Toggle sidebar

Question: The Electoral College

81usaf92 said:
Hi stranger... It's been 21 days and I'm still all ears on your solution to how are we going to accurately count every vote in a nation wide popular vote, and still be able to swear the president elect in on time to serve his/her allotted 4 years.

It seems trump's remarks here defeat your whole position on why it isn't easy to just switch to a popular vote...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-for-a-recount-of-his-own-2016-election-win/

If you have 1 person... Just 1 ask for a recount you are going to have the biggest crick in your neck. Atleast the EC isn't about counting every last vote as much as polling states to sway electorates to vote accordingly.
Click to expand...

Its your supposition that that will happen, not mine.
 
Bamaro said:
Its your supposition that that will happen, not mine.
Click to expand...
If trump is challenging the popular vote when there is absolutely no need to, then what makes you think some other moron won't do it if the popular actually matters.

So show me proof that recounts won't happen, or won't happen to a degree that prolongs the incumbant's stay on Pennsylvania Ave due to uncertainty in your way of fixing the electoral process. Because as it is right now, popular vote doesn't count as much, but yet we have recounts. So the facts of it happening in your way are inevitable because EACH AND EVERY VOTE COUNTS. So with that said.... 21 days and no solution to 1 major problem with your solution to a 200 year old institution that you feel is an easy fix.

FWIW And before you think the accountability of the ballot box is the only problem your way faces, think again there are plenty more. I'm just letting you have this one for now because it's the most obvious, but still you have yet to answer it with more than a deflective response.
 
Suppose a recount happened . Each state, precinct, etc will perform its own recount. It won't take 50 times as long because it's a nationwide recount. It will take somewhat about the time it takes one large state to do a recount.

I understand that Wisconsin, which is having a recount( I guess) has to complete the recount by December 13 in time for the Electoral College to vote.

IMO saying that we can't go by popular vote because of recount difficulties is a red herring.

Keep in mind that I have stated that I am very reluctant to change the system we have now. So stay off my case!!:)

Thresholds and rules for automatic recounts by state.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-recount-thresholds.aspx
 
Last edited:
seebell said:
Suppose a recount happened . Each state, precinct, etc will perform its own recount. It won't take 50 times as long because it's a nationwide recount. It will take somewhat about the time it takes one large state to do a recount.

I understand that Wisconsin, which is having a recount( I guess) has to complete the recount by December 13 in time for the Electoral College to vote.

IMO saying that we can't go by popular vote because of recount difficulties is a red herring.

Keep in mind that I have stated that I am very reluctant to change the system we have now. So stay off my case!!:)

Thresholds and rules for automatic recounts by state.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-recount-thresholds.aspx
Click to expand...

SCOTUS ruled the lack of uniform standards violates equal protection. A recount doesn't take long but the winner tends to block it with litigation.
 
seebell said:
Suppose a recount happened . Each state, precinct, etc will perform its own recount. It won't take 50 times as long because it's a nationwide recount. It will take somewhat about the time it takes one large state to do a recount.

I understand that Wisconsin, which is having a recount( I guess) has to complete the recount by December 13 in time for the Electoral College to vote.

IMO saying that we can't go by popular vote because of recount difficulties is a red herring.

Keep in mind that I have stated that I am very reluctant to change the system we have now. So stay off my case!!:)

Thresholds and rules for automatic recounts by state.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-recount-thresholds.aspx
Click to expand...

Trump also made it a point that "illegals" voting lost him the popular. On that basis alone, it would justify a recount if popular vote election occurred. Take a gander at the number illegals in the state of California. Also keep in mind California has appointed illegals to serve as commissioners.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...mented-immigrants-city-commissions/index.html

What's next dead people? The issues and accusations of voter fraud are limitless in popular vote elections, but are contained to disputed states in an EC one. The point is yes in theory things should be cut and dry, but nothing ever is when people are fighting for power. Like I said earlier the EC is more of a poll that tells their state's electors how to vote, and votes aren't as powerful as they are in a popular vote election. One only needs to be a gauge (EC) and one actually needs to be precise (popular) in terms of counts. So yes there will be recount after recount, and lawsuits after lawsuits in a popular vote election in the current form of democracy we are in.
 
Last edited:
I've pointed this out before: Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 votes and there are a few more than 180,000 precincts. That comes out to about THREE votes per precinct nationally.

Are any of you seriously going to argue there aren't an average of three per precinct nationally that would flip the election? And who does the counting? Mostly partisan hacks fishing for votes.

Even 2 million is only 11 votes per precinct and if you'll recall, Gore managed to make up 400 votes in just two large counties (and Miami-Dade didn't even do theirs).

That's an additional problem. The pretentiousness that this wouldn't lead to even more contested elections rankles since it undoubtedly will.
 
TMW2016-12-07printcolor_FULL.jpg
 
Study: Republicans likely to win 65 percent of close presidential elections where they lose the popular vote

NBER white paper link

Republicans are expected to win 65 percent of close presidential races in which they lose the popular vote as a result of the Electoral College and the blue-state concentration of Democrats, according to a new working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin looked at the probability of “inversions” in presidential elections, where the popular-vote winner loses the electoral vote. These inversions happened in 2000 and 2016 and twice in the 1800s, meaning that the candidate with the most votes has lost 8 percent of the time in the last 200 years.

Using statistical models that predicted an inversion in the 2000 and 2016 races, the researchers found that the probability of the popular vote winner losing the electoral vote is about 40 percent in races decided by 1 percent (about 1.3 million votes) and roughly 30 percent in races decided by 2 percent (2.6 million votes) or less.

But these probabilities are “not symmetric across political parties,” the researchers say. Over the past 30 to 60 years, this asymmetry has favored Republicans. The statistical models used in the research predict that in the event of an inversion, “the probability that it will be won by a Republican ranges from 69 percent to 93 percent.”
Click to expand...
 
The only reason the electoral college favors republicans is because democrats appeal more to urban people than rural people. If they start trying to appeal to rural areas also then the electoral college will no longer favor the GOP. I think Buttigieg plan on rural America would help out the Democratic party with this issue tremendously. The problem is actually getting him into office and then actually passing this legislation through congress.
 
uafanataum said:
The only reason the electoral college favors republicans is because democrats appeal more to urban people than rural people. If they start trying to appeal to rural areas also then the electoral college will no longer favor the GOP. I think Buttigieg plan on rural America would help out the Democratic party with this issue tremendously. The problem is actually getting him into office and then actually passing this legislation through congress.
Click to expand...

what the past several years have shown us is that rural voters like to vote for white supremacy and have been led to believe that urban areas are full of black and brown hordes that are chomping at the bit to take away white america, or something like that.

ppaca, environmental regulations, workplace protections, infrastructure investment, etc all aid rural areas.
 
Last edited:
James Madison said:
The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
Click to expand...

This is James Madison arguing that a popular vote would not be acceptable to Southern states because so much of their population was enslaved and therefore ineligible to vote. He then proposed the Electoral College as an acceptable solution for slave-holding states.
 
92tide said:
what the past several years have shown us is that rural voters like to vote for white supremacy and have been led to believe that urban areas are full of black and brown hordes that are chomping at the bit to take away white america, or something like that.

ppaca, environmental regulations, workplace protections, infrastructure investment, etc all aid rural areas.
Click to expand...

I think that could be changed with a lot of time and investment into rural America.
ETA: I live in a city and except for 2 years of my life have always lived in a city. However, one thing I learned from my 2 years of living in the sticks is there are a lot of poor people living in rural Alabama. Many if them receive government aid which the Republicans want to drastically cut. If the Democrats could brand themselves as the party that wants to improve the impoverished rural areas then they could win these people that are voting against their own self interest.
 
Last edited:
uafanataum said:
I think that could be changed with a lot of time and investment into rural America.
ETA: I live in a city and except for 2 years of my life have always lived in a city. However, one thing I learned from my 2 years of living in the sticks is there are a lot of poor people living in rural Alabama. Many if them receive government aid which the Republicans want to drastically cut. If the Democrats could brand themselves as the party that wants to improve the impoverished rural areas then they could win these people that are voting against their own self interest.
Click to expand...

i hope so. unfortunately, i think it is going to take a lot of "pain" before the rural voters realize who is screwing them over time and time again.

i grew up in rural nw alabama and consistently saw crushing poverty. the only difference with cities is the concentration of it.
 
i will also add that it's not just the electoral college that is affected by the rural/urban split. it affects the balance in the senate as well. i have seen estimates that in a couple of decades about 2/3 of the population will be represented by 30% of the senate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back