Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This NYT link states 100% reporting and Trump ahead by about 11,000: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan. Perhaps it has not been called because it automatically triggered a recount?
No recount.
The Secretary of State has said he doesn't know why Michigan hasn't been called.
He also said that he doesn't know why the media claims Trumps lead is 11,000 when it is just over 13,000.
He said Hillary can pay for a recount, but the state only does a recount if it is 2,000 or less.
It is equally unfair to have 20 people in an apartment building have the same influence as 20 people who own 20 acres of land that pay goo-gobs more in property taxes than the apartment dwellers.
In what universe?
In this one, 20 = 20. The renters pay taxes, fight wars, and carry just as much burden as anyone else, including the property owners. The property owners have the benefit of tax deductions for mortgage interest and other benefits of equity, etc. The property tax is because they own property...it doesn't give them some sort of electoral leverage. This is the 21st century...if you are unhappy with the tax structure then change it. It has nothing to do with the value of someone's vote.
In what universe?
In this one, 20 = 20. The renters pay taxes, fight wars, and carry just as much burden as anyone else, including the property owners. The property owners have the benefit of tax deductions for mortgage interest and other benefits of equity, etc. The property tax is because they own property...it doesn't give them some sort of electoral leverage. This is the 21st century...if you are unhappy with the tax structure then change it. It has nothing to do with the value of someone's vote.
Actually that is one of the reasons why we have the system we do. A smaller percentage of the people in this country will control the land and money. That's why we are NOT a mob rule country. A mob rule society will only try to vote more of wealth holder's money into their pockets. BTW the POTUS is not there for the individual. That position if for managing the United States as a Union. That's what the EC was put into place for. To give everyone a say not just a majority of people.
The POTUS is not about representing the people. The POTUS is about representing the individual states joined together as one union.
How dare you confuse people like that?
Remember, these are quite likely the same folks that believe the United States is a Democracy.
They will simply not listen when they are told that it is, in reality, a Constitutional Republic.
Apparently, civics and American Government are not taught in schools these days...
Actually that is one of the reasons why we have the system we do. A smaller percentage of the people in this country will control the land and money. That's why we are NOT a mob rule country. A mob rule society will only try to vote more of wealth holder's money into their pockets. BTW the POTUS is not there for the individual. That position if for managing the United States as a Union. That's what the EC was put into place for. To give everyone a say not just a majority of people.
Well congratulations, only 1/4 of the population even voted for Trump. So we already have a small percentage of people who elect the president. Obviously you are in favor of the EC since your candidate won, but I do question your response had it been the other way around and Trump won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote.
By the way, this isn't about Hillary or Trump, this is about the EC needing to be updated to better represent the people of the country that live within the 50 states and abroad. It should also not have a 270 benchmark to decide who the winner is because all that does is prevent third parties from being able to compete. Also with better representing the voters better, we should also do away with winner take all in each state and go to a proportional system.
That would better reflect people within each state, as well as the country as a whole.
Well congratulations, only 1/4 of the population even voted for Trump. So we already have a small percentage of people who elect the president. Obviously you are in favor of the EC since your candidate won, but I do question your response had it been the other way around and Trump won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote.
I've never complained about the EC. It's fine as it is.
65 million voted for someone besides Hillary
64 million voted for someone besides Trump
If you are in a room of 20 people and 15 decide to pounce on you does that make it right because that's what the majority wanted? Let's say in that room there are 5 officers. Those 5 officers can and will overrule the will of those 15 individuals with necessary force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperOscar
By the way, this isn't about Hillary or Trump, this is about the EC needing to be updated to better represent the people of the country that live within the 50 states and abroad. It should also not have a 270 benchmark to decide who the winner is because all that does is prevent third parties from being able to compete. Also with better representing the voters better, we should also do away with winner take all in each state and go to a proportional system.
That would better reflect people within each state, as well as the country as a whole.
If you go to a proportional system you might as well abolish the EC college as it's a popular vote anyway. There is nothing wrong with the system. It's working as it was intended. It seems that when you are on the losing side you want to change the rules.
You don't think that Trump winning 30 states represents what the country as a whole wants? Out of those 30 states the total cumulative population is 175 million. The total cumulative of registered voters in the 30 states was 82 million. There are 140 million total registered voters in all 50 states. The system worked beautifully. He appealed to a larger base than Clinton did. That's what the EC does. It rewards those that go out and appeal to a majority of the country and not dense population centers.
Should this happen which I doubt it would, could push us into a civil war.
This will push us into civil war. An election being overturn by presidential electors will undermine the electoral system. The real question would then be why have an election if the presidential electors can renegade on state chosen electoral candidate? Might as well skip the expense of running an election and primaries and have the presidential electors select who will be president. Do you think different member of military will just stand by and let it happen? Last I check the arm forces are required to take an oath to protect the constitution and it's values, which if I'm not mistaken such a renegade decision by the presidential electors would be such an attack on the constitution.
Personally, I think all states need to make so that presidential electors can't switch their votes for future elections. This will eliminate the possibility of an elected candidate not being selected by the presidential electors and a possible civil war, sever civil unrest, or some unfavorable event to USA.
I've never complained about the EC. It's fine as it is.
65 million voted for someone besides Hillary
64 million voted for someone besides Trump
If you are in a room of 20 people and 15 decide to pounce on you does that make it right because that's what the majority wanted? Let's say in that room there are 5 officers. Those 5 officers can and will overrule the will of those 15 individuals with necessary force.
If you go to a proportional system you might as well abolish the EC college as it's a popular vote anyway. There is nothing wrong with the system. It's working as it was intended. It seems that when you are on the losing side you want to change the rules.
Well is it fair if 5 people in that room of 20 decide to pounce on you, and the majority did nothing to stop it? Is that also right? So basically the moral of your story is that if they have guns, then they can control the majority....
Well that is true, you might as well get rid of the EC if going with a proportional system, which I would also be fine with since the EC is outdated and doesn't properly reflect the country and its people.
Everyone should have a one to one vote, no one's vote should count more than someone else's vote.
Again, I will state this as clear as I possibly can, I did not vote for Hillary, and this isn't about who's side wins or loses, I have always felt this way about the EC even when Obama won two times, though he also won the popular votes as well both times, so it was less of an issue since the majority voted for him, but that wouldn't change that it made no sense to have the EC.
Quote:
You don't think that Trump winning 30 states represents what the country as a whole wants? Out of those 30 states the total cumulative population is 175 million. The total cumulative of registered voters in the 30 states was 82 million. There are 140 million total registered voters in all 50 states. The system worked beautifully. He appealed to a larger base than Clinton did. That's what the EC does. It rewards those that go out and appeal to a majority of the country and not dense population centers.
That only works if you assume all of those in the 30 states voted for Trump. The winner takes all system doesn't properly reflect the voters in states because not everyone in Oregon voted for Hillary, yet she won all the electoral votes in Oregon.
Well congratulations, only 1/4 of the population even voted for Trump. So we already have a small percentage of people who elect the president. Obviously you are in favor of the EC since your candidate won, but I do question your response had it been the other way around and Trump won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote.
By the way, this isn't about Hillary or Trump, this is about the EC needing to be updated to better represent the people of the country that live within the 50 states and abroad. It should also not have a 270 benchmark to decide who the winner is because all that does is prevent third parties from being able to compete. Also with better representing the voters better, we should also do away with winner take all in each state and go to a proportional system.
That would better reflect people within each state, as well as the country as a whole.
The system does not need change. A proportional system as you state would be exactly the same as a popular vote. Look the small states will not give up their power. It's that simple. Any attempt to change the system to a popular vote or proportional system will be oppose by the majority of states. I highly doubted you would even get half the required votes to change the EC system, which makes anything you write rather pointless. You don't have the votes. Thus, there is no point to continue having this discussion. In short, the proponents who want to change the EC have no power to change the system. Proponents who want to change EC need to work on acquiring more power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
