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.
For those of us who are ready for a different president, this article from a left leaning publication is a sobering reality check that could prove highly applicable to 2020, if the polls are on the wrong track (as our forum's vocal Trump supporters are convinced is true). Just because the odds currently appear to be in Biden's favor doesn't mean he will win, especially when he is the nominee for a party that has a positively toxic brand in large swaths of the country, and there is an incumbent president who is ruthless and persistent in seizing every possible opportunity for his advantage. Hopefully we won't have to bump this thread in November after Trump gets a narrow electoral college majority and Biden wins the popular vote by double Clinton's 2016 margin ... and a worthless virtual participation trophy.
"What's happened since is that the distribution of Democratic votes has become much less efficient while the distribution of Republican votes has become much more efficient. In 2016, the Republicans won just enough votes to prevail in several states they hadn't carried in many years, while the Democrats won a handful of states (and especially very progressive California) by millions of votes. If the country had a national system for electing presidents instead of a state-based one in which electoral votes are allocated (in almost all cases) on a winner-take-all basis, the Democrats' popular vote blow-out in 2016 would have translated into a victory. Instead, millions of votes in California and other deep-blue states were superfluous and thus effectively wasted."
Last edited by Ibginnie; 09-22-2020 at 11:39 AM..
Reason: Copyright violation
I can't speak for anyone else but I am looking forward to 4 more years of "But Hillary won the popular vote!"
Oh wait... replace Hillary with Joe... my bad
#TRUMP2020
(I reserve the right to laugh my ass off if Trump pulls a Bush 43 and wins the popular vote while the Democrats burn down some more cities with their "peaceful protests")
The electoral college is a failed relic that should be abandoned immediately.
Of course, since WEAK republicans can't compete on a truly level playing field (national popular vote), they will perform Olympic-caliber spinning to try to justify keeping it in place.
Dems laugh (hard) at their inevitable face plants.
Hillary Clinton: 65,853,514
weak donnie bone spurs: 62,984,828
Al Gore: 50,999,897
village idiot george: 50,456,002
Take away CA entirely from the conversation, so Trump has his "popular vote" win without CA involved. His electoral college win was based on just 77,000 votes in 3 states. A win is a win. But, the notion that Trump supporters are expecting a repeat of that is just plain silly.
As for the Electoral College - every other part of our democracy stems from majority rules. 51-49 in the Senate, 218-217 in the House. 4-3 in the SCOTUS. We elect every other official in our country by way of popular vote.
It boggles my mind that the President should be elected any differently. Keep in mind that our founding fathers did not intend the people to vote for the President anyway. Hell, we weren't voting for our Senators until 1918. And we weren't voting for President nationally until after the Civil War.
Prior to 1918, state legislatures appointed Senators. Prior to the Civil War, many states simply appointed Electors as they saw fit. In today's world, nothing is stopping a state from pinning post-it notes on turtles, one marked "Trump" and the other "Biden" and awarding the Electors to the loser of a race between the two.
I hear various defenses for the Electoral College, but they are all moot. The founding fathers did not expect us to vote directly for President. However, they did allow for amendments to the Constitution. That's why we vote for Senators directly. The Electoral College is an antiquated system. And a valid defense isn't "Well, Republicans wouldn't win otherwise." Our representatives need to represent the people. But we have minority representation and they play a victimization game with our country.
Take away CA entirely from the conversation, so Trump has his "popular vote" win without CA involved. His electoral college win was based on just 77,000 votes in 3 states. A win is a win. But, the notion that Trump supporters are expecting a repeat of that is just plain silly.
I hear various defenses for the Electoral College, but they are all moot. The founding fathers did not expect us to vote directly for President. However, they did allow for amendments to the Constitution. That's why we vote for Senators directly. The Electoral College is an antiquated system. And a valid defense isn't "Well, Republicans wouldn't win otherwise." Our representatives need to represent the people. But we have minority representation and they play a victimization game with our country.
I'm expecting a win in November... and I think Trump picks up a few more states in the process.
I'm not expecting the electoral college to ever go away... because to ratify the amendment requires 3/4 of the states right? The small states will NEVER vote for California and New York (combined population greater than 2/3 of the 50 states) to control the POTUS election.
Just ain't gonna happen... it's all about having a voice... the same voice Wyoming has with the same 2 senators California has.
For those of us who are ready for a different president, this article from a left leaning publication is a sobering reality check that could prove highly applicable to 2020, if the polls are on the wrong track (as our forum's vocal Trump supporters are convinced is true). Just because the odds currently appear to be in Biden's favor doesn't mean he will win, especially when he is the nominee for a party that has a positively toxic brand in large swaths of the country, and there is an incumbent president who is ruthless and persistent in seizing every possible opportunity for his advantage. Hopefully we won't have to bump this thread in November after Trump gets a narrow electoral college majority and Biden wins the popular vote by double Clinton's 2016 margin ... and a worthless virtual participation trophy.
"What's happened since is that the distribution of Democratic votes has become much less efficient while the distribution of Republican votes has become much more efficient. In 2016, the Republicans won just enough votes to prevail in several states they hadn't carried in many years, while the Democrats won a handful of states (and especially very progressive California) by millions of votes. If the country had a national system for electing presidents instead of a state-based one in which electoral votes are allocated (in almost all cases) on a winner-take-all basis, the Democrats' popular vote blow-out in 2016 would have translated into a victory. Instead, millions of votes in California and other deep-blue states were superfluous and thus effectively wasted."
"But if it doesn't quite work out that way, that doesn't mean the system is so irredeemably broken that the Democrats would be justified in plunging the country into the gravest legitimacy crisis since the Civil War, while also ceding the moral high-ground of civic responsibility to Donald Trump's Republican Party. What it would mean is that the Democrats need to do more to rethink the contours of their electoral coalition.
I grant that the aftermath of the second shocking and wounding electoral loss in as many presidential cycles wouldn't be the best or easiest of times to undertake such a postmortem. But reason would nonetheless require it. Losing twice to Donald Trump would be bad. But an outright breakdown of American democracy would be much worse."
Unfortunately, some Democrats are game planning a form of sedition. They will simply refuse to certify President Trump as the winner in states they control.
Take away CA entirely from the conversation, so Trump has his "popular vote" win without CA involved. His electoral college win was based on just 77,000 votes in 3 states. A win is a win. But, the notion that Trump supporters are expecting a repeat of that is just plain silly.
As for the Electoral College - every other part of our democracy stems from majority rules. 51-49 in the Senate, 218-217 in the House. 4-3 in the SCOTUS. We elect every other official in our country by way of popular vote.
It boggles my mind that the President should be elected any differently. Keep in mind that our founding fathers did not intend the people to vote for the President anyway. Hell, we weren't voting for our Senators until 1918. And we weren't voting for President nationally until after the Civil War.
Prior to 1918, state legislatures appointed Senators. Prior to the Civil War, many states simply appointed Electors as they saw fit. In today's world, nothing is stopping a state from pinning post-it notes on turtles, one marked "Trump" and the other "Biden" and awarding the Electors to the loser of a race between the two.
I hear various defenses for the Electoral College, but they are all moot. The founding fathers did not expect us to vote directly for President. However, they did allow for amendments to the Constitution. That's why we vote for Senators directly. The Electoral College is an antiquated system. And a valid defense isn't "Well, Republicans wouldn't win otherwise." Our representatives need to represent the people. But we have minority representation and they play a victimization game with our country.
Well but if the Dems won by Electoral college then you wouldnt be complaining. I think the justification for the EC is so high population centers like NYC dont represent the rest of the country unfairly.
Take away CA entirely from the conversation, so Trump has his "popular vote" win without CA involved. His electoral college win was based on just 77,000 votes in 3 states. A win is a win. But, the notion that Trump supporters are expecting a repeat of that is just plain silly.
As for the Electoral College - every other part of our democracy stems from majority rules. 51-49 in the Senate, 218-217 in the House. 4-3 in the SCOTUS. We elect every other official in our country by way of popular vote.
It boggles my mind that the President should be elected any differently. Keep in mind that our founding fathers did not intend the people to vote for the President anyway. Hell, we weren't voting for our Senators until 1918. And we weren't voting for President nationally until after the Civil War.
Prior to 1918, state legislatures appointed Senators. Prior to the Civil War, many states simply appointed Electors as they saw fit. In today's world, nothing is stopping a state from pinning post-it notes on turtles, one marked "Trump" and the other "Biden" and awarding the Electors to the loser of a race between the two.
I hear various defenses for the Electoral College, but they are all moot. The founding fathers did not expect us to vote directly for President. However, they did allow for amendments to the Constitution. That's why we vote for Senators directly. The Electoral College is an antiquated system. And a valid defense isn't "Well, Republicans wouldn't win otherwise." Our representatives need to represent the people. But we have minority representation and they play a victimization game with our country.
97,000 votes in the right places and President Trump would have had 4 more states and 22 more electoral votes.
The electoral college, as Democrats seem too dense to comprehend, was to prevent large states from dominating. It is operating exactly as designed. Hillary's people in 2016 weren't complaining when they were thinking Trump would win the popular vote and they would win the electoral college because of their "blue wall."
97,000 votes in the right places and President Trump would have had 4 more states and 22 more electoral votes.
The electoral college, as Democrats seem too dense to comprehend, was to prevent large states from dominating. It is operating exactly as designed.
That's not what James Madison said in the Federalist Papers. The founders could not agree how the president should be selected. The largest bloc of objectors were from the slave-owning states because slaves could not vote and the whites who did live in the South were outnumbered by the North. And so Madison said the Electoral College was created as an awkward compromise to accommodate slavery.
Now that slavery as an institution is long gone, the need for an Electoral College is gone too.
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.
