californian votes matter less than, say, Nebraskan votes?

They don't.

Uh, yes, they do.
California = 37.3 million residents and 55 votes = 1.47 electoral college votes per million residents
Nebraska = 1.8 million residents and 5 votes = 2.78 electoral college votes per million residents

And that is what was intended, so that the big states couldn't dominate. Actually neither CA nor NE matter in the current calculus, because both are pretty certainly decided. But if they were battleground states, you can be sure that CA's 55 EVs would mean a lot more than NE's 5. So that kind of balances things up.

Yes - I understand why the EC was put into place.

But don't argue that the CA votes matter less than Nebraska, when it is clear they do. Simple, very, very, simple math proves otherwise.

You're arguing something different now, which has to do with political gamesmanship and not the worth of a voter in a state. Because even if California was in play, the worth of each voter would be unchanged.

One thing that we haven't touched on with the EC is the inherent disincentive for voters of the non-dominant party to turnout in a state that is overwhelmingly blue or red.

(01-28-2020 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This debate highlights one of the downfalls of the EC, that a pretty sizable margin of votes can essentially be wiped out. But like most things, pros and cons exist.

Well, of the 2.9 million plurality margin in the 2016 presidential election, 4.9 million of it came from 2 states (CA 3.4 million and New York 1.5 million). So Trump won the popular vote plurality in the other 48 states plus DC by 2 million votes.

That is not a downfall, but rather the purpose of the EC, to ensure that one or two states don't drown out the rest.

A better, less biased way to evaluate the influence of outliers would be to remove outliers from both ends of the spectrum, not just one. My guess is that if you remove the outliers that went Republican, you'd be a lot closer to a 50/50 split.

Regardless, what you highlight is that smaller states hold more weight and drown out other voices, which is a distinctly and obvious downside to the EC. I mean, in order to make sure smaller states are heard, you inherently have to water down the voting power of larger states.

Hence why the EC isn't perfect. Why should Californian votes matter less than, say, Nebraskan votes? It's an imperfect system, but I don't think there is a perfect system out there that exists.

It is only a downside when you take a giant piss on the concept of state sovereignty. Which you seemingly really think is a decent idea when you start down the 'how unfair' mantra you invoke above.

No, it's a downside when you clearly see that a plurality of Americans did not vote for the person who won the election.

I have no issue if you want to argue that this downside is necessary to protect state rights, minority opinions, etc. But don't act all righteous and pretend that it isn't a downside of the current system. Christ on a cracker.

It's only a "downside" to the (distressingly many) people who believe mob rule should trump state sovereignty at the Federal level.

California and Nebraska each have two Senators, for the same reasons that the Electoral College exists. To be consistent, you'd have to argue that's not "fair" either.

From the POV those who crafted the Electoral College and the Senate, the result of the election wasn't a failing, it was a success. Two large, populous states did not get to decide the presidency for the whole nation.

(01-28-2020 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  1. If this is a good way to ensure rural voters are adequately represented in presidential elections, then it should be a good way to do the same in Gubernatorial and Senatorial elections, and other statewide elections.

2. Don't see this. It does seem to help underdogs, but underdogs do not always align with my views, or yours.

That the Electoral College provides a firewall to voting fraud is indisputable. That this is a good thing is indisputable.

If we went to direct voting, then every losing candidate could allege voting fraud in any place in every state, and a full recount would be impossible. Think Florida 2000 times 1000.

I think there are plenty of good reasons to keep the EC, and even to expand the concept to statewide elections.

To the bolded - what election, besides presidential, does not do direct, first past the poll, voting?

All US House and Senate races match that description, yet we don't have Florida x 2,000...

It's undeniable that the electoral college does create a process that helps to dilute the potential effects of ballot box stuffing, but let's not get carried away with the idea that the EC is some savior of a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

And of course, every election you describe is many orders of magnitude smaller than a national election, of which we have only one.

As has been said before on certain economic issues, things that work well in small doses often do not work well in larger doses. Communism works quite well on a farm with 30 people.

Thanks for the vote in the bolded. I particularly like the word "undeniable". Be sure to tell your buddy Fountains what you think. He might call you stupid, but you and I know you are not.

If by a problem that doesn't seem to exist you mean localized ballot stuffing affecting national elections, then thank you EC.

But the discussion started between Big and I as to whether or not the American people made their will known. through their votes. I will temper my statements by saying that whatever happened in 2016, the Democrats are afraid of it happening again, and that is why we have an impeachment.

If you notice, Fountains said that preferring the EC as a voting method BECAUSE of this fact was stupid. Not that believing that the EC helps to reduce the impact of voter fraud is stupid.

I probably fall closer to Fountains in thinking that favoring the EC for this particular reason is fairly superficial and misses the major, foundational reasons for the EC existing.

And Big still has a very valid point, which you seem to want to minimize or skirt, which is that the nation place multiple million more votes for Clinton, than Trump. So saying that the nation made their will known is a step too far. It was not a clearly landslide election in either popular vote or EC vote.

Well, the foundational reason still exist, even without me enumerating them. Somehow, an "only" has crept into this conversation, as in "Favoring the EC only for its firewall properties..."

If the voters did not elect Trump, who did?

The electoral college.

That is literally how we have a situation where the plurality of voters, in a first past the pole process, voted for the losing candidate.

(01-28-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the bolded - what election, besides presidential, does not do direct, first past the poll, voting?

All US House and Senate races match that description, yet we don't have Florida x 2,000...

It's undeniable that the electoral college does create a process that helps to dilute the potential effects of ballot box stuffing, but let's not get carried away with the idea that the EC is some savior of a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

And of course, every election you describe is many orders of magnitude smaller than a national election, of which we have only one.

As has been said before on certain economic issues, things that work well in small doses often do not work well in larger doses. Communism works quite well on a farm with 30 people.

Thanks for the vote in the bolded. I particularly like the word "undeniable". Be sure to tell your buddy Fountains what you think. He might call you stupid, but you and I know you are not.

If by a problem that doesn't seem to exist you mean localized ballot stuffing affecting national elections, then thank you EC.

But the discussion started between Big and I as to whether or not the American people made their will known. through their votes. I will temper my statements by saying that whatever happened in 2016, the Democrats are afraid of it happening again, and that is why we have an impeachment.

If you notice, Fountains said that preferring the EC as a voting method BECAUSE of this fact was stupid. Not that believing that the EC helps to reduce the impact of voter fraud is stupid.

I probably fall closer to Fountains in thinking that favoring the EC for this particular reason is fairly superficial and misses the major, foundational reasons for the EC existing.

And Big still has a very valid point, which you seem to want to minimize or skirt, which is that the nation place multiple million more votes for Clinton, than Trump. So saying that the nation made their will known is a step too far. It was not a clearly landslide election in either popular vote or EC vote.

Well, the foundational reason still exist, even without me enumerating them. Somehow, an "only" has crept into this conversation, as in "Favoring the EC only for its firewall properties..."

If the voters did not elect Trump, who did?

The electoral college.

That is literally how we have a situation where the plurality of voters, in a first past the pole process, voted for the losing candidate.

And if the voters did not elect the electors, who did?

The weighted voting you guys want could easily defeat a candidate who led on the first ballot, defeating a candidate who more first place votes than anybody else. Is that fair?

There is no method that is is perfect for everybody, everywhere, in all circumstances.

But again, if you don't like the system, change it. But it is the system we have now. It is the system we had 1876. It is the system in the Constitution. Stop whining about the rules of the game. You want a little cheese with that whine?

" In 1876 the Electoral College made Hayes president in the course of one of the most contentious elections in national history. He lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, but he won an intensely disputed electoral-college vote after a Congressional commission awarded him twenty contested electoral votes. There resulted the Compromise of 1877, in which the Democrats acquiesced to Hayes's election on the condition that he withdraw remaining U.S. troops protecting Republican office-holders in the South, thus officially ending the Reconstruction era."

Democrats had only 140 years after that to change the rules.

(01-28-2020 10:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Well, of the 2.9 million plurality margin in the 2016 presidential election, 4.9 million of it came from 2 states (CA 3.4 million and New York 1.5 million). So Trump won the popular vote plurality in the other 48 states plus DC by 2 million votes.

That is not a downfall, but rather the purpose of the EC, to ensure that one or two states don't drown out the rest.

A better, less biased way to evaluate the influence of outliers would be to remove outliers from both ends of the spectrum, not just one. My guess is that if you remove the outliers that went Republican, you'd be a lot closer to a 50/50 split.

Regardless, what you highlight is that smaller states hold more weight and drown out other voices, which is a distinctly and obvious downside to the EC. I mean, in order to make sure smaller states are heard, you inherently have to water down the voting power of larger states.

Hence why the EC isn't perfect. Why should Californian votes matter less than, say, Nebraskan votes? It's an imperfect system, but I don't think there is a perfect system out there that exists.

It is only a downside when you take a giant piss on the concept of state sovereignty. Which you seemingly really think is a decent idea when you start down the 'how unfair' mantra you invoke above.

No, it's a downside when you clearly see that a plurality of Americans did not vote for the person who won the election.

I have no issue if you want to argue that this downside is necessary to protect state rights, minority opinions, etc. But don't act all righteous and pretend that it isn't a downside of the current system. Christ on a cracker.

It's only a "downside" to the (distressingly many) people who believe mob rule should trump state sovereignty at the Federal level.

California and Nebraska each have two Senators, for the same reasons that the Electoral College exists. To be consistent, you'd have to argue that's not "fair" either.

From the POV those who crafted the Electoral College and the Senate, the result of the election wasn't a failing, it was a success. Two large, populous states did not get to decide the presidency for the whole nation.

California also has more Representatives than Nebraska to even out the imbalance from the Senate.

And do you consider every single first past the post election to be mob rule? So all Senate and House elections are also mob rule?

I don't think it is at all distressing to think that some people question the efficacy of a system when it generates results counter to the outcome of the popular decision. It's good to stress test our institutions and wonder if there are better and more effective ways to reflect the will of the people as a whole.

We must balance minority rights with majority rule. The EC clearly protects minority rights, but it obviously did not reflect majority rule - so it's natural to wonder if it is swinging too far one way.

(01-28-2020 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And of course, every election you describe is many orders of magnitude smaller than a national election, of which we have only one.

As has been said before on certain economic issues, things that work well in small doses often do not work well in larger doses. Communism works quite well on a farm with 30 people.

Thanks for the vote in the bolded. I particularly like the word "undeniable". Be sure to tell your buddy Fountains what you think. He might call you stupid, but you and I know you are not.

If by a problem that doesn't seem to exist you mean localized ballot stuffing affecting national elections, then thank you EC.

But the discussion started between Big and I as to whether or not the American people made their will known. through their votes. I will temper my statements by saying that whatever happened in 2016, the Democrats are afraid of it happening again, and that is why we have an impeachment.

If you notice, Fountains said that preferring the EC as a voting method BECAUSE of this fact was stupid. Not that believing that the EC helps to reduce the impact of voter fraud is stupid.

I probably fall closer to Fountains in thinking that favoring the EC for this particular reason is fairly superficial and misses the major, foundational reasons for the EC existing.

And Big still has a very valid point, which you seem to want to minimize or skirt, which is that the nation place multiple million more votes for Clinton, than Trump. So saying that the nation made their will known is a step too far. It was not a clearly landslide election in either popular vote or EC vote.

Well, the foundational reason still exist, even without me enumerating them. Somehow, an "only" has crept into this conversation, as in "Favoring the EC only for its firewall properties..."

If the voters did not elect Trump, who did?

The electoral college.

That is literally how we have a situation where the plurality of voters, in a first past the pole process, voted for the losing candidate.

And if the voters did not elect the electors, who did?

The weighted voting you guys want could easily defeat a candidate who led on the first ballot.

There is no method that is is perfect for everybody, everywhere, in all circumstances.

But again, if you don't like the system, change it. But it is the system we have now. It is the system we had 1876. It is the system in the Constitution. Stop whining about the rules of the game. You want a little cheese with that whine?

" In 1876 the Electoral College made Hayes president in the course of one of the most contentious elections in national history. He lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, but he won an intensely disputed electoral-college vote after a Congressional commission awarded him twenty contested electoral votes. There resulted the Compromise of 1877, in which the Democrats acquiesced to Hayes's election on the condition that he withdraw remaining U.S. troops protecting Republican office-holders in the South, thus officially ending the Reconstruction era."

Democrats had only 140 years after that to change the rules.

(01-28-2020 09:58 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think awarding one elector to the top vote getter in each Congressional District plus two based on statewide results could be a compromise. You still would have candidates screaming about not getting more votes because they won District 1 by 80,000 votes and lost in District two by 7,000.

I think this is a great idea OOwl. Nebraska and Maine actually allocate their electoral votes this way already. In 2008, Nebraska's 2nd district sent a single electoral vote to Obama.

Allocating electoral votes by congressional district would be insane and encourage gerrymandering even more.

My proposal if we want to avoid a true popular vote (which would require a constitutional amendment) would be to have electors allocated by proportion of popular vote each candidate receives in a state with the 2 bonus electors (representing the senators) going to the candidate who received a plurality. Not sure if it would help or hurt either party, but it would at least force presidential candidates to campaign in every state and speak to issues that matter to the voters in every state. The current system encourages the candidates to only go to 10 or fewer states.

(01-28-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That is literally how we have a situation where the plurality of voters, in a first past the pole process, voted for the losing candidate.

Plurality, not majority. Even in virtually all the countries who elect presidents directly, that gets you nothing more than a slot in a runoff.

And depending on how many Johnson voters broke for Trump, he could very well have won in a runoff.

And it's not a true first past the pole process, it's first past now 51 poles, which was the intended result from 1787 forward.

(01-28-2020 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  California also has more Representatives than Nebraska to even out the imbalance from the Senate.

"Imbalance" is your word, and it's interesting because it betrays your mindset. The framers of the system saw it exactly the opposite - they considered the representation in the Senate as balanced.

Quote:And do you consider every single first past the post election to be mob rule? So all Senate and House elections are also mob rule?

Worth pointing out that originally senators were not directly elected. The direct representation was fragmented across many Congressional districts, so it was not possible for a "mob" to be a coherent mass of any more than a few hundred thousand people localized to one region.

(01-28-2020 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That is literally how we have a situation where the plurality of voters, in a first past the pole process, voted for the losing candidate.

Plurality, not majority. Even in virtually all the countries who elect presidents directly, that gets you nothing more than a slot in a runoff.

And depending on how many Johnson voters broke for Trump, he could very well have won in a runoff.

Yes, I did say plurality. Thank you for highlighting that I correctly described the election result.

And you would have then had to contend with Stein voters (very unlikely to break for Trump compared to Hillary) and McMullin voters.

If we did away with the EC, I wonder what sort of changes in turnout we would see in states like California, NY, Texas, etc. where people from the minority party don't feel as if their vote counts.

(01-28-2020 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the voters did not elect Trump, who did?

The voters elected the electors. The electors elected Trump. The electors voted as follows:
Trump - 304
Clinton - 227
Colin Powell - 3
Bernie Sanders - 1
John Kasich - 1
Ron Paul - 1
Faith Spotted Eagle - 1

If the voters elected Trump, explain to me how Colin Powell received 0.56% of the vote when he wasn't on a ballot in any state while Sanders, Kasich, Paul, and Spotted Eagle received 0.19% of the vote each. On second thought ... just explain the Faith Spotted Eagle part to me. If you can convince me that the voters have Faith Spotted Eagle in a tie for 4th in the 2016 presidential election receiving 0.19% of the vote, then you have me. Again, I'm just making a technical point, not an argument for or against the EC right now. Its ok to conceed that the electors and not the voters elect the president.

(01-28-2020 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That is literally how we have a situation where the plurality of voters, in a first past the pole process, voted for the losing candidate.

Plurality, not majority. Even in virtually all the countries who elect presidents directly, that gets you nothing more than a slot in a runoff.

And depending on how many Johnson voters broke for Trump, he could very well have won in a runoff.

Yes, I did say plurality. Thank you for highlighting that I correctly described the election result.

And you would have then had to contend with Stein voters (very unlikely to break for Trump compared to Hillary) and McMullin voters.

If we did away with the EC, I wonder what sort of changes in turnout we would see in states like California, NY, Texas, etc. where people from the minority party don't feel as if their vote counts.

California, NY, Texas, etc. can change the way they allocate electors any time they want. You would deprive them of that constitutional right and duty.

(01-28-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In fairness, I have zero issue with how any single state *chooses* to select electors. It is the state's prerogative. Period.

In all fairness, if a state chooses to maximize its singular influence and send every elector one way --- that is their choice. Or, if a state chooses to become a non-participant and go with sending a slate based on a national vote --- so be it; that is their choice to exercise.

But notions of 'fairness' are kind of garbage. It is only 'unfair' to those ignorant on how and why this Union was formed.

How and why this union was formed has ZILCH to do with fairness in today's world.

Spoken as a picture perfect progressive. Bravo!

When you bother to look at the root source of the sovereignty of the United States, you might understand how the 'how and why' matter.

But bonus prog points to the ability to basically state that matters of why something happened dont fing matter -- the only thing that matters is *your* version of 'fair'. Good job there, lad.

(01-28-2020 11:13 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the voters did not elect Trump, who did?

The voters elected the electors. The electors elected Trump. The electors voted as follows:
Trump - 304
Clinton - 227
Colin Powell - 3
Bernie Sanders - 1
John Kasich - 1
Ron Paul - 1
Faith Spotted Eagle - 1
If the voters elected Trump, explain to me how Colin Powell received 0.56% of the vote when he wasn't on a ballot in any state while Sanders, Kasich, Paul, and Spotted Eagle received 0.19% of the vote each.

Because that is the way the system was designed and is intended to work.

(01-28-2020 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And you would have then had to contend with Stein voters (very unlikely to break for Trump compared to Hillary) and McMullin voters.

But Johnson voters significantly outnumbered both Stein and McMullin voters, and McMullin voters would surely have broken for Trump.

Nobody really knows, or can know. Therefore, any notion the Hillary "won" the popular vote is not exactly correct.

(01-28-2020 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you notice, Fountains said that preferring the EC as a voting method BECAUSE of this fact was stupid. Not that believing that the EC helps to reduce the impact of voter fraud is stupid.

I probably fall closer to Fountains in thinking that favoring the EC for this particular reason is fairly superficial and misses the major, foundational reasons for the EC existing.

And Big still has a very valid point, which you seem to want to minimize or skirt, which is that the nation place multiple million more votes for Clinton, than Trump. So saying that the nation made their will known is a step too far. It was not a clearly landslide election in either popular vote or EC vote.

Well, the foundational reason still exist, even without me enumerating them. Somehow, an "only" has crept into this conversation, as in "Favoring the EC only for its firewall properties..."

If the voters did not elect Trump, who did?

The electoral college.

That is literally how we have a situation where the plurality of voters, in a first past the pole process, voted for the losing candidate.

And if the voters did not elect the electors, who did?

The weighted voting you guys want could easily defeat a candidate who led on the first ballot.

There is no method that is is perfect for everybody, everywhere, in all circumstances.

But again, if you don't like the system, change it. But it is the system we have now. It is the system we had 1876. It is the system in the Constitution. Stop whining about the rules of the game. You want a little cheese with that whine?

" In 1876 the Electoral College made Hayes president in the course of one of the most contentious elections in national history. He lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, but he won an intensely disputed electoral-college vote after a Congressional commission awarded him twenty contested electoral votes. There resulted the Compromise of 1877, in which the Democrats acquiesced to Hayes's election on the condition that he withdraw remaining U.S. troops protecting Republican office-holders in the South, thus officially ending the Reconstruction era."

Democrats had only 140 years after that to change the rules.

Exactly the way I feel often when talking to you or Big or other leftists.