I had this deep feeling the last month or so that it was out there.
1 Like
Whaha…oh man that was funny.
Thank you
That’s what he told Leslie Stahl during the 60 minutes interview last night.
NEVER!
He stands for almost everything that is wrong with this country.
He won white women something like 53% to 43%. I think that is quite a statement considering Hillary is a white woman.
1 Like
I had a deep feeling for over a year that it was out there.
1 Like
I’ve busted your balls a plenty here, but you’re a good man.
Better than I in ways, as I haven’t supported a POTUS in 16 years (outside 2008-2010ish) and honestly doubt I’ll be able to support the Cheeto either, but we’ll see.
I’m trying ot be open minded.
1 Like
slow clap
My favorite meme so far is the pics of pron actors with 20 dildo around them like “I’m ready for the revolution” making fun of the #cocksnotglocks nonsense a while back.
2 Likes
^Sorry man - I wasn’t really reading this board yesterday. Didn’t mean to blow you (and one or two others who have asked about this) off.
IMO, the reason it made sense at the founding is pretty obvious. @DoubleDuce wrote a nice description of this in a previous thread, so I’ll drop his words in here:
(Emphasis mine)
In 1785, without Google, Facebook, television, radio, and so on - it was a lot harder to have any idea what the Presidential candidates planned to do, what their history was, etc. So a model where people elected a local representative to stand their area’s interests made a lot of sense.
Today, that’s kind of silly. In five minutes I can take one of any number of available “Which candidate do you align with?” quizzes to figure out which candidate better represents my personal interests. I can watch video of both candidates to decide which one has better hair, if such things matter to me. We don’t need a local representative to decide which candidate better represents our personal and regional interests because we all have access to information to determine that ourselves.
I’m going to flip raj’s Hillary-ran-up-the-score-in-California point around. If part of the problem is that GOP voters don’t turn out in states like California because they know the state is going blue no matter what (this is equally true of blue voters in deep-red states, by the way) then getting rid of the Electoral College and going by popular vote would let their voices be heard and encourage California Republicans to come out and vote for their preferred candidate. If we did away with the Electoral College, every vote would actually count the same, and candidates would actually have to campaign to “everybody” instead of just the seven or eight states that are expected to be tightly contested. Candidates would actually consider looking for ways to engage voters from states on “the other side” instead of just conceding that they’re going to lose that one and looking for a “path to 270.”
(Incidentally, if all states awarded their electoral votes more like Nebraska or Maine - by congressional district - I would find this at least somewhat more palatable…the winner-take-all model by state is what I find most absurd, so winning a state by 0.2% counts the same as winning an equivalent-sized state by 15%)
DoubleDuce does make the point that the EC being slightly weighted towards less-populous states still serves a purpose, and that’s fair. In the golden age of statistics and Big Data, surely a team full of smart statisticians with expertise in sampling methodology could work out a way to sustain that slight tilt favoring less densely-populated areas.
From what I read the latino vote was explained by the fact they don’t actually like illegal immigration either, especially those who bypassed the system where they followed the rules. It’s also hard to ignore the fact that they all come here for a better life but mass immigration is just their problems following them. Just ask any white person how they feel about other white people moving to their town from another state and driving up rent prices, its not a race thing.
The black vote was really a non-issue, the anti-trump stuff is centered around mexico and muslims. And both choices are old white people.
3 Likes
Viriginia moved to a statewide popular vote winner takes all system for choosing its electors in 1800. By 1824, effectively all states had done so.
The reality is that the electoral college never worked through a system of choosing a knowledgeable local to represent the interests of his district. Exactly what the founders intended is debatable, but consider that the members of the electoral college are selected for precisely one purpose: to case a vote. The electoral college does not have a debate and never even meets in a single location. It’s not reasonable to expect that system to not devolve into elector candidates openly stating for whom they would cast their vote if elected to the electoral college.
It’s interesting to note that if the electoral college were adjusted to give votes by the house apportionment, instead of the house+senate, Trump would still have a majority of electors. And if the election was simply by Congressional district, it’s also likely that Trump would win (considering the Republicans held the house, although more in depth analysis would be needed to confirm this). If you apportion electors by popular vote state by state ignoring votes not cast for Trump or Clinton, Clinton wins 270 to 268.
Just to add to what sufiandy said. (And I mentioned this earlier in the campaign cycle).
For many Black Americans; Trump had somewhat of the same appeal that “Dog The Bounty Hunter” had.
(You guys may not recall…but “Dog” was caught on tape using the “N” word…and when they threatened cancellation; some of his greatest supporters; via write-in, etc.; were African Americans).
As one of my Black Friends said; it’s that “Fuk It/Fuk You” attitude.
He also said that there are too many White Liberals “speaking” for us…and it pissed him off.
Now…Hilary still got the Majority of the African American vote…but not as much as President Obama.
I don’t disagree with any of this.
But since that’s the case, isn’t that an argument to do away with the Electoral College?
I do agree that this is interesting, but my belief that we should do away with the EC has little to do with the specifics of who won. I’ve been feeling this way for a couple of election cycles now.
And that is why we have an EC. To keep our President from being elected solely by California and New York. Thank you.
2 Likes
The electoral college basically operates as it always has. Moreover, there was no particular technical reason that the founders couldn’t have instituted a popular vote for president.
An argument against the electoral college needs to address why the founders were wrong, rather than pretend that the situation has changed substantially when it really hasn’t. Admittedly, the Constitution was drafted in an environment where states saw themselves more as allied sovereign entities rather than divisions in a single nation. However, that doesn’t mean that all states agree on what the federal government should be doing.
Literal tear to my eye reading this.
Jesus, it’s been a long day and that was very refreshing to read, but good God I want to print it and read it every day. The last line especially.
I’ve had so many (albeit online) white people call me racist because I don’t think I know what is best for Black Americans, and dont’ think they need special help to succeed…
End of the day, I’ll help anyone that needs it assuming I can, and asks for it. But I’m not going to pretend I’m some sort of savior and know the answers for everyone else. That apparently makes me a deplorable racist…
I know that this gets trotted out as a reason to keep the Electoral College, but it’s a backwards argument that flies completely in the face of math and logic.
The Electoral College does no more to keep our President from being elected solely by California and New York than a national popular vote would. The EC, in fact, guarantees that all 54 of California’s electoral votes are given to one candidate and, as has been postulated earlier in this thread, that may depress voter turnout because GOP voters feel that they perceive that their vote doesn’t matter since the state will go blue anyway. In this election, California and New York sent 83 electoral votes straight to the Democrats, about 15% of the available electoral votes.
In a national popular vote, each citizen’s vote would count the same. Instead of just worrying about eking out victories in the closely-contested states, candidates would actually have to campaign in and care about more of the country. In the Electoral College model, that doesn’t happen. One citizen’s vote has proportionally higher leverage depending on the state that you live in (and its population size, breakdown of red-vs-blue voters, etc). A single Republican voter in California is essentially worthless; a single Republican voter in Texas is actually just about as worthless; but a single Republican voter in Michigan has (relatively speaking) more leverage over the election. Why is that a good thing?
Because the left can’t ignore “flyover” country as they like to call it. Because when they do, Trump sweeps the rust belt.
No POTUS elect would ever have a rally outside a major city again, and very little if any “get out the vote” money would be spent outside the city. You’d see both (and any) parties focus solely on Urban Development and Urban initiatives. In 3 or 4 cycles, the rural states would be sunk into massive disarray and deep depression as regulation specific to city living would crush them.
I’m sorry but DC, Miami, NYC and LA don’t know fuckall about living in Montana or Iowa. They THINK they do because they are “educated” democrats who obviously know everything, but they don’t. All of Montana has 3 EC votes.
Those 3 mean jack shit typically, but those 3 are important, as they are still 3 more than zero. About 1m people live in Montana, and it’s a big fucking state. There is something like 4m registered voters in NYC ALONE. That means 1/4 of NYC has more say in POTUS elections than an entire state?
Get the fuck out. As it is, NYC dictates that the rest of the state goes blue when it otherwise wouldn’t, but good god.
This is all moot anyway as the EC isnt’ going anywhere. You’d need was too many states to agree and you aren’t getting that.
2 Likes
According to this study 1.2 million illegal votes were cast in 2008 almost all Democrat.
Hillary won the popular vote by a little over 200,000. Down the road when they study this election and weed out illegal votes Trump will have won the popular vote I’m sure
You could make the opposite argument for California. Many Dems don’t bother voting because they already won. In fact its possible there are even more of those than GOP voters who don’t vote. The underdog will always put in a little more effort, if anything to close the gap a little so the other side doesn’t win by too much or simply as a protest vote.