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.
No argument there. But we are discussing the Presidential election.
Then you admit that your football analogy was foolish. In all such leagues that I am aware of, the team with the most points at the end of the game wins. I know of no league wherein some ridiculous 18th century alt-criterion for winning is used instead. It appears to date that nearly 2 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. We are only earning ridicule and status points as a "failed state" for ourselves here.
Then you admit that your football analogy was foolish.
It's not foolish at all.
Quote:
In all such leagues that I am aware of, the team with the most points at the end of the game wins.
I all US Presidential elections that I am aware of, the candidate with the most electoral votes at the end wins.
Discussing whether or not the Electoral College should be retained is a potentially useful discussion. However, a candidate winning the electoral college, but not the popular vote shouldn't be a reason for that discussion. Why? Because that's currently not how the game is played, and as pointed out previously, IF popular vote was the correct metric, BOTH candidates would have campaigned differently, and the popular vote would likely have been quite different than it was.
Simple numbers DID determine the outcome of the election. The candidate with the largest number of electors won.
In football, who wins the game? The team that gained the most yardage, or the team that earned the most points? You are arguing that yardage gained should win the game. Too bad, it doesn't work like that.
In a presidential election, the numbers of individual votes for each candidate are meaningless, as that is not how the winner is determined. If the presidential election were based on individual votes, you would have seen both candidates campaign differently. Neither candidate campaigned to win the popular vote, and for that reason, arguing about the popular vote post-election is a meaningless exercise.
Simple numbers that reflect what a majority or plurality of the voting public thinks should determine the outcome of the election. I digress though, you knew what I was saying. I don't need to hear patronizing football analogies either.
I totally agree we determine the winner of the presidential election based on electoral votes. I'm arguing its time to change that.
I skipped ahead to your last post in which you are trying to contend the campaign would have been different had this contest been a popular vote contest. I'm starting to think this must be a right wing talking point because some people keep bringing it up. If you want to pretend the outcome of this race would have been different if the campaign had been for a majority of popular votes you have my permission to use your imagination all you wish.
It was totally inapropos. It's the weirdo outlier standard that applies in US Presidential elections and in no other. Your football analogy had that 180-degrees reversed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Discussing whether or not the Electoral College should be retained is a potentially useful discussion. However, a candidate winning the electoral college, but not the popular vote shouldn't be a reason for that discussion. Why? Because that's currently not how the game is played...
How much of the thread did you skip over? The point -- made now for the second time in just 16 years -- is that the game as it is currently played is rigged in favor of rural, small state voters and their favored (currently Republican) candidates. We are giving democracy a bad name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
IF popular vote was the correct metric, BOTH candidates would have campaigned differently, and the popular vote would likely have been quite different than it was.
Please! No one cares how candidates campaign. That's up to them. What matters is fairness in how the winner of this election is determined. That's where we are coming up short, in our own eyes and in those of the rest of the world.
Simple numbers that reflect what a majority or plurality of the voting public thinks should determine the outcome of the election.
Keep hanging on to that belief. Too bad it isn't the reality of our Presidential election.
Quote:
I totally agree we determine the winner of the presidential election based on electoral votes. I'm arguing its time to change that.
Is the basis of your argument the fact that in this last election the winner of the election didn't win the majority of the popular vote?
Quote:
I skipped ahead to your last post in which you are trying to contend the campaign would have been different had this contest been a popular vote contest. I'm starting to think this must be a right wing talking point because some people keep bringing it up. If you want to pretend the outcome of this race would have been different if the campaign had been for a majority of popular votes you have my permission to use your imagination all you wish.
I never said the outcome would be different. But do you not understand that presidential campaigns are designed to win electoral, rather than popular votes? Do you believe that each candidate would have run the exact same campaign if the election was to be decided based on popular vote?
It was totally inapropos. It's the weirdo outlier standard that applies in US Presidential elections and in no other. Your football analogy had that 180-degrees reversed.
How much of the thread did you skip over? The point -- made now for the second time in just 16 years -- is that the game as it is currently played is rigged in favor of rural, small state voters and their favored (currently Republican) candidates. We are giving democracy a bad name.
Please! No one cares how candidates campaign. That's up to them. What matters is fairness in how the winner of this election is determined. That's where we are coming up short, in our own eyes and in those of the rest of the world.
You liberals are hysterical. The election didn't go the way that you wanted it to, and so you want to change the system. Best of luck to you. Based on the results of the Presidential election, the Senate and Congress races, and state Governors races, the will of the country was made pretty clear. The country is tired of the liberal agenda. Good luck getting rid of the Electoral College.
It is. Yardage in itself don't score points. Popular votes do. Not in the national sense, but rather the states. Yardage don't make people win at all. You can win a game on only defensive plays or special teams while you have no yardage.
Quote:
The point is, yardage gained and points earned are two different metrics. When the game was created, either points earned, or yardage gained, or something else entirely could have been used to determine the winner. And while yardage gained is a perfectly valid metric, it isn't valid for determining the winner of the football game.
Going back to my NASCAR analogy, it is like the old days in the Coca-Cola 600 when we use to see NASCAR drivers fall off in between mile 500 (the normal maximum for NASCAR races) and mile 600 with engine failures you rarely see elsewhere due to the extra stress of that last 100 miles of the race. They would dominate majority of the race but not finish first. A better football or any sport comparison is when you have a pretty sizable lead but choke it for whatever reason (bad penalties, bad referee calls, sloppy play, etc.)
Quote:
Popular votes and electoral votes are the same thing. Two different metrics, but only one is meaningful in determining the winner.
Both are. As I said before though, it isn't in the national sense.
You liberals are hysterical. The election didn't go the way that you wanted it to, and so you want to change the system. Best of luck to you. Based on the results of the Presidential election, the Senate and Congress races, and state Governors races, the will of the country was made pretty clear. The country is tired of the liberal agenda. Good luck getting rid of the Electoral College.
I wouldn't go so far as that. We had two flawed candidates and saw a candidate that many wanted shunned and stunted from becoming president. In Senate and Congress and Gubnatorial elections, you maybe right BUT nationally the popular vote shows that people still do want the "liberal agenda" as you put it.
I was saying that maybe we needed to change the EC to a percentage of the vote back in 12/13 after Obama beat Romney due to the importance on swing states. We saw that again this year. My vote in Arizona don't mean crap because regardless of me voting Republican or Democrat, the state will go Republican, yet my vote COULD cause that difference should I live in Ohio, North Carolina or Florida. Percentage of vote keeps the intent of the EC but also allows smaller states to still have a true say in our country and removes the importance of the swing state.
It works like that in every other election in the country. The Presidential election is different only because of an arcane anachronism that is presently helping to reduce the US to status as a global laughing stock.
In most countries with leadership picked by elections in the globe, the prime minister is picked in a proportional representation system. That means that the leader of the party with the greatest proportion of votes forms the government. That leader, whose party sometimes controls, say, 28% of the vote (example is Israel's current government) forms a coalition with other parties selected by that party leader. The other coalition parties are usually not the next parties down in the proportion. It is often a combination of the leading party and many small parties to reach the "magic number" of parliamentary members. That means that the holder of 28% of the vote can pick representatives of another 23% of the vote, from any party or parties he or she wants. For example, a right wing leader, in the case of Israel Netanyahu, could in theory give a cabinet portfolio to a far left-winger, whose policies would influence only that department. I used Israel as an example, but in virtually all proportional representation countries the prime minister's party has a small percentage of the total vote.
In most countries with leadership picked by elections in the globe, the prime minister is picked in a proportional representation system. That means that the leader of the party with the greatest proportion of votes forms the government. That leader, whose party sometimes controls, say, 28% of the vote (example is Israel's current government) forms a coalition with other parties selected by that party leader. The other coalition parties are usually not the next parties down in the proportion. It is often a combination of the leading party and many small parties to reach the "magic number" of parliamentary members. That means that the holder of 28% of the vote can pick representatives of another 23% of the vote, from any party or parties he or she wants. For example, a right wing leader, in the case of Israel Netanyahu, could in theory give a cabinet portfolio to a far left-winger, whose policies would influence only that department. I used Israel as an example, but in virtually all proportional representation countries the prime minister's party has a small percentage of the total vote.
How is that not laughingstock material?
Because under that system we would have never seen Mr. Trump take office, that's how...
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.
You can win a game on only defensive plays or special teams while you have no yardage.
