Author Topic: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?  (Read 38856 times)

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #50 on: November 11, 2016, 07:12:09 PM »
If Clinton had won the electoral college, and Trump had won the popular vote, would we be having this discussion?

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #51 on: November 11, 2016, 07:16:44 PM »
Nope, we'd be having riots.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 40
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #52 on: November 11, 2016, 07:18:53 PM »
I certainly would, as would lots of Trump supporters, no doubt. I, at least, am consistent. I've thought the electoral college is BS for years, and most of my points are totally unrelated to who won the election other than that it does illustrate that it's now possible (some would guess probable) that multiple federal laws will be passed which directly oppose what an unequivocal majority of Americans want to happen. Not sure how anyone could spin that as a fair democratic process.


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #53 on: November 11, 2016, 07:21:05 PM »
Any econ class will teach you that elections are never fair.  The whole point is to turn many diverse opinions into one answer, and there are lots of different ways to do that.  Every single one of them ends up with at least some people living under a government they don't like.

Is every democrat disenfranchised when we have republicans holding every branch of government?  Sure, temporarily.  Are republicans in California more or less disenfranchised than democrats in Texas?

Our elections weren't meant to be fair.  Get over it.  The founding fathers deliberately skewed the election process AWAY from true democracy, just like they skewed it against black people and women.  We've been correcting their antiquated mistakes ever since, and eventually we'll correct this one too. 

chesebert

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #54 on: November 11, 2016, 07:21:36 PM »
Great, except states are not people. Many conservatives on this board claim to lean libertarian. I would expect they would be especially supportive of abolishing the electoral college.

Please read some of the federalist paper. You will have a better appreciation of the way our country works and supposed to work. I read a few of these and they made a lot of sense to me.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/madison.htm

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 40
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #55 on: November 11, 2016, 07:29:16 PM »
I have read the entirety of the federalist papers. There are sources from the founders supporting almost any reasonable interpretation of what they intended. Guess what: everything they did was the result of compromise, although Sol is certainly right about how the electoral aspect of the system was constructed, which doesn't mean we should follow it for all of time. I'm merely discussing the deficiencies I see because it's interesting and an area for improvement, not complaining about a lost election.

Is no one here interested in honest debate on the topic? All I see is a lot of hand waving and projecting opinions onto me that are entirely based in partisan assumption, which I suppose is my queue to leave the thread if we're not going to progress from there.

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #56 on: November 11, 2016, 07:33:58 PM »
I agree - no complaints about the lost election; the candidates campaigned on the basis of the electoral college, so changing post facto would be unfair anyway.

But change it we should, and I think in the aftermath of an election where the winner of the popular vote and electoral vote diverge is the only time the impetus is there to make it happen.

So yes I think we should have an honest debate - but I agree with you already, so that may not be terribly helpful :)

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #57 on: November 11, 2016, 07:38:27 PM »
Nope, we'd be having riots.

Tell me I'm wrong.
Ok, I think you're wrong, but you could be right.  Not sure it was an actual riot, given the quotes in the story title, but there was University Of Mississippi Students ‘Riot’ Over Obama Reelection in 2012.  Of course, we can't prove what would have happened this year either way.

We do know that we have had a riot based on the actual results: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/us/oregon-protest-riot/.

chesebert

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #58 on: November 11, 2016, 07:42:47 PM »
I disagree. We should follow the Constitution as originally intended and to the extent amended as amendment intended. If certain aspect of the law no longer works for America as a whole we can amend the document in accordance with the amendment procedures.

Internet debates go nowhere. Feel free to write to your senator/congressman, start a grassroots effort to lobby the Congress (well, probably not this Congress) or form a nonprofit and lobby yourself in DC. Get involved and make some real change.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #59 on: November 11, 2016, 07:45:14 PM »
...laws will be passed which directly oppose what an unequivocal majority of Americans want to happen.
Eh, been there, done that: How unpopular or popular is Obamacare? - The Washington Post

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #60 on: November 11, 2016, 07:49:51 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Canada doesn't use a popular vote either?


Ummm, that's because it's a parliamentary system.

As I mentioned in a past post, the Canadian chief executive is technically not elected at all, by popular vote or otherwise. Although that point is mostly a technicality, some theorists would argue that there is a possibility that elected politicians might act somewhat more timidly when they have no power in their own right and are mere subordinates of a long-term ruler. According to this theory of government, the long-term ruler does not have to pander to popular opinion and can always act as a final fallback against grave errors. As I noted in another past post, some libertarians have actually argued for monarchy over republicanism basically on that basis. I express no view on these matters.


It's important to realise that, like the United States, Canada has an entrenched, written constitution (although it includes several documents rather than being a single integrated text like the US Constitution). For a list of the documents that collectively comprise the Canadian Constitution, see section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. The reason I mention this is that Canada didn't just fall into a particular system by happenstance; rather, the architects of the Canadian constitutional documents had to decide how to unify several independent colonies and how to distribute powers between them -- a very similar problem to that faced by the American framers.

As you might expect, the Constitution of Canada actually involves a very similar set of compromises as the US Constitution, and it was (and is) designed to solve a very similar set of problems. To be sure, there are very substantial differences both in the historical context and in the result, but there are some striking similarities in the principles underlying the organic documents of both countries. If you read the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793, you will learn that, according to the Court, there are "four fundamental and organizing principles of the [Canadian] Constitution" (¶ 32), namely:
  • federalism;
  • democracy;
  • constitutionalism and the rule of law; and
  • respect for minorities.

These are very similar to the principles that animate the US Constitution.

Again, the specific compromises that came out of those principles are different in Canada than in the United States, but if you review the Canadian constitutional documents, it's clear that the authors grappled with many of the same issues as their American predecessors. You may find it interesting to study these documents.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 08:15:57 PM by Cathy »

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #61 on: November 11, 2016, 07:50:47 PM »
Please read some of the federalist paper. You will have a better appreciation of the way our country works and supposed to work. I read a few of these and they made a lot of sense to me.

Also regarding the founding fathers - they intended for quite a lot of things we've since thrown overboard. For one, that the electors would not reflect the popular vote of their state but instead the personal views of the elite who the state legislature appointed. And given that those elite generally had quite a lot in common with each other (elites are generally more similar to each other than are the populaces they spring from), the differences that did come up would generally be the geographically relevant kind where different states should actually get a fair hearing. Such as, for example, tariffs that would affect the port cities differently the agricultural centers.

But between the switch to a popular vote and the expanding scope of the federal government, the proportion of federal decisions where different states actually have different interests (as opposed to the people in them just having different preferences due to variations in local culture) shrunk dramatically. Why exactly should a resident of Wyoming have a greater say than I do when it comes to drug policy or Syrian policy or abortion? It's not that he has geographically-determined different interests that need to be protected, he's just likely to have different preferences than I do because of our respective prevailing cultures. Which does not justify inflating his vote in an undemocratic manner.

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #62 on: November 11, 2016, 07:52:32 PM »
Ok, I think you're wrong, but you could be right.  Not sure it was an actual riot, given the quotes in the story title, but there was University Of Mississippi Students ‘Riot’ Over Obama Reelection in 2012.  Of course, we can't prove what would have happened this year either way.

Can't prove it, but given that Trump wouldn't promise to respect an actual loss, do you believe he would have graciously conceded if he'd won the popular vote?

chesebert

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #63 on: November 11, 2016, 08:05:45 PM »
Please read some of the federalist paper. You will have a better appreciation of the way our country works and supposed to work. I read a few of these and they made a lot of sense to me.

Also regarding the founding fathers - they intended for quite a lot of things we've since thrown overboard. For one, that the electors would not reflect the popular vote of their state but instead the personal views of the elite who the state legislature appointed. And given that those elite generally had quite a lot in common with each other (elites are generally more similar to each other than are the populaces they spring from), the differences that did come up would generally be the geographically relevant kind where different states should actually get a fair hearing. Such as, for example, tariffs that would affect the port cities differently the agricultural centers.

But between the switch to a popular vote and the expanding scope of the federal government, the proportion of federal decisions where different states actually have different interests (as opposed to the people in them just having different preferences due to variations in local culture) shrunk dramatically. Why exactly should a resident of Wyoming have a greater say than I do when it comes to drug policy or Syrian policy or abortion? It's not that he has geographically-determined different interests that need to be protected, he's just likely to have different preferences than I do because of our respective prevailing cultures. Which does not justify inflating his vote in an undemocratic manner.
Drug policy and Syria are bad examples. Switch those with economy, environment and tax and you have a totally different set of calculus of power as between states. 

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 40
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #64 on: November 11, 2016, 08:06:50 PM »
I disagree. We should follow the Constitution as originally intended and to the extent amended as amendment intended. If certain aspect of the law no longer works for America as a whole we can amend the document in accordance with the amendment procedures.

Internet debates go nowhere. Feel free to write to your senator/congressman, start a grassroots effort to lobby the Congress (well, probably not this Congress) or form a nonprofit and lobby yourself in DC. Get involved and make some real change.

First, as has been pointed out to you here and in other threads, "intended" is a loaded word and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. Second, as you say, we can amend the constitution to adapt to change in circumstances (sounds good to me!). I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that point.

Internet debates, when made in good faith, can expand the mind, just like real life debates. Why are you here if you find it so useless?

chesebert

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #65 on: November 11, 2016, 08:16:43 PM »
I disagree. We should follow the Constitution as originally intended and to the extent amended as amendment intended. If certain aspect of the law no longer works for America as a whole we can amend the document in accordance with the amendment procedures.

Internet debates go nowhere. Feel free to write to your senator/congressman, start a grassroots effort to lobby the Congress (well, probably not this Congress) or form a nonprofit and lobby yourself in DC. Get involved and make some real change.

First, as has been pointed out to you here and in other threads, "intended" is a loaded word and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. Second, as you say, we can amend the constitution to adapt to change in circumstances (sounds good to me!). I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that point.

Internet debates, when made in good faith, can expand the mind, just like real life debates. Why are you here if you find it so useless?
I think the system works, you think it doesn't. That's fine. If you get 2/3 of the Congress and States agree with you then great you win and I have to follow your way.

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #66 on: November 11, 2016, 08:21:53 PM »
Drug policy and Syria are bad examples. Switch those with economy, environment and tax and you have a totally different set of calculus of power as between states.

Well, they're not bad examples, they're just examples that don't make a favorable argument for the electoral college. So why not consider them all?

I'll give you the environment - West Virginia's likely to have a very different take on coal than the rest of the country (especially those of us right on the coast! Oy!)

But what's inherent about living in Wyoming that gives someone a different interest on marginal tax rates? (I was thinking maybe COL?... but the high COL places also tend to vote for higher taxes at any given income, which is the opposite of what geographical determinism should dictate, so that argument won't hold up.)

At any rate, it seems like while there are geographically different interests on a few issues, it's a small enough percentage that having an extremely weighted Senate and a somewhat weighted House and a somewhat weighted Presidency is overkill. The first two don't actually bother me as much but the electoral college has so many negative ramifications beyond the weighting that the disadvantages really seem to outweigh the benefits (specifically: encouraging pandering towards the swing states, while ignoring the more politically homogeneous states, both big and small; also, sending the message to the huge portion of the country that lives in these more homogeneous states that their vote could never matter. Terrible for fostering any sense of citizenship). Surely, the disproportionate weight in Congress should be enough to ensure that the small states' voices are heard?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 08:24:55 PM by rosaz »

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #67 on: November 11, 2016, 08:27:52 PM »
Can't prove it, but given that Trump wouldn't promise to respect an actual loss, do you believe he would have graciously conceded if he'd won the popular vote?
Graciously?  Other than some of his recent comments about Clinton and Obama (which do provide a glimmer of hope that he will be a gracious winner), I haven't seen much graciousness in Trump, so "probably not."

Unless there were razor-thin margins (i.e., much thinner than his actual victory margins) providing the electoral college majority, I suspect he would not have mounted a significant legal challenge, but would instead have accepted the result while complaining about the system being rigged against him.

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #68 on: November 11, 2016, 08:32:01 PM »
Unless there were razor-thin margins (i.e., much thinner than his actual victory margins) providing the electoral college majority, I suspect he would not have mounted a significant legal challenge, but would instead have accepted the result while complaining about the system being rigged against him.

Oh no, I don't think he'd waste money on a legal challenge he knew he couldn't win. But I do think there would be a lot of talk to his supporters about the election being stolen, and some hints along the lines he dropped before about Clinton getting shot or Russia hacking her emails. And so yes, I do think that some of his supporters would take him up on that hint and there would be violence. A miniscule percentage of his supporters to be sure, but large enough in absolute terms to do some real damage.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #69 on: November 11, 2016, 08:34:56 PM »
And so yes, I do think that some of his supporters would take him up on that hint and there would be violence.
Fortunately we'll never know.

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #70 on: November 11, 2016, 08:38:27 PM »
Yeah, that's the one silver lining I see in this.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 40
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #71 on: November 11, 2016, 09:05:09 PM »
As rosaz says, if we're talking strictly about making sure smaller states still have a strong presence in national politics, this is accomplished quite ably through congress, especially because representation in the House has been skewed away from proportional per capita calculations since the total number of congresspeople was fixed at 435. With the electoral college as it is, to claim that the current system is optimal is to say that all elected officials should be disproportionately slanted towards serving the interests of citizens in lower populated states. 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 09:08:27 PM by Lagom »

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #72 on: November 13, 2016, 06:50:18 PM »
One other thing to consider: the popular vote is affected by the electoral college rules.

For example, it isn't hard to imagine Clinton supporters in Wyoming or Trump supporters in California thinking "why bother?" and not voting.

Change the rules of the game and the popular vote totals will also change.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #73 on: November 13, 2016, 06:59:31 PM »
Trump is currently saying he supports abolishing the electoral college, despite losing the popular vote.

He can't make that happen, of course, in the same way that his promise to enact congressional term limits also won't happen.  These things are decided in Congress, where all of the real power lies.

So in my mind the question now is whether Congress will get behind Trump's agenda, or Trump gets behind Congress's agenda.  Because those two things are radically different in some key areas, and so far it looks like Trump is 100% supporting Congress (namely Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnel) while continuing to make wild promises about doing things that his party abhors, and will never pass.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #74 on: November 13, 2016, 07:23:36 PM »
Trump is currently saying he supports abolishing the electoral college, despite losing the popular vote.

He can't make that happen, of course, in the same way that his promise to enact congressional term limits also won't happen.  These things are decided in Congress, where all of the real power lies.

So in my mind the question now is whether Congress will get behind Trump's agenda, or Trump gets behind Congress's agenda.  Because those two things are radically different in some key areas, and so far it looks like Trump is 100% supporting Congress (namely Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnel) while continuing to make wild promises about doing things that his party abhors, and will never pass.

In the same way the current preisdent made massive promises that he of course didnt keep because he could not unite congress, Preisdent elect Trump will find that it is not easy for a oresident to move legislation through congress.  I'm not certain this should surprise anyone. I would guess that he will find it is more productive to give and take with the sitting congress than it would be to ramrod pet legislation through. If that us the case, itbwill be a welcome change from the last 6 years.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #75 on: November 14, 2016, 07:48:34 AM »
Our elections weren't meant to be fair.  Get over it.  The founding fathers deliberately skewed the election process AWAY from true democracy, just like they skewed it against black people and women.  We've been correcting their antiquated mistakes ever since, and eventually we'll correct this one too.

No, we haven't -- we've been breaking it more ever since.

Abolishing the electoral college entirely in favor of a national popular vote would work better than what we have today.

However, going back to the electoral college as it was originally designed (having the state legislatures pick the President) would also work better than what we have today. Jeb Bush as President with Hillary Clinton as VP would certainly not be ideal, but it would be less volatile and dangerous than what we actually ended up with.

J_Stache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #76 on: November 14, 2016, 08:09:11 AM »
It would not be fair to give the flyover states literally no voice in choosing how they are governed.  You seem to want a version of the Hunger Games where the rulers are in California and New York and the sheep in the middle of the country send them all of their food and fuel while working 12 hours a day in Shithole, ND.

California gets 55 votes and North Dakota gets 3.

California and North Dakota are two states that have no influence in elections.  There are 35 states that for the past 4 election cycles have voted consistently Dem or GOP.  The electoral college guarantees that our elections are decided by a few swing states and, thus, our policy discussions are based on what is good for these states.  The needs of California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, and Washington (e.g. over 100 million people) do not matter in a Presidential Election.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #77 on: November 14, 2016, 09:18:37 AM »
Would proportional electoral votes, kinda like Maine and Nebraska have, be an acceptable compromise? This would still allow minority states to have a say in the election, but remove the winner takes all mentality from larger, or more diverse, states,.

rubybeth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1390
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #78 on: November 14, 2016, 09:37:09 AM »
Another perspective:

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 40
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #79 on: November 14, 2016, 10:10:37 AM »
Another perspective:

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

Here's a link from Time explaining the same, for those who think Vox is incapable of objectivity:

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It's a completely non-controversial historical truth that pretty much all original talks about "state's rights," and fairness to less populated areas is founded in the South's worry over protecting the institution of chattel slavery. You know, just as an FYI for those who want to align themselves entirely with what the founders wanted.

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #80 on: November 14, 2016, 10:39:52 AM »
I am sure many in California or New York did not vote since it was not close.  If it was based on popular vote alone many more would have come out for HRC.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #81 on: November 14, 2016, 10:50:37 AM »
Another perspective:

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

Here's a link from Time explaining the same, for those who think Vox is incapable of objectivity:

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It's a completely non-controversial historical truth that pretty much all original talks about "state's rights," and fairness to less populated areas is founded in the South's worry over protecting the institution of chattel slavery. You know, just as an FYI for those who want to align themselves entirely with what the founders wanted.

So what? Trying to use that as an argument against it is still an ad-hominem fallacy.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 40
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #82 on: November 14, 2016, 11:09:54 AM »
Did I try to use it as an argument against anything? Just a historical footnote that is important if you want to consider founder's intent in making an argument, which is what plenty have done. Nothing ad hominem about pointing that out. Many of the founders literally supported the electoral college because it helped them maintain slavery. How is that fallacious or a personal attack?

LAL

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 155
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #83 on: November 14, 2016, 11:27:34 AM »
Electoral college isn't fair. I said that since 2000 when my voted didn't count then and didn't count now.  Live anywhere that it's leaning one way or another and it doesn't matter if you are a liberal or conservative. Only if you are swing. And it sucks to live where your vote either way doesn't matter.

Electoral college was to help southern states count slaves as 3/5 people. And women didn't vote then. So "yes" we should keep such an antiquated system.

I think they should distribute electoral votes based on how they win the state. Then it'd make it more fair since it'd be hard counting a popular vote.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #84 on: November 14, 2016, 11:35:53 AM »
Electoral college isn't fair.

It's not supposed to be fair.  It's supposed to give more power to rural states with fewer people.

Why is everyone so upset by this?  The US Constitution explicitly said women and black people can't vote.  No one has ever claimed the Constitution was "fair", despite all of the lionization of it that you see in some circles.  It's not holy scripture, it was a politically negotiated compromise that ended up favoring the more bigoted side of the debate. 

Why is everyone acting surprised when our elections follow suit?  Frankly I think it's far more amazing that we've had a black President than that a majority of Americans could support (or, at best, choose to overlook) blatant racism.  Racism is right in our national DNA.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #85 on: November 14, 2016, 11:40:07 AM »
Did I try to use it as an argument against anything? Just a historical footnote that is important if you want to consider founder's intent in making an argument, which is what plenty have done. Nothing ad hominem about pointing that out. Many of the founders literally supported the electoral college because it helped them maintain slavery. How is that fallacious or a personal attack?

We both damn well know you intended to imply by it.

Proud Foot

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #86 on: November 14, 2016, 12:39:57 PM »
Would proportional electoral votes, kinda like Maine and Nebraska have, be an acceptable compromise? This would still allow minority states to have a say in the election, but remove the winner takes all mentality from larger, or more diverse, states,.

I would be for this.  I feel like it is a good blend of the two in that it still gives the lower population states a voice but allows more states to be in play as there were 12 states (147 electoral votes) won by less than 5%. You would need to figure out rules so you aren't trying to allocate fractions to the minority candidates but also not make it impossible for them to get electorates. 

Out of curiosity I looked at the numbers using these assumptions: Winner gets 1, to be eligible to receive electoral vote the candidate must meet a percentage of 1 electorate vote (total EV/100, for California this would be approx 1.8%), the remaining electoral votes split proportionately among eligible candidates. I split the votes to one tenth to keep things more in proportion. I found that 3 states had more than 2 candidates receiving votes. The results I got then were Trump - 268.3, Clinton - 264.1, Other - 5.6.

Obviously the amount given directly to the winner of each state will have some sway but I thought it was something interesting to look at.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #87 on: November 14, 2016, 12:46:32 PM »
Great, except states are not people. Many conservatives on this board claim to lean libertarian. I would expect they would be especially supportive of abolishing the electoral college.

Don't think libertarianism really speaks to the electoral college, which is a compromise between sovereign states.  Libertarians do tend to more strongly support exit as an option, which would I guess tend to make them more supportive of the electoral college, which preserves more sovereignty for the individual states, but that's not really a fundamental principle of libertarianism. 

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #88 on: November 14, 2016, 12:57:10 PM »
Would proportional electoral votes, kinda like Maine and Nebraska have, be an acceptable compromise? This would still allow minority states to have a say in the election, but remove the winner takes all mentality from larger, or more diverse, states,.

I would be for this.  I feel like it is a good blend of the two in that it still gives the lower population states a voice but allows more states to be in play as there were 12 states (147 electoral votes) won by less than 5%. You would need to figure out rules so you aren't trying to allocate fractions to the minority candidates but also not make it impossible for them to get electorates. 

Out of curiosity I looked at the numbers using these assumptions: Winner gets 1, to be eligible to receive electoral vote the candidate must meet a percentage of 1 electorate vote (total EV/100, for California this would be approx 1.8%), the remaining electoral votes split proportionately among eligible candidates. I split the votes to one tenth to keep things more in proportion. I found that 3 states had more than 2 candidates receiving votes. The results I got then were Trump - 268.3, Clinton - 264.1, Other - 5.6.

Obviously the amount given directly to the winner of each state will have some sway but I thought it was something interesting to look at.

I think going by Congressional district would be a decent compromise if it weren't for gerrymandering. Assign one vote to the overall winner of the state, then each district gets its vote.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #89 on: November 14, 2016, 01:03:15 PM »
Would proportional electoral votes, kinda like Maine and Nebraska have, be an acceptable compromise? This would still allow minority states to have a say in the election, but remove the winner takes all mentality from larger, or more diverse, states,.

I would be for this.  I feel like it is a good blend of the two in that it still gives the lower population states a voice but allows more states to be in play as there were 12 states (147 electoral votes) won by less than 5%. You would need to figure out rules so you aren't trying to allocate fractions to the minority candidates but also not make it impossible for them to get electorates. 

Out of curiosity I looked at the numbers using these assumptions: Winner gets 1, to be eligible to receive electoral vote the candidate must meet a percentage of 1 electorate vote (total EV/100, for California this would be approx 1.8%), the remaining electoral votes split proportionately among eligible candidates. I split the votes to one tenth to keep things more in proportion. I found that 3 states had more than 2 candidates receiving votes. The results I got then were Trump - 268.3, Clinton - 264.1, Other - 5.6.

Obviously the amount given directly to the winner of each state will have some sway but I thought it was something interesting to look at.

I think going by Congressional district would be a decent compromise if it weren't for gerrymandering. Assign one vote to the overall winner of the state, then each district gets its vote.

I think this would be worse, specifically because Congress gets to draw their own district boundaries. This strongly benefits entrenched power - it's not as if the sitting Congress gets to re-draw the state lines every 10 years to preserve their power. Now, if we could agree on an algorithm to draw the district lines to give people a more equitable voice in Congress, then yeah, I might be able to get behind this. As it stands, Democrats are at a significant disadvantage simply by virtue of being confined within compact urban districts.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #90 on: November 14, 2016, 01:09:08 PM »
I think this would be worse, specifically because Congress gets to draw their own district boundaries. This strongly benefits entrenched power - it's not as if the sitting Congress gets to re-draw the state lines every 10 years to preserve their power. Now, if we could agree on an algorithm to draw the district lines to give people a more equitable voice in Congress, then yeah, I might be able to get behind this. As it stands, Democrats are at a significant disadvantage simply by virtue of being confined within compact urban districts.

Hence my qualifier "if it weren't for gerrymandering." ;-)

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #91 on: November 14, 2016, 01:12:28 PM »
I think this would be worse, specifically because Congress gets to draw their own district boundaries. This strongly benefits entrenched power - it's not as if the sitting Congress gets to re-draw the state lines every 10 years to preserve their power. Now, if we could agree on an algorithm to draw the district lines to give people a more equitable voice in Congress, then yeah, I might be able to get behind this. As it stands, Democrats are at a significant disadvantage simply by virtue of being confined within compact urban districts.

Hence my qualifier "if it weren't for gerrymandering." ;-)

Oh, I know. But it's not as if we could just say to Congress, "Okay, we're going to give you the power to not only draw your congressional districts, but the electoral map as well...But only if you pinky promise not to gerrymander. Be sure to give those big city liberals a fair shake." Without huge changes to the districting process, it's a terrible idea.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #92 on: November 14, 2016, 01:28:11 PM »
I think this would be worse, specifically because Congress gets to draw their own district boundaries. This strongly benefits entrenched power - it's not as if the sitting Congress gets to re-draw the state lines every 10 years to preserve their power. Now, if we could agree on an algorithm to draw the district lines to give people a more equitable voice in Congress, then yeah, I might be able to get behind this. As it stands, Democrats are at a significant disadvantage simply by virtue of being confined within compact urban districts.

Hence my qualifier "if it weren't for gerrymandering." ;-)

Oh, I know. But it's not as if we could just say to Congress, "Okay, we're going to give you the power to not only draw your congressional districts, but the electoral map as well...But only if you pinky promise not to gerrymander. Be sure to give those big city liberals a fair shake." Without huge changes to the districting process, it's a terrible idea.

Honestly, I think gerrymandering and fundraising are two of the biggest problems with American politics, and will only be solved through legislation or a Constitutional amendment. Ideology, and various -isms are pretty far down the list compared to those two, though they're all intertwined.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #93 on: November 14, 2016, 01:31:31 PM »
Do you really want to start electing presidents who will just pander to the big cities and ignore the rest of the nation?  I don't think that's such a good idea.

Sincere question for those who support the electoral college on the basis of balancing rural and urban interests: should other minority groups in the US also get extra votes per person (if such thing were plausible) in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority?

Should young people get extra votes so politicians don't pander to their elders? Should black people get extra votes to reduce politicians' pandering to white people? Should rich people get extra votes so politicians don't pander to the poor and middle classes? Granted, I'm not sure how any of that would work, and I understand that we might be stuck with the electoral college just because it's already there... but is there any real reason why rural interests should have get an undemocratic vote boost that other minority groups don't?

You are missing the purpose of the electoral college.  Rural interests don't get an undemocratic vote boost.  The smaller population a state is, the more disproportionate say it gets in national politics, both in the legislative branch because of the composition of the senate and the executive branch because of the composition of the electoral college. 

The reason those states get that extra, non-democratic influence is because that is what was necessary to convince small population states that giving up additional sovereignty by signing onto the constitution would not result in those state's interests being ignored in the national political process.   


MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #94 on: November 14, 2016, 01:41:15 PM »
Personally I'm for the popular vote.  But even if the popular vote was the law of the land, no way guarantees Hillary would have won.  Both candidates would have campaigned completely differently.  The rules need to be set up before the game is played, not after. 

It's been a while since I looked into this, so my numbers may be off.  When the House first convened, one representative represented about 30k people (on average).  Now (or last time I looked) one represents 600k people.  If we had the same representation ratio, we would basically have a popular vote again.  But the House would have 9000 representatives.  To me, it seems hard to represent 600k people, even if that's in the same city.  Maybe it is to me, because that's 2x my city's size.

All this has been brought up before, in 2000, when Bush won.  But in contrast, Bush won 272 to 266, where Trump is winning 306 to 232.  Maybe a second "offense" is 2 decades will bring about change?  I'm doubtful.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #95 on: November 14, 2016, 01:49:38 PM »
Great, except states are not people. Many conservatives on this board claim to lean libertarian. I would expect they would be especially supportive of abolishing the electoral college.

Don't think libertarianism really speaks to the electoral college, which is a compromise between sovereign states.  Libertarians do tend to more strongly support exit as an option, which would I guess tend to make them more supportive of the electoral college, which preserves more sovereignty for the individual states, but that's not really a fundamental principle of libertarianism.

From a libertarian perspective the method of choosing the President wouldn't matter all that much because the Federal government wouldn't have much power to begin with. To illustrate this point, consider the fact that we're not arguing about the method of choosing the secretary general of the UN. (I'll bet most of the people in this thread don't even know how that office is chosen without having to look it up.)

I think this would be worse, specifically because Congress gets to draw their own district boundaries. This strongly benefits entrenched power - it's not as if the sitting Congress gets to re-draw the state lines every 10 years to preserve their power. Now, if we could agree on an algorithm to draw the district lines to give people a more equitable voice in Congress, then yeah, I might be able to get behind this. As it stands, Democrats are at a significant disadvantage simply by virtue of being confined within compact urban districts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/03/this-computer-programmer-solved-gerrymandering-in-his-spare-time/

By the way, the problem with gerrymandered districts is that they're not "compact." Geometrically, "compact" implies that the district would have a small circumference relative to its area (i.e. as close to circular as possible), which is exactly what you want. Gerrymandered districts, in contrast, have a high circumference-to-area ratio.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5672
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #96 on: November 14, 2016, 02:11:55 PM »
Ok, I think you're wrong, but you could be right.  Not sure it was an actual riot, given the quotes in the story title, but there was University Of Mississippi Students ‘Riot’ Over Obama Reelection in 2012.  Of course, we can't prove what would have happened this year either way.

Can't prove it, but given that Trump wouldn't promise to respect an actual loss, do you believe he would have graciously conceded if he'd won the popular vote?

Not for one moment would Da Trumpster concede graciously. I was steeling myself for a deafening  raucous protest going on for months, because I thought it possible that the popular vote go to Trump but states go to HRC. I was wrong and have been famously wrong! I was predicting an HRC victory for two years. Slap me!

So starting anew: I might possibly entertain the notion of getting rid of the electoral college IF our federal,government was not all fucking powerful, huge, looming over every move we make.

No, I will not here in flyover country give up my power to influence who lives in the White House. If those of you who wish a direct vote election of the President want to lobby me, ya'll  need to reduce the influence of Nanny G by at least 50% before I will listen to your arguement.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2016, 02:18:09 PM by iris lily »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #97 on: November 14, 2016, 02:18:54 PM »
Umm, so now you are comparing a nation to multi-nation organizations?

No. I'm pointing out that the US was originally a multi-nation organization too, and that's why the Electoral College got designed the way it did.

Also, even now, the individual States are supposed to still have a high degree of sovereignty (abuses of the Commerce Clause and Elastic Clause notwithstanding).

Hmmm.  That's a new bit of history there.  Maybe you could point to a source that indicates we had separate "nations" before we consolidated the states following independence.

Are you seriously unfamiliar with the Articles of Confederation?  (Free pass if you're not an American, in which case it's obviously understandable to be unfamiliar.)

Hello - yea, very familiar with the AoC.  It was a developed to have "a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States."   The federal government was set up as the arbiter - it later proved too weak, provided no tax basis to pay off the war debt, and had no executive function,  and was replaced by the Constitution.

In no, way, shape or form - tax, military, regulatory, judiciary, or any other functions can any of the members be called a "nation".    Next falsehood please.

I'm guessing this is one of those statements typed out in the heat of the moment that you'd like to take back upon further consideration? 

Just picking a random state that your user name made me think of, but you could find these for pretty much any state:

http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/pages/index.aspx
http://www.oregon.gov/deq/pages/index.aspx  http://www.oregon.gov/BCD/pages/index.aspx
http://courts.oregon.gov/Supreme/Pages/index.aspx
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/468.085




Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #98 on: November 14, 2016, 02:21:44 PM »
By the way, the problem with gerrymandered districts is that they're not "compact." Geometrically, "compact" implies that the district would have a small circumference relative to its area (i.e. as close to circular as possible), which is exactly what you want. Gerrymandered districts, in contrast, have a high circumference-to-area ratio.

Poor word choice on my part. What I meant by "compact" was not as much geographic compactness, but demographic compactness. In the article you linked to, the authors gave the North Carolina 12th as an example - the district is heavily black, so Democrats win overwhelmingly, while the surrounding districts are much less one-sided but get to dilute their Democratic voters into obscurity.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote?
« Reply #99 on: November 14, 2016, 02:45:12 PM »

That's a neat trick - switching from when there were 13 "states" as you mentioned in the Ariticles of Confederation to a current model??  Excellent time warp.   Somehow - that Oregon can make it's own international treaties and be considered a "nation" is in parallel with some of the thoughts of the gold coast potheads.

Now tell me again how this statement is unified via the Articles of Confederation and the Oregon Supreme Court:

No. I'm pointing out that the US was originally a multi-nation organization too, and that's why the Electoral College got designed the way it did.

Hmmm - The Electoral College was developed to unify a multi-nation organization - kinda like the UN?