That is why I say placing any weight on the popular vote is a fools errand. It carries zero weight and only serves to create division after the contest was held and the losing side does not like the result.
What about spiritual weight? It can be reassuring and worthwhile to point out that the majority of American voters didn't cast their vote in favor of the angry, gibbering supervillain.
That said, I agree that the way the system stands, the popular vote may be an unreliable signal since many eligible voters simply don't show up, as their state's outcome is already well clinched.
That said, I agree that the way the system stands, the popular vote may be an unreliable signal since many eligible voters simply don't show up, as their state's outcome is already well clinched.
Which just makes the commentary of "Oh, it's your fault for not picking Bernie, she was so unpopular that she couldn't have possibly won" all the funnier.
The wording in the article seems like this isn't adjusted for population growth. I wonder how much that would change things.
Anecdotally among my own (Catholic) relatives, there seems to be a strong correlation between how crazy religious someone is and how likely they are to post on social media in defense/favor of this Trump presidency.
It's becoming more socially acceptable and common to publicly call out white privilege and white ignorance of racism, but it seems like our society still tip-toes a bit around criticizing the effects of mainstream Christianity on social equality.
The electoral college system was part of the compromise that all states agreed upon when forming the union. The lower population states were concerned that the higher population states would get to make all the decisions, and the Federal government would impose those on every state with no chance for the low population states to ever overcome it.
The electoral college system was part of the compromise that all states agreed upon when forming the union. The lower population states were concerned that the higher population states would get to make all the decisions, and the Federal government would impose those on every state with no chance for the low population states to ever overcome it.
Because slaves.
Exactly.
I'm Another note, is the Electoral College does not protect small rural states since states like Wyoming and OK and KA see very little play, it leads to only swings states being important. The ideological make up of your state is more important then any other factor in the electoral college and after that it's actual size which is why Florida, Ohio and PA get focused on more then New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa in the General election.
The electoral college system was part of the compromise that all states agreed upon when forming the union. The lower population states were concerned that the higher population states would get to make all the decisions, and the Federal government would impose those on every state with no chance for the low population states to ever overcome it.
Because slaves.
Exactly.
I'm Another note, is the Electoral College does not protect small rural states since states like Wyoming and OK and KA see very little play, it leads to only swings states being important. The ideological make up of your state is more important then any other factor in the electoral college and after that it's actual size which is why Florida, Ohio and PA get focused on more then New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa in the General election.
Which is also why California gets little love from the politicians.
The electoral college system was part of the compromise that all states agreed upon when forming the union. The lower population states were concerned that the higher population states would get to make all the decisions, and the Federal government would impose those on every state with no chance for the low population states to ever overcome it.
Because slaves.
Exactly.
I'm Another note, is the Electoral College does not protect small rural states since states like Wyoming and OK and KA see very little play, it leads to only swings states being important. The ideological make up of your state is more important then any other factor in the electoral college and after that it's actual size which is why Florida, Ohio and PA get focused on more then New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa in the General election.
I mean, is it really an issue with the Electoral College, or with the way that states direct the electors to vote? As far as I'm aware, there is no Constitutional requirement that states have a "winner-take-all" approach to elector apportionment - it's just that everyone except Arizona does it that way.
The swing states only "swing" in a meaningful way because they're 1) closely divided and 2) whoever gets the most gets all the points.
If the intent was to give more voice to low-population states, keep the elector formula the same, since that accomplishes that purpose. Divide electors along popular vote lines, rounding mathematically, and that might break the hold of the swing states.
The electoral college system was part of the compromise that all states agreed upon when forming the union. The lower population states were concerned that the higher population states would get to make all the decisions, and the Federal government would impose those on every state with no chance for the low population states to ever overcome it.
Because slaves.
YES.
But guess what? The Union wanted those states as part of their country. Enough to go to war over the issue later when those states tried to break off into their own country. So this is what happened as a compromise.
I'm not making a value judgment here. I'm explaining the historical context of the EC and why it matters in the current structure of our country. If you support a change in the current structure of the country, getting rid of the EC may be a viable way of doing that. Just don't expect that the states with lower populations who only agreed to the Union because of that system will go gently along with it.
Hell, maybe they will secede from the union, and then there will be more Federal money for the blue states.
Which just makes the commentary of "Oh, it's your fault for not picking Bernie, she was so unpopular that she couldn't have possibly won" all the funnier.
You also have to factor in how many people basically voted "not Trump" and probably would have Voted Dem regardless of who was actually running.
The electoral college system was part of the compromise that all states agreed upon when forming the union. The lower population states were concerned that the higher population states would get to make all the decisions, and the Federal government would impose those on every state with no chance for the low population states to ever overcome it.
Because slaves.
YES.
But guess what? The Union wanted those states as part of their country. Enough to go to war over the issue later when those states tried to break off into their own country. So this is what happened as a compromise.
I'm not making a value judgment here. I'm explaining the historical context of the EC and why it matters in the current structure of our country. If you support a change in the current structure of the country, getting rid of the EC may be a viable way of doing that. Just don't expect that the states with lower populations who only agreed to the Union because of that system will go gently along with it.
Yeah, all I'm saying is "lower population" at the time was because black people weren't people.
Focusing on the popular vote is a fools errand. It does not matter. We do not hold a national election, we hold a ton of state level elections. All that matters is winning states.
Thanks for that Steve, but I know. The point is another giggle at the Bernie folk who think that this is the right time for gloating and claiming that Bernie would have swept the election because nobody wanted to vote for Hillary. I'm not asking them to overturn the result, I'm pointing out that argument is fucking stupid, because the candidate nobody wanted to vote for is apparently the second most voted for candidate in the history of US presidential elections.
You also have to factor in how many people basically voted "not Trump" and probably would have Voted Dem regardless of who was actually running.
No, not really. Because a)they still wrote her name on their ballot and stuck it in the box, meaning they voted for her, and b)measuring intent on such a large scale based on zero data is basically an utter fool's game.
The electoral college system was part of the compromise that all states agreed upon when forming the union. The lower population states were concerned that the higher population states would get to make all the decisions, and the Federal government would impose those on every state with no chance for the low population states to ever overcome it.
Because slaves.
YES.
But guess what? The Union wanted those states as part of their country. Enough to go to war over the issue later when those states tried to break off into their own country. So this is what happened as a compromise.
I'm not making a value judgment here. I'm explaining the historical context of the EC and why it matters in the current structure of our country. If you support a change in the current structure of the country, getting rid of the EC may be a viable way of doing that. Just don't expect that the states with lower populations who only agreed to the Union because of that system will go gently along with it.
Hell, maybe they will secede from the union, and then there will be more Federal money for the blue states.
I understand the background for the electoral college, I'm just wondering why it was never upgraded to align with society post slavery.
The transition could be made with out a catastrophic dissolution of the union. Also how do people defend this and voting on Tuesdays.
Yeah, all I'm saying is "lower population" at the time was because black people weren't people.
Yes. The people who designed the system were, unfortunately for us, opportunistic, subjugating assholes who only considered white men to be people. They counted the rest of the population to suit their interests.
But the current electoral votes are based mostly on today's population because that's what the House is based on, and we now count all ethnicities as whole people for that purpose. Yay us! Well... for now, anyway...
Honestly I kinda dig how the electoral system has a stabilizing effect on voter turnout fluctuations. No matter how many people from your state actually show up to vote, you get the same number of electoral votes based on your entire population.
What I do NOT dig is the "winner takes all" allocation of electoral votes that all but 2 states currently use. Fuck that noise with a rusty stovepipe.
I'm having a hard time squaring the "most voted-for candidate" thing with the downward overall trend of voter turnout. Is it as simple as population growth outpacing growth in voter participation? If so, does that detract from the "most voted-for" point in some way?
I'm having a hard time squaring the "most voted-for candidate" thing with the downward overall trend of voter turnout. Is it as simple as population growth outpacing growth in voter participation? If so, does that detract from the "most voted-for" point in some way?
Considering absentee ballots are still being counted, those voter "turnout" numbers are all incomplete.
I'm having a hard time squaring the "most voted-for candidate" thing with the downward overall trend of voter turnout. Is it as simple as population growth outpacing growth in voter participation? If so, does that detract from the "most voted-for" point in some way?
Not entirely - in this case, those numbers of non-voting people aren't counting those who voted by mail and other similar methods that don't include going to a physical location to cast your ballot, because those weren't counted at the point those preliminary numbers were figured out. I'd say that the actual non-voting figure is lower than those numbers.
Don't forget, for quite a significant period of time, a lot of folk simply couldn't vote. Universal suffrage is relatively recent - IIRC, in the US, it was the voting rights act of 1965 that finally guaranteed universal suffrage, with no property or other tested requirements.
I think I just generally have an allergy to the disjointed governance of states. It seems so inefficient and illogical with modernity, technology, and globalization. To treat them as though the lines between them were anything more than imaginary...
Sure. Although US ends up being like a many-headed beast that can't quite make up its mind. If the world had to interact with other worlds, having multiple nations would likely have similar issues. I can understand local governance on local issues, but this level seems to be more of a hindrance.
Sure. Although US ends up being like a many-headed beast that can't quite make up its mind. If the world had to interact with other worlds, having multiple nations would likely have similar issues. I can understand local governance on local issues, but this level seems to be more of a hindrance.
Particularly considering the increased role the federal government and the role of thevpresident has grown, this could not be truer.
Midterms favoring the party in the White House goes against every historical precedent -- but so does everything else this election. Our hope is in State Legislatures. Suffrage has always come from them. It is at that level that voter suppression laws have been made so it must be at that level that they be revoked.
The GOP is one State Legislature from having the required super-majority to amend the Constitution at will.
Midterms favoring the party in the White House goes against every historical precedent -- but so does everything else this election. Our hope is in State Legislatures. Suffrage has always come from them. It is at that level that voter suppression laws have been made so it must be at that level that they be revoked.
The GOP is one State Legislature from having the required super-majority to amend the Constitution at will.
This isn't quite true -- calling a constitutional convention requires two-thirds of the states agree, but the amendments also have to be ratified by three quarters of the states before they go into effect.
Comments
That said, I agree that the way the system stands, the popular vote may be an unreliable signal since many eligible voters simply don't show up, as their state's outcome is already well clinched.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=1
Anecdotally among my own (Catholic) relatives, there seems to be a strong correlation between how crazy religious someone is and how likely they are to post on social media in defense/favor of this Trump presidency.
It's becoming more socially acceptable and common to publicly call out white privilege and white ignorance of racism, but it seems like our society still tip-toes a bit around criticizing the effects of mainstream Christianity on social equality.
I'm Another note, is the Electoral College does not protect small rural states since states like Wyoming and OK and KA see very little play, it leads to only swings states being important. The ideological make up of your state is more important then any other factor in the electoral college and after that it's actual size which is why Florida, Ohio and PA get focused on more then New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa in the General election.
The swing states only "swing" in a meaningful way because they're 1) closely divided and 2) whoever gets the most gets all the points.
If the intent was to give more voice to low-population states, keep the elector formula the same, since that accomplishes that purpose. Divide electors along popular vote lines, rounding mathematically, and that might break the hold of the swing states.
I wonder how that math would shake out.
But guess what? The Union wanted those states as part of their country. Enough to go to war over the issue later when those states tried to break off into their own country. So this is what happened as a compromise.
I'm not making a value judgment here. I'm explaining the historical context of the EC and why it matters in the current structure of our country. If you support a change in the current structure of the country, getting rid of the EC may be a viable way of doing that. Just don't expect that the states with lower populations who only agreed to the Union because of that system will go gently along with it.
Hell, maybe they will secede from the union, and then there will be more Federal money for the blue states.
The transition could be made with out a catastrophic dissolution of the union.
Also how do people defend this and voting on Tuesdays.
But the current electoral votes are based mostly on today's population because that's what the House is based on, and we now count all ethnicities as whole people for that purpose. Yay us! Well... for now, anyway...
Honestly I kinda dig how the electoral system has a stabilizing effect on voter turnout fluctuations. No matter how many people from your state actually show up to vote, you get the same number of electoral votes based on your entire population.
What I do NOT dig is the "winner takes all" allocation of electoral votes that all but 2 states currently use. Fuck that noise with a rusty stovepipe.
Don't forget, for quite a significant period of time, a lot of folk simply couldn't vote. Universal suffrage is relatively recent - IIRC, in the US, it was the voting rights act of 1965 that finally guaranteed universal suffrage, with no property or other tested requirements.
Biden... Watch the video clip.
Not sure what to make ofy spellcheck changing Biden to Vixen...