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.
You know, even when it looked like demographic changes (as told by the MSM) threatened to keep the GOP out of the White House for a generation, I still supported the electoral college. But, then again, I realized that the bulk of this "demographic change" was in states that were already solidly leftist and that the Dems' identity politics would make them less competitive in states like WI, MI, PA, etc. These people seeking to change the rules because they can't win are very distressing.
In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)
Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!
And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.
Thats why the left hates it, the Electoral College because it makes things fair and equal.
Out of fresh rumors? Posting 2-year old fiction? At least it makes it easier to understand how Trump got elected.
Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood:
Illegal aliens shouldn't be counted in the Census because they're not even supposed to be here in the first place.
Same weak argument as some other thread where it was handedly refuted.
There's this thing called US Code 2a. Census counts all inhabitants of a state. And the count of inhabitants (or whole persons as the language says) is used to apportion the number of representatives in Congress. Sorry, but you love to hug the Constitution for everything else when it suits you. If you want to back up your arguments with the Constitution (which is valid!) then I'm sure you can accept this as well.
Out of fresh rumors? Posting 2-year old fiction? At least it makes it easier to understand how Trump got elected.
It's not hard to understand.
Trump won every single battleground state out there. He destroyed every single one of Hillary's "path to 270" which all of you insisted that she had. How could she not win Ohio, NC or Florida? That is the question that should be asked.
People will be studying that colossal failure for years.
I think my quote and addition for context is accurate. And thanks for agreeing with me.
Now that we are on the same page, realize that the "primary season" and "general election season" are constructs of our two party system. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say when campaigns start. Nowhere does it say that the popular vote in the state dictates the winner of all of the electoral votes either. The people could vote and then the state legislature could flip a coin if they so choose.
Saying "there isn't enough time" is a weak argument. It is even laughable when you look at the facts behind it. In the last 10 weeks of the campaign, Trump made 106 stops. Clinton made 70.
Here's a list of the states that NEITHER of them campaigned in that final stretch:
Washington (12)
Oregon (7)
Idaho (4)
Montana (3)
Utah (6)
Wyoming (3)
North Dakota (3)
South Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
Nebraska (5)
Kansas (6)
Louisiana (8)
Illinois (20)
Arkansas (6)
Tennessee (11)
Indiana (11)
Kentucky (8)
West Virginia (5)
Mississippi (6)
Alabama (9)
Georgia (16)
South Carolina (9)
Connecticut (7)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Massachusetts (11)
Alaska (3)
Hawaii (4)
That's 214 Electoral Votes where the candidates didn't even need to step foot into the state to claim them. Trump and Clinton had time to make 176 campaign stops. Couldn't spare a single one for one of these states, huh? I'm not sure what your definition of being ignored is.
I think you are getting caught up in this whole "oh he just wants to abolish the electoral college, so I'm going to just jump to conclusions." I'm not saying to abolish the EC, so stop saying it. I'm saying that defending it because otherwise "small states will be ignored" is just a bad defense.
I don't know how many other ways that I can show that small states are ignored (see list above). Large states are ignored as well. There's a reason why candidates focus on certain states. It is the construct that they work within. But don't stand behind the argument that they don't have time.
Sort of an addendum to the bolded....there are lots of electoral votes that 'voting likelihood wise' could be added to that list, BUT aren't on that list because they DID garner visits. The two EC vote rich states that come to mind that fit what I'm saying in this paragraph are California and New York. One reason why any such 'lopsided' states would still garner visits.....fundraisers....well heeled voters who want to press the flesh, so to speak, without having to travel or be inconvenienced to do so. Another reason, which might apply most to California and New York....media attention.
If this is ever adopted by enough states to represent 270 electoral votes (it currently has been adopted by 11 states and DC, representing 172 electoral votes), it would be interesting to see what the 'next move' would be.
Sort of an addendum to the bolded....there are lots of electoral votes that 'voting likelihood wise' could be added to that list, BUT aren't on that list because they DID garner visits. The two EC vote rich states that come to mind that fit what I'm saying in this paragraph are California and New York. One reason why any such 'lopsided' states would still garner visits.....fundraisers....well heeled voters who want to press the flesh, so to speak, without having to travel or be inconvenienced to do so. Another reason, which might apply most to California and New York....media attention.
Thanks for replying.
Yes, I left off New York and California because I was trying to stick to easily identifiable facts (no visits by either campaign after the convention). Clinton made at least one trip to CA (likely a fundraiser?) and they both made stops in NY, but to be fair, they both had residences in NY.
So yeah, that 214 EV number could easily have been inflated to 298, but I didn't want people to think I was playing games with the numbers.
Sadly enough, even pointing out that 298 EV (and more) are left uncontested isn't enough to show people that the system (Electoral College) is flawed. The argument that the system works because "my guy won" is invalid. Equally, the argument that the system does not work because "my gal lost" is also invalid.
The fact that candidates made 180ish campaign stops from roughly the convention to election day and spent ZERO in the states I listed is a sign that the system isn't working. And there is a strong correlation between lower voter turnout and ignored (non-battleground) states is a sign that the system isn't working.
What is very disturbing to me is that various polls taken between 2007 and 2016 (prior to the election) show that across the nation, people supported a National Popular Vote. I'm talking 70%, 80% support. Polls after the election are more split, 50/50. It is very shortsighted of people to change their stance due to "their guy."
So, that likely means that there are various people on CD that were in the National Popular Vote camp prior to Trump's Election yet now they are suddenly staunch supporters of the Electoral College. Think about that. Bush won in 2000 while losing the popular vote. You'd think that would still be in people's minds when these polls were taken. But it wasn't.
If this is ever adopted by enough states to represent 270 electoral votes (it currently has been adopted by 11 states and DC, representing 172 electoral votes), it would be interesting to see what the 'next move' would be.
I've brought that up in various threads. The will of the people was denied by their state governments. Polls show it had popular support (majority support) but political parties don't want to expand the electoral map. They'd rather be known as "red states" and essentially ignored by nominees in the general election campaign season.
The NPVIC won't pass without red state support. It will likely require a Democrat winning the election while losing the popular vote. Then they'll come around.
It is a great idea though - effectively neutering the Electoral College. Don't even need to change a line in the Constitution. States clearly have the right to select Electors and the federal government cannot infringe on that right.
Honestly, I'd rather see the nation come to a better legislative resolution than circumventing the Electoral College entirely. But maybe if the NPVIC ever did go into effect (or close enough) it would result in forcing the issue upon Congress.
Yes, I left off New York and California because I was trying to stick to easily identifiable facts (no visits by either campaign after the convention). Clinton made at least one trip to CA (likely a fundraiser?) and they both made stops in NY, but to be fair, they both had residences in NY.
So yeah, that 214 EV number could easily have been inflated to 298, but I didn't want people to think I was playing games with the numbers.
Sadly enough, even pointing out that 298 EV (and more) are left uncontested isn't enough to show people that the system (Electoral College) is flawed. The argument that the system works because "my guy won" is invalid. Equally, the argument that the system does not work because "my gal lost" is also invalid.
The fact that candidates made 180ish campaign stops from roughly the convention to election day and spent ZERO in the states I listed is a sign that the system isn't working. And there is a strong correlation between lower voter turnout and ignored (non-battleground) states is a sign that the system isn't working.
What is very disturbing to me is that various polls taken between 2007 and 2016 (prior to the election) show that across the nation, people supported a National Popular Vote. I'm talking 70%, 80% support. Polls after the election are more split, 50/50. It is very shortsighted of people to change their stance due to "their guy."
So, that likely means that there are various people on CD that were in the National Popular Vote camp prior to Trump's Election yet now they are suddenly staunch supporters of the Electoral College. Think about that. Bush won in 2000 while losing the popular vote. You'd think that would still be in people's minds when these polls were taken. But it wasn't.
A sort of whole system comment on perspective that I've heard that is sort of an expansion of that (what I bolded above), and seems to be an attitude that a number of people have but don't realize they have is....'all Congress critters are terrible except my Congress critter who is fantastic' .
Trump won every single battleground state out there. He destroyed every single one of Hillary's "path to 270" which all of you insisted that she had. How could she not win Ohio, NC or Florida? That is the question that should be asked.
People will be studying that colossal failure for years.
Don’t forget Pennsylvania. Even the dead voters in Philly couldn’t push the old lady over the line.
That was the crusher.
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.
.
