What if Trump or Clinton wins the elctoral vote, while losing the popular vote? (interstate, radical)

[WaldoKitty]

It makes me laugh that all the.... "Trump Has No Path to 270" people are now crying about the popular vote.

[Max Sterling]

I mean seriously why even call this a 'national election' when every damn presidential election turns out the same way where a handful of 'battleground states' decide the fate of the entire country?? Every election all everyone ever cares about is Ohio, Florida, Iowa and the other hand full of 'swing states' that will decide who wins the election. The thing is why can't we just make ONE MINOR CHANGE to the electorical college system so that ALL states matter and ALL the votes cast will matter?

Namely why can't we just change it from winner take all to having the electorical votes being distributed based on the PERCENTAGE of people who vote for each candidate? This one TINY CHANGE would mean:

- ALL states would be in play and there is no such thing as 'blue' or 'red' states where parties can 100% guarantee certain states to be in their column even before the election begins.

- ALL votes cast in the election by people throughout the entire nation WOULD ACTUALLY MATTER. It doesn't matter if you live in a solidly Democratic or Republican state, you can now still make a difference.

- The results of the election would be MUCH LESS predictable. No longer can you look at the electoral map and say that 'If the Republican candidate doesn't win Florida and Ohio, they are done' even before all the votes from millions of Americans from other states are counted.

- It would mean that third party candidates would be more likely to win some electoral votes. No longer do you have to win an entire state to earn EVs, you can now potentially earn one or two or more in each state if you're popular enough.


Here's how it would work:

Take Texas for example which will likely be always majority Republican. Under the current system, if you're a Dem living in that state, other than adding to the popular vote what's the point of you voting when you know its never going to make a difference?? Texas and its 38 votes will always go in the Republican column. But if you make it so that the EVs of each state are distributed based on how many people actually vote for each candidate, all of a sudden a Democrat's vote in Texas DOES MATTER.

In Texas Trump got 52.6% of the vote so 52.6% of 38 EVs = about 20 EVs
Hillary in Texas got 43.4% of the vote so 43.4% of 38 EVs = about 16 EVs
Gary Johnson in Texas got 3.2% of the vote so 3.2% of 38 EVs = about 1 EVs

So in the new system based on percentage, Trump would've still got most of the EVs in Texas for getting the most votes, BUT Hillary would've also earned some EVs instead of getting nothing and even Gary Johnson would've earned a vote. Do the same thing for California where instead of getting nothing Trump would've gotten 18 EVs from Republicans voting for him there and Johnson would've gotten almost 2 EVs. Or in New York where Trump would've gotten about 11 EVs instead of nothing.

The bottom line is that making a such a simple change to the system would IMMEDIATELY make people's votes from ALL STATES matter and that just because you live in a majority blue or red state it no longer means that you can't still make a difference by going out to vote.

[katie45]

And if crooked Hillary had won? Um, well, then I guess the Electoral College would still be okay, right?

[Trigger-f]

Yes, coming up.. will take a few mins(you want fries with that)?

[JGMotorsport64]

A big reason is that the purpose of the Electoral College was to give voice to small states. Without the EC, candidates would simply focus all of their resources on California, Texas, Florida, and New York. The rest would be inconsequential, so you'd be trading swing states for large states.

We are a republic of states, that was always the intention. Your proportional system is just an indirect medium for popular vote.

I'm a Democrat, Hillary lost, move on.

[VA Yankee]

Reading the OP's statement I gather that if the most heavily populated states lean towards one candidate then all the states voting the other way is inconsequential, yeah real democracy.

The electoral college has not met yet and HRC will receive those electoral votes she won unfortunately her highly populated states do not provide enough votes to put her over 270 so I guess winning most of states (even with lower populations) pays better than a few big ones....

[ATX Wahine]

Without the EC our election outcomes would be based on voters in New York and California alone - both Democratic strongholds with a combined population of 48 million people.

Our forefathers were visionary enough to realize this could happen, thus the EC was created. Always been this way, always will be. It's not going to change just because losers lose badly.

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by Max Sterling

I mean seriously why even call this a 'national election' when every damn presidential election turns out the same way where a handful of 'battleground states' decide the fate of the entire country?? Every election all everyone ever cares about is Ohio, Florida, Iowa and the other hand full of 'swing states' that will decide who wins the election. The thing is why can't we just make ONE MINOR CHANGE to the electorical college system so that ALL states matter and ALL the votes cast will matter?

Why? Because our Founding Fathers were smart enough to understand that popular democracy results in the tyranny of the mob.

Also, our founding fathers came together to form our nation as a Union of independent sovereign States. The States, not the People, ratified the US Constitution.

I've posted some version of the text the below twice already in the past several minutes:

Do we really have to educate you people each time this happens?

Do you think the Founding Fathers were unaware of the possibility that a candidate might win an election without the popular vote?

Do you not understand the concept of checks and balances and the role that the EC plays in that concept?

Some morons in Cali are now calling for Cali to secede from the Union that is the United States of America.

That the States and not the People elect POTUS is by design, for the reasons referred to above.

This is because we are a union of States. The United States.

We the People did not ratify the United States Constitution.

The States ratified the US Constitution. And the States were jealous of their respective sovereign powers and rights and ratified a Constitution that protected their respective rights and powers as sovereign States.

When the borders of the States are dissolved, then you can discuss a popular vote for POTUS. But, if you do away with our system of sovereign States, you move another step closer to the tyranny of the mob. Adopt a popular vote and you will have your desired tyranny.

But, why then should States such as Wyoming or Alaska remain a part of the Union?

Be careful what you wish for.

[Snowball7]

The popular vote contains how many illegals and dead people ?

Mayors, Governors, even the President were telling illegals to vote.

An audited popular vote would subtract millions of illegals and other
vote fraud by Democrats.

So no, Hillary certainly did NOT win the popular vote.

[mountainrose]

OP -- you feel this because your candidate lost.
If it had been Trump losing via the EC you'd be just fine about it.