Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Zywus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If you turn the contest into one for popular vote, why the feth would any candidate go anywhere but CA and NY, and specifically the cities in them? You may hit a few other major cities, but most states would be a waste of effort for the campaigns to go to. The Electoral system is the way it is for some damned good reasons.

Because the majority of voters still live in other places than CA and NY. In fact, there live voters all over the country.

Do you think presidential candidates in France just campaign in Paris and the big cities?

Look at the differences in population and physical size between France and the US.

Campaigning takes resources. They are spent where the most 'bang for the buck' occurs. I stand by my statement. There would be no reason to hit other states, except for a handful of major cities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

You wouldn't need an Amendment.

The Constitution only provides for how many Electors a state has, and how they are chosen. How they vote, or how their votes are counted, is not a product of Constitutional law.

In fact, when states began switching to a general ticket, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton declared it a violation of the Constitution (no court case ever happened). They envisioned the College functioning as citizens electing their electors, and then the electors being the only ones to elect the President/Vice President (i.e. the Constitution was written with the assumption that the electors would not be winner take all based on a popular vote but as the electors being free to make their own judgement). The only thing the Federal Government can't legally do is dictate how electors are chosen. Technically there is no legal basis on which to deny the Federal Government from defining how the electors vote (they just haven't traditionally done so).

No, the Constitution does not provide for how the electors are chosen, except to say 'Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct'. And there IS a legal basis to deny the Feds say in how they vote, the Constitution does NOT give the Feds that power, so it is left for the States by definition.

"The Democrats are just complaining because they didn't benefit this time!" would hold a lot more merit if it wasn't for the fact that all four Presidents (not counting JCQ because that was... special) that have won despite getting less votes have been Republican.

Isn't that what they do right now anyway? Except it's not "handful of major cities" it's "handful of major cities in swing states."

Says the clueless brit...

 CptJake wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

You wouldn't need an Amendment.

The Constitution only provides for how many Electors a state has, and how they are chosen. How they vote, or how their votes are counted, is not a product of Constitutional law.

In fact, when states began switching to a general ticket, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton declared it a violation of the Constitution (no court case ever happened). They envisioned the College functioning as citizens electing their electors, and then the electors being the only ones to elect the President/Vice President (i.e. the Constitution was written with the assumption that the electors would not be winner take all based on a popular vote but as the electors being free to make their own judgement). The only thing the Federal Government can't legally do is dictate how electors are chosen. Technically there is no legal basis on which to deny the Federal Government from defining how the electors vote (they just haven't traditionally done so).

No, the Constitution does not provide for how the electors are chosen.

You know, some day people are actually going to read this thing;

Article II Section I Clause II

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Constitution explicitly states how Electors are chosen (as the State Legislature decides).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"The Democrats are just complaining because they didn't benefit this time!" would hold a lot more merit if it wasn't for the fact that all four Presidents (not counting JCQ because that was... special) that have won despite getting less votes have been Republican.

Its almost as if the states on the coast, which have high population densities, tend to vote democrat.

 CptJake wrote:
And there IS a legal basis to deny the Feds say in how they vote, the Constitution does NOT give the Feds that power, so it is left for the States by definition.

Actually Clause III is clearly written with the intention that electors cast their own votes (which was how the system's designers intended it to function).

The Constitution actually does not provide to the States the power to dictate how the College Votes. It grants the power to vote to the Electors, who are themselves elected in whatever manner the state chooses. Technically neither the States or the Federal Government are empowered to tell them how to vote (so technically the States have been violating the Constitution basically for 200 years but no one really cares because the current system is practical )

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And there IS a legal basis to deny the Feds say in how they vote, the Constitution does NOT give the Feds that power, so it is left for the States by definition.

Actually Clause III is clearly written with the intention that electors cast their own votes (which was how the system's designers intended it to function).

The Constitution actually does not provide to the States the power to dictate how the College Votes. It grants the power to vote to the Electors, who are themselves elected in whatever manner the state chooses. Technically neither the States or the Federal Government are empowered to tell them how to vote (so technically the States have been violating the Constitution basically for 200 years but no one really cares because the current system is practical )

Each party gets to nominate 20 warriors, they shall enter the arena together and fight to the death. Once there are as many survivors as electors, they get to cast their votes.

 Zywus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If you turn the contest into one for popular vote, why the feth would any candidate go anywhere but CA and NY, and specifically the cities in them? You may hit a few other major cities, but most states would be a waste of effort for the campaigns to go to. The Electoral system is the way it is for some damned good reasons.

Because the majority of voters still live in other places than CA and NY. In fact, there live voters all over the country.

Do you think presidential candidates in France just campaign in Paris and the big cities?

France has half the population and physical size. Its not quite the same as the US, where you have large chunks of the population on the coast, and the rest of the population spread out across the middle, across huge distances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And there IS a legal basis to deny the Feds say in how they vote, the Constitution does NOT give the Feds that power, so it is left for the States by definition.

Actually Clause III is clearly written with the intention that electors cast their own votes (which was how the system's designers intended it to function).

The Constitution actually does not provide to the States the power to dictate how the College Votes. It grants the power to vote to the Electors, who are themselves elected in whatever manner the state chooses. Technically neither the States or the Federal Government are empowered to tell them how to vote (so technically the States have been violating the Constitution basically for 200 years but no one really cares because the current system is practical )

Each party gets to nominate 20 warriors, they shall enter the arena together and fight to the death. Once there are as many survivors as electors, they get to cast their votes.

Sneak peak at the election of the future. I dub it the Trumpdome.

 d-usa wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And there IS a legal basis to deny the Feds say in how they vote, the Constitution does NOT give the Feds that power, so it is left for the States by definition.

Actually Clause III is clearly written with the intention that electors cast their own votes (which was how the system's designers intended it to function).

The Constitution actually does not provide to the States the power to dictate how the College Votes. It grants the power to vote to the Electors, who are themselves elected in whatever manner the state chooses. Technically neither the States or the Federal Government are empowered to tell them how to vote (so technically the States have been violating the Constitution basically for 200 years but no one really cares because the current system is practical )

Each party gets to nominate 20 warriors, they shall enter the arena together and fight to the death. Once there are as many survivors as electors, they get to cast their votes.

I support election by gladiatorial combat.

Then I will be entertained

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
State legislatures changing the way Electors are chosen back to the original method (by district).

Not only no, but HELL NO. Districts are gerrymander to hell and back. They do not in any way represent the will of the people any more.

This is why we have the Electoral College:


With a popular vote system, candidates would simple hit the blue areas in the map.

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And there IS a legal basis to deny the Feds say in how they vote, the Constitution does NOT give the Feds that power, so it is left for the States by definition.

Actually Clause III is clearly written with the intention that electors cast their own votes (which was how the system's designers intended it to function).

The Constitution actually does not provide to the States the power to dictate how the College Votes. It grants the power to vote to the Electors, who are themselves elected in whatever manner the state chooses. Technically neither the States or the Federal Government are empowered to tell them how to vote (so technically the States have been violating the Constitution basically for 200 years but no one really cares because the current system is practical )

10th amendment. Since the constitution doesn't expressly give the federal govts power of how electors may vote that power resides with the states.

 whembly wrote:
Popular vote? We don't need no stinking popular vote.

TL;DR: Any popular vote argument is meaningless as the contest wasn't designed to maximize the most number of votes in the US.

That doesn't make it any less true that more voters pulled the lever for Hillary than they did for Trump.

That blogpost is just a bunch of random stupid gak that tries to redefine what the "popular vote" is. It's widely understood that "popular vote" means total votes cast, and yes, Hillary "won" that contest.

 CptJake wrote:
If you turn the contest into one for popular vote, why the feth would any candidate go anywhere but CA and NY, and specifically the cities in them? You may hit a few other major cities, but most states would be a waste of effort for the campaigns to go to. The Electoral system is the way it is for some damned good reasons.

Because if you knew how population distribution actually was, you'd know that hitting only the few major urban areas would get a candidate nowhere near the plurality of votes and the presidency.

That's a nonsense argument that just gets repeated so much that people start believing it. Stop using it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If you turn the contest into one for popular vote, why the feth would any candidate go anywhere but CA and NY, and specifically the cities in them? You may hit a few other major cities, but most states would be a waste of effort for the campaigns to go to. The Electoral system is the way it is for some damned good reasons.

Because the majority of voters still live in other places than CA and NY. In fact, there live voters all over the country.

Do you think presidential candidates in France just campaign in Paris and the big cities?

France has half the population and physical size. Its not quite the same as the US, where you have large chunks of the population on the coast, and the rest of the population spread out across the middle, across huge distances.

Actually USA has about 3.5 times the population and about 12 times the land area if you only consider the contiguous states.

So France has roughly 3 to 4 times the population density.

tneva82 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I'll try this one more time, we had low voter turnout this year. When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here. Our population is growing and our number of eligible voters is growing so you can get "a lot" of votes while having a low percentage of voters cast ballots. Clinton's number of voters in the other 49 states aside from California underperformed Obama's numbers and more importantly Trump's. Trump got more votes than Hillary in a majority of states because Hillary had low turnout in a majority of states. You can willfully ignore the fact that low turnout cost Hillary the election but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

I'll try this one more time though seems you aren't willing to face the simple facts that don't support your narrative:

Trump: 60,367,401
Cllinton: 61,035,460

Can you do simple substraction? Who got more votes?

If Clinton had low support then Trump had abysmal support.

Clinton received more votes because she won the most populous state by a 2:1 margin that doesn't show broad support at all. We vote by state, Trump won 3/5ths of the states. Trump won more states, won more electoral votes and won the election because he had more voters in a majority of states. Clinton had a minority of support in regards to the only metric that counts. Trump had more people vote for him in more states than Clinton ergo he had more support. You are choosing to assign a value to the popular vote that it has never had in any presidential election.

So, is it considered Godwinning a thread if actual Nazi's are involved?

Even the American Nazi Party leader was surprised (and more worringly, delighted) to see Bannon brought into the White House.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"The Democrats are just complaining because they didn't benefit this time!" would hold a lot more merit if it wasn't for the fact that all four Presidents (not counting JCQ because that was... special) that have won despite getting less votes have been Republican.

Its almost as if the states on the coast, which have high population densities, tend to vote democrat.

That has no bearing on why we use the Electoral College as it was designed and enacted before California or any state west of the Appalachians existed nor did the 2 current political parties.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Popular vote? We don't need no stinking popular vote.

TL;DR: Any popular vote argument is meaningless as the contest wasn't designed to maximize the most number of votes in the US.

That doesn't make it any less true that more voters pulled the lever for Hillary than they did for Trump.

That blogpost is just a bunch of random stupid gak that tries to redefine what the "popular vote" is. It's widely understood that "popular vote" means total votes cast, and yes, Hillary "won" that contest.

But it's a hollow win when that's not how the system worked. There would have been a bunch of Californian team red supporters who just didn't bother going to vote because they knew their votes wouldn't count for anything and likewise there would have been team blue supporters in Texas or the middle of the country that didn't vote for a similar reason.

If the president was elected by popular vote the result may have been different, so crying that Hill lost but won the popular vote by a whopping 0.5% is hollow and not significant.

 whembly wrote:
This is why we have the Electoral College:

Spoiler:

With a popular vote system, candidates would simple hit the blue areas in the map.

Also this. The popular vote system is popular among Dems in no small part for the obvious, though arguably Trump has far less to worry about on that front if he can switch the national political dynamic away from having a significant rural vs urban opposition.

10th amendment. Since the constitution doesn't expressly give the federal govts power of how electors may vote that power resides with the states.

That's not how the 10th Amendment works.

The Constitution specifies the Federal role of electors, and the intent of the founders is blatantly apparent. We just haven't followed it.

You would not need an Amendment to pass a law that assured the independence of the college (EDIT: though obviously you'd have one hell of a SCOTUS case). Constitutionally this would be nothing more than allowing the Federal government to enforce the Constitution's actual provisions for how Electors are to cast their votes (elector's choice).

Once you do that, the rest kind of falls into place on its own. The States would have to actually run electoral elections, and the sole job of the winners of those elections is to vote for whoever the people who elected them elected them to vote for, and as a result the College would end up voting proportionally to state popular vote.

It's really quite elegant. Unfortunately it requires people to have read that piece of paper they're always going on about, but the only sections any ever reads seem to be Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 20.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But it's a hollow win when that's not how the system worked. There would have been a bunch of Californian team red supporters who just didn't bother going to vote because they knew their votes wouldn't count for anything and likewise there would have been team blue supporters in Texas or the middle of the country that didn't vote for a similar reason.

I didn't say it wasn't anything but. I was calling out that blog post for being stupid because it is.

If the president was elected by popular vote the result may have been different, so crying that Hill lost but won the popular vote by a whopping 0.5% is hollow and not significant.

If this is directed to me, please note that I'm not crying. Within the rules of the system, Trump won fair and square; getting less votes than his opponent doesn't delegitimize his electoral victory. I don't like Clinton and I really didn't want her to be president, however, I dislike our undemocratic, anti-republic method of electing a president. This has nothing to do with the two clowns that ran for president this year.

 whembly wrote:
This is why we have the Electoral College:

Spoiler:

With a popular vote system, candidates would simple hit the blue areas in the map.

So how many times did Donald Trump visit those grey counties?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is why we have the Electoral College:

Spoiler:

With a popular vote system, candidates would simple hit the blue areas in the map.

So how many times did Donald Trump visit those grey counties?

I'm having a hard time finding his schedule for stops that he and Pence made, but off hand, I know of more then a few.

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is why we have the Electoral College:

Spoiler:

With a popular vote system, candidates would simple hit the blue areas in the map.

So how many times did Donald Trump visit those grey counties?

I'm having a hard time finding his schedule for stops that he and Pence made, but off hand, I know of more then a few.

I think it's kind of a moot question. How they vote is more significant than whether they were directly visited, and one of the significant advantages of the college is that it keeps areas of lower population density from being shut out of the Presidential selection process. If only the straight popular vote mattered, forget about visiting. How much policy attention would rural areas get? Urban and suburban concerns already dominate much of the American political landscape. Imagine if politicians could just ignore them and focus on the fact that 17% of the US landmass contains 76% of its population?

In the rush to bemoan how the college can produce a winner who didn't win the popular vote, and accurate criticism of how in the system some votes count more than others, I think people forget that the college was put in place precisely because a straight popular vote easily becomes tyranny of the majority.

It is interesting that there have only been 5 elections where the presidential winner failed to also win the popular vote and 3 were in the 1800s while 2 have happened since 2000.

The idea behind the electoral college seems to be rooted in the fear of too much populism leading to mob rule. It seems to be designed as a counterbalance against densely populated areas running the show. Unfortunately, it creates a whole new set of arbitrary issues.

People also seem to forget the 12th Amendment (as mentioned earlier). This fundamentally changed how the system works, and largely protected pro-slavery states. Due to election uncertainties at the time, their were pushes for reform, including election by popular vote. Such an idea terrified the pro-slavery South who feared that the numbers of free blacks would overwhelm them. Eventually, the North caved (the infamous 3/5 compromise) and Virginia ended up in the driver's seat with the largest number of EVs.

The system we have is not the original one as envisioned, but a compromise system to protect slaveholders. Ironically, the system continues to minimize the some votes of the most racially diverse states.

 Breotan wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Although more states could quite easily start assigning their electors proportionally to the result of the popular vote in the state instead of 'winner takes it all'. If all states did that, it would almost (but not wholly) eliminate the risk of anyone wining the presidential election without having the most votes.

Actually, it wouldn't. The disparity comes from States like New York and California having very large populations who vote significantly for one party. Even with proportional Electors, you'll still have a situation where all the surplus votes in California and New York propel Hillary atop the nationwide popular vote total simply because there are so many people in those States who voted for her.

It definately would largely eliminate the problem though.

 CptJake wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If you turn the contest into one for popular vote, why the feth would any candidate go anywhere but CA and NY, and specifically the cities in them? You may hit a few other major cities, but most states would be a waste of effort for the campaigns to go to. The Electoral system is the way it is for some damned good reasons.

Because the majority of voters still live in other places than CA and NY. In fact, there live voters all over the country.

Do you think presidential candidates in France just campaign in Paris and the big cities?

Look at the differences in population and physical size between France and the US.

Campaigning takes resources. They are spent where the most 'bang for the buck' occurs. I stand by my statement. There would be no reason to hit other states, except for a handful of major cities.

I don't see why larger population would matter. There are more voters to reach, but you have a larger pool of people to recruit to run the campaign, and more money to spend.

Not to mention, the digital infrastructure of today is nothing like the infrastructure of the day when the elector system was created. A presidential candidate and a voter in the most backwater, isolated piece of nowhere in the US can reach each other within seconds through the internet and social media.

If anything, having proportional distribution encourages campaigning in all states since, while a democrat might not have a chance of winning 50% of flaming red Tennesse, it'll be worth giving attention to the state if it means you with a good result can take 4 electors instead of 3.

 jmurph wrote:
It is interesting that there have only been 5 elections where the presidential winner failed to also win the popular vote and 3 were in the 1800s while 2 have happened since 2000.

The idea behind the electoral college seems to be rooted in the fear of too much populism leading to mob rule. It seems to be designed as a counterbalance against densely populated areas running the show. Unfortunately, it creates a whole new set of arbitrary issues.

People also seem to forget the 12th Amendment (as mentioned earlier). This fundamentally changed how the system works, and largely protected pro-slavery states. Due to election uncertainties at the time, their were pushes for reform, including election by popular vote. Such an idea terrified the pro-slavery South who feared that the numbers of free blacks would overwhelm them. Eventually, the North caved (the infamous 3/5 compromise) and Virginia ended up in the driver's seat with the largest number of EVs.

The system we have is not the original one as envisioned, but a compromise system to protect slaveholders. Ironically, the system continues to minimize the some votes of the most racially diverse states.

I'm a student of American history and politics and I still don't have a clue about electoral colleges and so on. God knows how you guys cope.

Give me the parliament system and an unwritten constitution any day of the week.

EDIT. I take that back, we have a constitutional crisis right now because we lack a constitution to answer the question.

 LordofHats wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is why we have the Electoral College:

Spoiler:

With a popular vote system, candidates would simple hit the blue areas in the map.

So how many times did Donald Trump visit those grey counties?

I'm having a hard time finding his schedule for stops that he and Pence made, but off hand, I know of more then a few.

I think it's kind of a moot question. How they vote is more significant than whether they were directly visited, and one of the significant advantages of the college is that it keeps areas of lower population density from being shut out of the Presidential selection process. If only the straight popular vote mattered, forget about visiting. How much policy attention would rural areas get? Urban and suburban concerns already dominate much of the American political landscape. Imagine if politicians could just ignore them and focus on the fact that 17% of the US landmass contains 76% of its population?

In the rush to bemoan how the college can produce a winner who didn't win the popular vote, and accurate criticism of how in the system some votes count more than others, I think people forget that the college was put in place precisely because a straight popular vote easily becomes tyranny of the majority.

Indeed.

Also... to djone's point, Trump traveled all over MI, OH and PA (grey counties)... not just the high populated areas.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
It is interesting that there have only been 5 elections where the presidential winner failed to also win the popular vote and 3 were in the 1800s while 2 have happened since 2000.

The idea behind the electoral college seems to be rooted in the fear of too much populism leading to mob rule. It seems to be designed as a counterbalance against densely populated areas running the show. Unfortunately, it creates a whole new set of arbitrary issues.

People also seem to forget the 12th Amendment (as mentioned earlier). This fundamentally changed how the system works, and largely protected pro-slavery states. Due to election uncertainties at the time, their were pushes for reform, including election by popular vote. Such an idea terrified the pro-slavery South who feared that the numbers of free blacks would overwhelm them. Eventually, the North caved (the infamous 3/5 compromise) and Virginia ended up in the driver's seat with the largest number of EVs.

The system we have is not the original one as envisioned, but a compromise system to protect slaveholders. Ironically, the system continues to minimize the some votes of the most racially diverse states.

I'm a student of American history and politics and I still don't have a clue about electoral colleges and so on. God knows how you guys cope.

Give me the parliament system and an unwritten constitution any day of the week.

EDIT. I take that back, we have a constitutional crisis right now because we lack a constitution to answer the question.

Well, most American's don't have a clue either, so don't worry there.

 feeder wrote:


This hasn't been posted here yet, but I think it has some real merit [/snark]

Just gotta ditch baseball for hockey (no brainer, really) and understand fries ain't gak without cheese curds and gravy.

Oh, and it's a toque, not beanie, and put the "u" back into colour and armour and honour. It looks better.

Welcome to the family!

Funnily enough, that could easily have happened. If the American revolution had never happened or Britain had won it, that scenario would probably have played out, because Canada/Australia/New Zealand etc etc ended up becoming dominions (independent in all but name) anyway.

Imagine North America as one country, with all its resources, self- sufficient, no need for Middle Eastern Oil, and loyal to Britain. Would World War 1 have happened if that mega nation was backing up Britain?

The Germans would have run a mile.

And in the 21st century, that mega nation would have laughed at China's attempts at global domination.

It's all speculation, but the world could have been different. Damn Yankees and their revolution!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
It is interesting that there have only been 5 elections where the presidential winner failed to also win the popular vote and 3 were in the 1800s while 2 have happened since 2000.

The idea behind the electoral college seems to be rooted in the fear of too much populism leading to mob rule. It seems to be designed as a counterbalance against densely populated areas running the show. Unfortunately, it creates a whole new set of arbitrary issues.

People also seem to forget the 12th Amendment (as mentioned earlier). This fundamentally changed how the system works, and largely protected pro-slavery states. Due to election uncertainties at the time, their were pushes for reform, including election by popular vote. Such an idea terrified the pro-slavery South who feared that the numbers of free blacks would overwhelm them. Eventually, the North caved (the infamous 3/5 compromise) and Virginia ended up in the driver's seat with the largest number of EVs.

The system we have is not the original one as envisioned, but a compromise system to protect slaveholders. Ironically, the system continues to minimize the some votes of the most racially diverse states.

I'm a student of American history and politics and I still don't have a clue about electoral colleges and so on. God knows how you guys cope.

Give me the parliament system and an unwritten constitution any day of the week.

EDIT. I take that back, we have a constitutional crisis right now because we lack a constitution to answer the question.

Well, most American's don't have a clue either, so don't worry there.

What about? Our Parliament system or America itself?

Evidence would suggest both of the above