270-268 scenario

[mstateglfr]

Look, I didn't vote for either of these candidates. But you REALLY don't want to get into comparing the economy or foreign policy under Trump to what we had with the Biden/Harris presidency. You really don't want to even go there.

My post was serious- I look forward to that all happening. He has promised all of it and said it will be easily done, with him doing some of it even before he takes office.
Of course I want a growing economy with low inflation, no national debt, and the end of a couple global wars.

 

[Perd Hapley]

It is clownish to let the popular vote decide the Presidency no matter who wins it. 95% of the time 17 (17ing) counties decide the popular vote! That is insane that anyone would consider that fair. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic. To keep that idiocy from happening. This year is going to be the rare time the Electoral College winner also wins the popular vote.

I think you have that backwards. 17 counties decide the electoral vote. Not the popular vote. There’s no number of counties that could possibly decide the popular vote because the margin of victory in every county is infinitely variable. Every single vote would actually matter.

 

[L4Dawg]

Wow. I guess it's just incumbent math there.

If it was incumbent math it wouldn't flip.

 

[L4Dawg]

Definitely sounds like a good system. I’m on board.


Can’t speak for everyone, but my preference of the NPV over the electoral college has nothing to do with who wins. Its just the most fair and equitable system for the voters regardless, as well as the system that holds the candidates the most accountable to the entire electorate. And I think tonight proves that they aren’t as far apart as people think, anyway.

The Senate and the Electoral college were concessions to smaller states to get them on board with the Constitution. The smaller states were afraid their rights would be totally swamped by the larger states. That dynamic is even bigger today.

 

[johnson86-1]

Since 2000, between 22% and 36% of LA County voted Republican in Presidential elections. That means more than 1 out of every 4 votes has not mattered each election. 0 weight to those votes. Meaningless votes.

Allowing every vote to count the same would make those votes actually count.

If voting for the losing side means your vote doesn't count, then somewhere close to half of votes are never going to count. They voted and their votes counted, but they were outnumbered by people that voted differently than them. It happens. The fact that they were significantly outvoted doesn't make their vote count any less.

 

[L4Dawg]

The whole country spoke. DONALD TURMP WON.

So the election was legitimate now, I guess. For the record I did not vote for Harris and I am NOT a Democrat.

 

[paindonthurt17]

So the election was legitimate now, I guess. For the record I did not vote for Harris and I am NOT a Democrat.

GD are you dumb?

no one said the election was illegitimate

It’s a fact the census bureau made a mistake. It’s a fact. They admitted it. You have a link from census.gov

can you read?

 

[L4Dawg]

GD are you dumb?

no one said the election was illegitimate

It’s a fact the census bureau made a mistake. It’s a fact. They admitted it. You have a link from census.gov

can you read?

We know where that was going if the election had turned out otherwise.

 

[mstateglfr]

If voting for the losing side means your vote doesn't count, then somewhere close to half of votes are never going to count. They voted and their votes counted, but they were outnumbered by people that voted differently than them. It happens. The fact that they were significantly outvoted doesn't make their vote count any less.

But it does make those votes count less from a national standpoint and my point has been the Presidential election is a national election for the leader of all of the US.
Whether or not someone voted for Trump in LA County made no difference. Their vote did not impact who was elected. Their vote didnt matter. They could have been passed out drunk the whole day, not voted, and it wouldnt have mattered.

But if we make every vote count equally across the US for Presidential elections, that person's vote in LA County does count. It does impact the election. It does matter.


This is all just a discussion on at what point do votes get tallied up.
You want votes to be tallied at the state level and want the impact of some states to be higher than the impact of other states, based on population.
I want all votes to count the same and for votes to be tallied up at the national level since it is a vote for the leader of the nation. I want everyone's vote to directly impact the election.

The Heritage site that explains why the Electoral College is beautiful is about 20% substance and 80% surface level justification that doesnt stand up to even mild scrutiny.
After almost 250 years, we still dont have a national election where everyone's vote counts equally. Its wild.

 

[paindonthurt17]

We know where that was going if the election had turned out otherwise.

If it ended up exactly 270 to 268? Yeah it would have be a talking point and a legit one.

But you still haven’t admitted it’s true. It’s a fact the census got it wrong. FACT

You don’t think dems would be discussing it if the error hurt them?

 

[85Bears]

Hopefully Nate Silver can get the money together to pay off that Florida bet. What a fraud that guy is.

 

[GloryDawg]

Has Harris conceded yet?

 

[POTUS]

After almost 250 years, we still dont have a national election where everyone's vote counts equally. Its wild.

Your civics teacher sucked, or you were a terrible student. These are the options we're left with now. The United STATES would not exist without the EC. So you can keep throwing out these platitudes about "every vote counts equally" all you want, but the country we have now would have never materialized without the EC. It's baked in because many people wiser than you foresaw things you refuse to acknowledge.

The EC is one of the reasons why this country has lasted for 250 years in the first place. Not to trigger some here, but PART (and I repeat part, not all) of the reason we had a Civil War was over state's rights. States do not like being run roughshod over by other states. This union we have has persevered in no small part because the minority has been acknowledged and accounted for. We would be wise to remember that in the future.

 

[mstateglfr]

Your civics teacher sucked, or you were a terrible student. These are the options we're left with now. The United STATES would not exist without the EC. So you can keep throwing out these platitudes about "every vote counts equally" all you want, but the country we have now would have never materialized without the EC. It's baked in because many people wiser than you foresaw things you refuse to acknowledge.

The EC is one of the reasons why this country has lasted for 250 years in the first place. Not to trigger some here, but PART (and I repeat part, not all) of the reason we had a Civil War was over state's rights. States do not like being run roughshod over by other states. This union we have has persevered in no small part because the minority has been acknowledged and accounted for. We would be wise to remember that in the future.

You ranted all yesterday about how many people's civics teachers sucked- we get it, you think we all dont understand how the country was formed.
My civics teacher was fine- I learned what you and others have continually said about the Electoral College.
Founders got a lot of things right. Founders got a lot of things wrong...based on modern thought. What they set up isnt beyond question or change...and they even set up a system to allow for question and change.
Good lord- you act like its a radical idea to suggest a change to the Constitution.

I mean come on now, the Electoral College used the 3/5 clause for legislative and electoral representation...its not like the system cant change.
And the 23rd Amendment(thats how changes to the Constitution are made) was ratified 60 years ago to include DC.
The EC was a compromise between those who wanted direct voting and those who wanted Congress to vote for the President. Oh look, people wanted direct voting 250 years ago too!

Almost 60% of adults prefer a system where the President is directly elected by votes...at least thats the case as of a few years ago
This isnt about 'states rights'. States rights wasnt why the Electoral College was created.

 

[pseudonym]

Credit to mstateglfr for engaging after his candidate (I assume) lost. Has anyone seen Boom Boom lately?

 

[Perd Hapley]

You ranted all yesterday about how many people's civics teachers sucked- we get it, you think we all dont understand how the country was formed.
My civics teacher was fine- I learned what you and others have continually said about the Electoral College.
Founders got a lot of things right. Founders got a lot of things wrong...based on modern thought. What they set up isnt beyond question or change...and they even set up a system to allow for question and change.
Good lord- you act like its a radical idea to suggest a change to the Constitution.

I mean come on now, the Electoral College used the 3/5 clause for legislative and electoral representation...its not like the system cant change.
And the 23rd Amendment(thats how changes to the Constitution are made) was ratified 60 years ago to include DC.
The EC was a compromise between those who wanted direct voting and those who wanted Congress to vote for the President. Oh look, people wanted direct voting 250 years ago too!

Almost 60% of adults prefer a system where the President is directly elected by votes...at least thats the case as of a few years ago
This isnt about 'states rights'. States rights wasnt why the Electoral College was created.

It’s like people can’t face the reality of multiple things being true at the same time.

The electoral college was a great idea that was based on sound logic 250 years ago. It got national elections for a leader of the federal government off the ground in a way that no other method could at that time.

However, the USA and world has also drastically changed in the 250 years since, and the justification behind the creation of the EC is now totally obsolete. It’s no longer possible to have any more than 2 viable choices for president, based on the 2-party system and the ballot rules supporting it in each state. This was the #1 reason for creation - preventing a regionally popular candidate from somewhere like NYC from becoming president with only 20-25% of the popular vote, due to a large pool of candidates preventing a majority from being achieved. That is the “small state compromise” that actually happened.

Small population states are also no longer all aligned with similar interests that are always in direct conflict with large population states like they were 250 years ago, either. There are small blue states and small red states. Large blue states and large red states.

The system needs to change just like countless other ideas and principles the FF had that did not stand the test of time.

 

[mstateglfr]

Credit to mstateglfr for engaging after his candidate (I assume) lost. Has anyone seen Boom Boom lately?

Happy to still post the next day. Contrary to what many on here think, I am not a radical extremist who cant handle bad news.
Since things are being clarified...I also rarely get 'triggered', I am not a woman even though for some reason thats viewed as an insult and is commonly made towards me on here, and I am not a socialist/marxist/communist/pedo/babykiller/goomer.


As for this specific conversation, as I said yesterday- I didnt come by this view recently and it is something I genuinely think needs to happen to help improve citizen engagement in the Election process. So even though Trump won, I still think it is worth discussing the topic because I continue to believe that every vote should count equally. None of us should have more say in their vote than anyone else when it comes to electing the President.

 

[85Bears]

Republic not a democracy. Getting rid of the EC would ensure New York and California run rhe country and small states like Mississippi would have no representation. It would also ensure 25 million more third world future voters would be flown in every four years.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Republic not a democracy. Getting rid of the EC would ensure New York and California run rhe country and small states like Mississippi would have no representation. It would also ensure 25 million more third world future voters would be flown in every four years.

What you said is already the case. NY and CA already dwarf MS in the Electoral College as well. The interests of CA and NY are always going to trump those of Mississippi as it relates to any matters of national policy. The Senate is the counterbalance to that, not the Electoral College.

 

[patdog]

Republic not a democracy. Getting rid of the EC would ensure New York and California run rhe country and small states like Mississippi would have no representation. It would also ensure 25 million more third world future voters would be flown in every four years.

NY, CA, TX & FL have a lot MORE influence on presidential elections now than they would with a popular vote. And smaller states like MS have even less influence than they would otherwise have.

 

[85Bears]

What you said is already the case. NY and CA already dwarf MS in the Electoral College as well. The interests of CA and NY are always going to trump those of Mississippi as it relates to any matters of national policy. The Senate is the counterbalance to that, not the Electoral College.

No it would just ensure a monopoly on all three branches of government by the two most populous states.

 

[mstateglfr]

Republic not a democracy. Getting rid of the EC would ensure New York and California run rhe country and small states like Mississippi would have no representation. It would also ensure 25 million more third world future voters would be flown in every four years.

Well at least you made a new argument that hasnt already been addressed and refuted a dozen times over.**

 

[85Bears]

NY, CA, TX & FL have a lot MORE influence on presidential elections now than they would with a popular vote. And smaller states like MS have even less influence than they would otherwise have.

Really ? Its illegal to even ask for voter ID in California. Good luck with voting in Mississippi and having your vote count. that would ensure monopoly control of all three branches of government.

California style voting laws make the popular vote pretty meaningless

 

[L4Dawg]

What you said is already the case. NY and CA already dwarf MS in the Electoral College as well. The interests of CA and NY are always going to trump those of Mississippi as it relates to any matters of national policy. The Senate is the counterbalance to that, not the Electoral College.

California has 12% of the population and 10% of the EC. It does dampen their outsize influence some. We are a FEDERAL Republic. People tend to forget that first part.

 

[85Bears]

There is a reason radical leftists want to abolish the electoral college. Stop and think about that. The founders were very wise.

 

[patdog]

California has 12% of the population and 10% of the EC. It does dampen their outsize influence some. We are a FEDERAL Republic. People tend to forget that first part.

But no democrat in CA will even get more than 7% of the popular vote. They’ll get 10% of the electoral vote every time though.

 

[mstateglfr]

There is a reason radical leftists want to abolish the electoral college. Stop and think about that. The founders were very wise.

Oh, another point that hasnt already been posted and refuted many times over.**


Seriously- read the thread first.
The Founders 17ed up a lot of stuff while getting a lot right. Its also OK to have something be a good idea and applicable to the 1700s that is not applicable to the 2000s. Thats why there are Amendments.

 

[L4Dawg]

NY, CA, TX & FL have a lot MORE influence on presidential elections now than they would with a popular vote. And smaller states like MS have even less influence than they would otherwise have.

No, they don't. It's simple math. California has 12% of the US population and 10% of the EC. Mississippi has 0.89% of the US population and 1.12% of the EC. The big states have slightly less influence and the small ones have slightly more than they would without the EC.

 

[L4Dawg]

But no democrat in CA will even get more than 7% of the popular vote. They’ll get 10% of the electoral vote every time though.

And no candidate in Mississippi will ever get close to getting 1.12% of the national popular vote.

 

[mstateglfr]

California has 12% of the population and 10% of the EC. It does dampen their outsize influence some. We are a FEDERAL Republic. People tend to forget that first part.

We are whatever we say we are. We follow processes that we say we want.
Its not like nothing can ever change and justifying something with 'thats how its been!' is straight up bonkers. That is a terrible way to govern and countless examples show why it would be a bad way to govern.

Having representation at the Congressional level could still exist, even if the President was elected by direct vote. Again- this argument was made 250 years ago too- people wanted direct voting then.
You continue to yell out that we are a 'FEDERAL Republic', as if that has meaning. That is actually one suggestion which was also rejected when Founders were figuring out the voting process. Some wanted Congress to elect the President, which could be viewed as a Federal Republic way of electing the President.

None of what was created 250 years ago is sacred which is why Amendments exist.

 

[Villagedawg]

Interesting. So why and how did she get into UC law school on a "Disadvantaged Minority" scholarship .

Does Disadvantaged minority mean dumb to you?

 

[L4Dawg]

We are whatever we say we are. We follow processes that we say we want.
Its not like nothing can ever change and justifying something with 'thats how its been!' is straight up bonkers. That is a terrible way to govern and countless examples show why it would be a bad way to govern.

Having representation at the Congressional level could still exist, even if the President was elected by direct vote. Again- this argument was made 250 years ago too- people wanted direct voting then.
You continue to yell out that we are a 'FEDERAL Republic', as if that has meaning. That is actually one suggestion which was also rejected when Founders were figuring out the voting process. Some wanted Congress to elect the President, which could be viewed as a Federal Republic way of electing the President.

None of what was created 250 years ago is sacred which is why Amendments exist.

You kind of missed the meaning of FEDERAL. The states do have power separated from the national government. We vote as states for president, not as citizens of a monolithic block. There were and are very good reasons for this. Back then they were all afraid of Virginia by the way.

 

[Villagedawg]

I'm not sure you've heard. She grew up in a middle class family.

I'm not sure what your point is.