And which ones would those be?
There is no "Popular Vote" winner.
- Thread starter fool
- Start date
And which ones would those be?
Is that still a thing?
Alate_One
Well-known member
I will agree on one point is that Hillary had a tremendous amount of baggage though it was mostly put there by the right relentlessly attacking her for so many years. Some was deserved but not all of it. I am not sure if Bernie could have won or not, we'll never know the answer to that question. But I think Republicans would have liked to have some super delegates this year to avoid Trump.
It's far more than two states that voted for hillary, Most states were closely divided only a few were polarized one way or the other. All other nations that directly elect a head of state do so by popular vote. Since the US president is so tremendously powerful in our system it's important to have the majority represented rather than having some arcane system selecting the president. That's why the EC has been changed over the years.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Note the "was" being past tense. I think this EC feature you speak of needs to be a was, because it also overrides the will of the majority of the populace.
Proportions are part of it but not all of it. The actual population numbers are important. And being able to erase the margin with multiple states also misses the point because the concern is about a single state having too much influence.
However, you make a lot of sense and I'm not trying to wholeheartedly defend the EC as it stands but I still have some concerns with moving to a direct national popular vote. In a way it's more of a feeling than something I can express clearly.
Zeke
Well-known member
You don't have states, they are pretenders that bow to cash flow that will get cut off if they don't follow the Corporate/federal interest, the popular vote is joke to give the illusion that the district of Colombia citizen have a say which they don't. I would suggest some research on the state of emergency act that America has been under since 1933.
Never going to happen, you'd have to get the smaller states to agree to give up their power.
Now, I can see a swing state, like Michigan, that has gone Blue for President historically but is currently controlled by Republicans unbinding their votes like some other states. That would allow some of the Red to bubble up into the electoral college. I don't see places like California doing that because that would dilute their power. They are safely Blue.
The EC is where the rubber meets the road, or rather where the State Gove interface with the Federal. I don't think there's anyway the states can carry their pure popular vote numbers to the Federal Election is there?
The EC says; "what are you doing with your 16 votes Michigan?"
Saying;
R D. Trump 47.6% 2,279,805
D H. Clinton 47.3% 2,268,193
Doesn't make any sense to the EC.
You are attempting to appeal to emotion rather than directing your response to the issue of voting
Alate_One
Well-known member
Um no, that's what you did. You asserted whatever the system is, it must be correct because the founding fathers designed it. I pointed out the founding fathers were imperfect human beings.
If you want to decide whether something is fair, decide based on actual moral principles, not who came up with the idea.
I dunno about district lines, but national popular vote makes some sense.
Try this scenario for a moment. Suppose you live in a state that tends to favor one party 65/35 or so. Strong enough in one camp that it's unlikely to swing one way or the other, but with the usual 10% band of persuadables. Under the EC, there's no incentive for any candidate to really campaign for your interests because the outcome of the state is unlikely to flip. However, if a lot of other states go by the national popular vote instead of the statewide popular vote, those 10% of persuadables become just as valuable and just as available as in a more "purple" state, so you would end up with more states that matter to the candidates.
I think there is zero chance of getting rid of the EC. You would have to have the support of the small states and they are never going to give up their power. And you can't take their power away because, they have it.
I can see getting some swing states to move away from winner take all. But deeply colored states aren't going to do that. Why would they? To be fairer to opponents in other states? People don't just do that without something in it for them.
ClimateSanity
New member
So, we have to change our laws based on your shifting sands ideas of morality ?
She's just stating her opinion, people have them.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
children have the most to lose from poor governance
is it fair that they can't vote?
ClimateSanity
New member
Ideas turn into reality sometimes if they are not inspected and refuted.
ClimateSanity
New member
Fairness can be quite tricky huh?
Getting rid of the EC ain't gonna happen any more that getting rid of The Senate which is the root of the EC's inequality.
ClimateSanity
New member
You underestimate the left and it's determination. Hillary's loss was huge. If the left is going to have any chance of coming back into power , they must thoroughly delegitimize trumps victory in the minds of most Americans.
Doesn't seem to be working except with the choir...