If we moved to the popular vote I bet a real close election would make for a fun recount.

11/14/2016 7:20:51 PM

Quote :

"what we really should do is repeal the 17th amendment. states aint got no representation in DC, how dumb is that"

I'm all for it. Grant Puerto Rico independence while we're at it.

11/14/2016 7:22:56 PM

Considering the number of people who voted who aren't citizens of the U.S., I am fairly confident that Trump won the popular vote.

11/14/2016 7:44:44 PM

Imagine your side winning and still being a conspiratorial asshole.

11/14/2016 7:52:04 PM

Ah the old election fraud argument, always a good one. Anyway, if Puerto Ricans (fully legal US citizens) could vote, homeboy would have lost even worse by the popular vote.

11/14/2016 7:52:24 PM

Dudes, the President the day before the election said it was okay for illegals to vote because no one was going to catch them.

not George Soros

not La Raza

not Rachel Maddow

the President

but by all means, let's say the election is not legitimate, because my candidate didn't win

11/14/2016 7:58:10 PM

http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

I say this with a complete lack of respect. You fucking suck.

11/14/2016 8:01:46 PM

sorry, I didn't check with snopes before I commented

I actually watched the interview

MY BAD

11/14/2016 8:28:33 PM

Um, the full interview is right there on the link? Are you trolling? I'm so confused. It's so plainly obvious what he is saying..

11/14/2016 9:26:20 PM

Quote :

""If it weren't for the electoral college, your Presidents would win their elections by campaigning only in New York, California, and Texas. Every goddamn candidate in every goddamn Presidential election would spend their entire time pandering to the states with the most people, because that would be the most efficient use of their time and money."

Not true. Ny, California, and Texas aren't coherent in their voter demographics, it would be easy, considering the split in voters, for a candidate to pick up a few other votes elsewhere and win.

Probably the first election after ditching the ec, you might see someone win with the strategy of ignoring all states but big ones, but it wouldn't take long for someone to take the thirty percent in California and ny and forty percent in Texas mix it with the mid west states and win a majority.

The the next election a person might find a message that appeals more laterally to urban and rural voters, since they no longer need a majority to get electoral college, and win that way. With every vote counting, voters in smaller states could matter more than they do now, under newer strategies.

Proportional votes for EC seem like a good compromise though.

11/14/2016 10:40:45 PM

Getting rid of the EC would help both liberal voters in red states and conservative voters in blue states by making them feel more like their vote matters, because right now unless you're in a battleground it doesn't for the presidential race. This would drive turnout for the downballot races where everyone's vote actually does matter.

What's not to like?

11/15/2016 11:05:12 AM

1 person = 1 vote god bless

11/15/2016 11:28:24 AM

^^ no

11/15/2016 11:38:38 AM

I saw this posted on another forum and thought it was interesting. Thoughts:

Quote :

"I don't want to do away with the electoral college, because I don't want to leave the small states in the cold. But I do want the EC to reflect more closely the popular vote. Therefore I suggest the following: Each state allocates their EVs based on the popular vote in their state. For example, NC has 15 electoral votes. Trump got 51% of the popular vote here, so he gets 51% of our EVs (7.14) rounded up to the nearest whole (8) in what we can call the winner's bonus. HRC got 46.7% so she gets 7.005 EVs. Third party candidates are eligible, but in this case didn't get enough popular votes to earn any electoral votes. This scheme does several things: 1.) Preserves the parts of the EC, namely smaller states have larger influence than their population suggests, that I think are worthwhile. If we go straight one person one vote, the small states will never get any sort of attention ever again. 2.) Makes the EC vote closer to the popular vote. Someone on another thread ran this year's numbers and found that HRC would've won the EC in a squeaker much like she did the popular vote. 3.) Brings 'safe' states back into play. The Pubs won't ignore California anymore because even if they lose, they still get something of value. They'll need to work hard to maximize their turnout there. 4.) Gives people who vote for the losers in each state their voice back. Essentially, everyone in NC who votes for HRC gets no say. All of our EVs went to Trump. That seems like the biggest injustice of all. And this could all be implemented without a Constitutional amendment. States could start allocating this way right now if they chose. "

11/15/2016 12:19:45 PM

^ that seems like a decent plan

11/15/2016 12:22:49 PM

This is what you want: http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan

11/15/2016 1:00:37 PM

I like that Jbrick. I live in Tennessee, a red state through and through. I was not voting for trump but I knew my vote didn't matter because this state was going red. I could have easily just stayed home and blamed you assholes for this shit, but I voted third party. If I were in a swing state I would definitely feel like my vote matter a lot more and would have taken it seriously. I would love for my vote to actually matter and a split of ec instead of a winner takes all approach is a good start.

And those of you saying the candidates would only focus on larger cities, what the fuck, you think that's no different than now? How many times did they go to Florida to kiss ass? Or any other swing state? Think any of the candidates ever came to Tennessee the entire time? It wouldn't change the pandering, just the locations.

11/15/2016 4:09:16 PM

Now you've just got to get the party that's in charge in each state to agree to give away about half of their votes and you're all set.

ETA: Keep in mind that we're still having trouble drawing congressional districts that are legal.

[Edited on November 15, 2016 at 4:24 PM. Reason : so don't hold your breath.]

11/15/2016 4:23:23 PM

Quote :

"I saw this posted on another forum and thought it was interesting. Thoughts:"

Last wed. I put the results in a spreadsheet and did just that. I took it to 3 decimal places and lumped all 3rd party candidates as "other". I re-ran each state, rounding to fewer places and it was weird that in this case the results stayed the same. I expected that when you had to award whole EVs that it'd swing a bit more than it did.


Trump Clinton Other
268.931 241.496 27.573
268.93 241.50 27.57
268.9 241.5 27.6
269 241 28


I'd need to rerun it for each 3rd party candidate to have their own percentages but unless you do full points only I don't see any way Trump would have hit 270. And I do think you'd have to either give partial EVs or at least multiply and adjust all EVs to be roughly 10x higher so a 53/47 small state doesn't look the same as a 70/30 small state when the EVs are totaled.

11/15/2016 4:33:50 PM

Quote :

"NOTE: I have never suggested the results of this election should be overturned and I didn't bother signing that dumb petition floating around to change the outcome. But from here on out, this shit needs to be fixed."

Actually, your beloved state, CA, could start this itself, and it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment at all. There is nothing in the Constitution which requires the EC to be winner-takes-all. CA could just do proportional representation of its house-EC votes and winner-takes-all of the two senate-EC votes. Maine and Nebraska already do it. There's no reason CA couldn't do this, other than depriving the Dems of their 10% head-start every 4 years. If all the states did this, it would be much closer to what the founders intended, and it would help decrease the partisan divide, because 3rd party candidates would have a much better shot at making inroads onto the national stage. Go for it.

Or,, you could just bitch and whine about how you don't like it cause your candidate lost. Whatever.

11/16/2016 10:58:43 PM

The founding fathers wanted the electors to choose the best candidate largely irrespective of the popular vote. They modeled the electoral college after platos idealized version of choosing "philosopher kings".

Somewhere along the way we realized giving electors this much power was a bad idea and states bound them to popular votes. To my knowledge this has never been defended in court. It would actually be entirely in the spirit and letter of the constitution for the electoral college to ditch trump, but as the constitution is a living document weighed against tradition and social norms, this wouldn't happen.

11/16/2016 11:22:49 PM

True, they didn't really want it to reflect the popular-vote in the style of a direct democracy. I still think they would be floored at the winner-takes-all method, though.

11/16/2016 11:28:30 PM

I'd be happy with ranked choice voting. And that actually seems doable. Heck it just passed referendum in Maine:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/maine-voters-approve-major-change-election-process/

11/17/2016 12:16:12 AM

I like ranked choice in principle. But it seems like it would just be too damned easy to fuck up and get your ballot tossed. Like hanging chads times 1000

11/17/2016 6:06:13 PM

I'm surprised the Electoral College hasn't changed to the Electoral University.

11/17/2016 6:49:32 PM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/

Good article here discusses the fact that pure democracy direct representation are a bit overrated.

[Edited on November 21, 2016 at 1:44 PM. Reason : linkfix]

11/21/2016 1:37:13 PM

Quote :

"I'd be happy with ranked choice voting. And that actually seems doable. Heck it just passed referendum in Maine: http://freebeacon.com/politics/maine-voters-approve-major-change-election-process/"

Yeah!!! only a few more hurdles before a change to the U.S. Constitution!!!



In other referendums across the country,

California upheld the ban on plastic bags.
California repealed the required use of condoms in porn films.
Indiana & Kansas preserved the right to hunt and fish.
Utah decided to recognize Utah (vs. "this state") in the official oath of office.
Washington passed a resolution to tell the state legislature it would be a good idea if it proposed a Constitutional amendment to ensure people ("not corporations") have a right to free speech.

I see that last one going places.

11/21/2016 1:55:24 PM

The question would be whether they vote in Hillary instead or vote in another Republican?

11/21/2016 1:55:32 PM

I'm sorry, is that a serious question?

11/21/2016 2:02:46 PM

Yes very serious. I mean if the electoral college is gonna go rogue seems like people would be less pissed if they voted another republican in rather than Hillary, in which case that whole the election is rigged thing really would gain traction.

11/21/2016 2:32:07 PM

I doubt any member of the electoral college wants to be dodging assassins for the rest of their life by pulling a stunt like that.

11/21/2016 3:15:38 PM

Well not to mention that they are just nameless schmoes instead of the wizened and learned folks that were intended.

11/21/2016 3:26:03 PM

Yeah I doubt it happens as well. At this point lets hope this becomes a learning moment and we get through the next 4 years relatively unscathed and hope both parties put someone worth a shit forward rather than these two bozos we got this time.

11/21/2016 3:44:53 PM

#allstatesmatter

11/21/2016 4:33:41 PM