I'm coming around to strongly supporting the Electoral Collegelec

[Michael Knight 13189]

Apportionment needs to be adjusted.  The big states don't have enough representatives. Go to 1 rep per 100,000 people to start with

[Guest Lobo]

13 minutes ago, elfenix said:

That's right, "States" are an Other with their own political will separate from the people living in them. The great enlightenment thinkers certainly thought so.

Our judicial system is based largely on the very concept laid out in your sarcasm.  

[bad_teammate 13481]

7 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Apportionment needs to be adjusted.  The big states don't have enough representatives. Go to 1 rep per 100,000 people to start with

Right now the average is 752k.
To get to 100k, which I support, we would go from 435 House reps in DC to 3272.

7x the offices. 7x the parking spaces. 7x the staff members. 7x the meetings. 7x more people in committee hearings. Etc...

The practical impacts of that kind of change are significant and will weigh on the minds of DC rats. I think a potential solution would be to make a section of the house "virtual". Additional reps could live in the home district and essentially teleconference and televote. That way, there's no need to hand-wring about adding more House reps as the population (hopefully) grows.

It would also be good for the Congresspeople to actually be around their constituents.

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, I don't think you know how lobbying works.  You can't bribe people over the internet.  

[Incredulity 11861]

2 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Gerrymandering is certainly about the minority political philosophy obtaining and maintaining a disproportionate political voice.  In our time that  correlates closely with rural voters maintaining a disproportionate representation over urban voters.  The point is that in an effort to make sure rural voters are not run over by urban voters, our system gives rural voters disproportionate representation in ALL 3 branches of government.  Getting rid of the EC would give urban voters ONE branch of government with PROPORTIONAL representation while maintaining rural DISPROPORTIONATE representation in the House and Senate.  The Supreme Court would then have equal influence by both rural and urban voters:

I understand your thesis.

Gerrymandering has nothing to do with it.

[tantric superman 4668]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The EC also kinda safeguards against ballot stuffing.  Say you had some corrupt motherfuckers in Georgia running up the scoreboard with thousands of fake ballots. The effect of that manipulation wouldn’t go past influencing the outcome of that state because of the EC. 

Point is, getting rid of the EC does have a trade off but over my lifetime it’s proven to be an instrument that suppressed the will of the people and devalues my vote.  

Hugo, what are your thoughts on the Maine and Nebraska approaches?  I think they set two votes aside for whoever wins the state and the rest go by districts.  Basically allow each state to decide how they want to vote for President.  (Admit I am just starting to read up on this issue.)

[Bama Chick 28596]

Your points are correct but there's a reason Dems suddenly love the idea.

Suddenly? Most democrats I know have been against it for going on 20 years now.

Yeah, Bush/Gore will be 20 years old as of the next election cycle.

That’s not suddenly and we’re all old.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

5 hours ago, tantric superman said:

This is kind of it in a nutshell, but again, to me it would be like a neighborhood association asking me to join, but then telling me that my voting power would be based on the number of people in my household, and I realize that my and my wife are the only childless couples in a neighborhood of mormons and catholics.  You want me to join?  Then one house, one vote. 

 

Does your household gain more in benefits from the Neighborhood Association than it contributes, and are you never shutting up about your neighbors getting "free stuff"? Perhaps the problem lies here.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

16 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Hugo, what are your thoughts on the Maine and Nebraska approaches?  I think they set two votes aside for whoever wins the state and the rest go by districts.  Basically allow each state to decide how they want to vote for President.  (Admit I am just starting to read up on this issue.)

I don’t have much of an opinion on that but...

Bottom line, I think the States should decide how to approach the electoral college problem.  I like the idea of states choosing to give all their EC votes to the popular vote winner.  Some states are doing this.  If enough states did this it would make the electoral college problem irrelevant. 

I don’t like the idea of federalized national elections.  The decentralization of the states overseeing elections is better IMO.  I just don’t like the Electoral College. 

[Pato del Muerto 53343]

If you tell me that the EC system as is has become obsolete over the past 230 years due to population growth and shifts, I can go there with you. 

If you tell me popular vote is the best solution, i don’t think I can believe that. 

If you tell me that we should change to popular vote because it’s better than Electoral and then we can come up with and evaluate other options...I don’t know that it is so why can’t we keep the EV while we evaluate?

[NowThis 931]

A notable feature of the 2016 Electoral College vote was the record number of so-called “faithless electors” – electors who cast their ballots for someone other than the official nominee of the party they’re pledged to represent. The five Democratic electors who voted for people other than Clinton included three from Washington State who chose Colin Powell and another who chose Yankton Sioux tribal elder Faith Spotted Eagle, and one from Hawaii who voted for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival in the primaries. In addition, the two Texas electors who spurned Trump voted instead for Ohio Gov. John Kasich (whom Trump had defeated in the primaries) and former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/20/why-electoral-college-landslides-are-easier-to-win-than-popular-vote-ones/

 

so a dozen EC electors could choose the popular vote winner outdoing the EV 

[elfenix 34661]

19 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If you tell me that the EC system as is has become obsolete over the past 230 years due to population growth and shifts, I can go there with you. 

If you tell me popular vote is the best solution, i don’t think I can believe that. 

If you tell me that we should change to popular vote because it’s better than Electoral and then we can come up with and evaluate other options...I don’t know that it is so why can’t we keep the EV while we evaluate?

the primary system needs a massive overhaul, but that's a different problem.  you could do both at the same time. 

[TwiceHorn 31994]

2 hours ago, elfenix said:

the primary system needs a massive overhaul, but that's a different problem.  you could do both at the same time. 

Overhauling primaries does not require amending the Constitution.

[elfenix 34661]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Overhauling primaries does not require amending the Constitution.

neither does fixing the EC, chief.

[hpslugga 4096]

27 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

tyranny of the majority many of you are for and not for the intended design of our republic.  please, read the federalist papers as to why things are the way they are.  makes complete since.  this is all by masterful design.  

I’ve read them. Found them shallow and pedantic.

[TexArcher 38819]

10 hours ago, Royalfan5 said:

The smaller states already get disproportionate representation in that senate, how much more to they need to be coddled?

This.

There isn't one good reason to have anything other than a majority vote nationwide for president.

Several million Texans voted for Hillary and several million Californians voted for Trump and their votes did not matter.  Who knows how many more didn't bother because they knew their votes didn't matter?

As it is now, we have elections decided by people in Florida and Ohio, and those are cesspools.  Brilliant.

[Michael Knight 13189]

52 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

tyranny of the majority many of you are for and not for the intended design of our republic.  please, read the federalist papers as to why things are the way they are.  makes complete since.  this is all by masterful design.  

to protect the institution of slavery, it certainly worked for ~70 years

Edited March 25, 2019 by Michael Knight

[Biff Tannen 46063]

6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t have much of an opinion on that but...

Bottom line, I think the States should decide how to approach the electoral college problem.  I like the idea of states choosing to give all their EC votes to the popular vote winner.  Some states are doing this.  If enough states did this it would make the electoral college problem irrelevant. 

I don’t like the idea of federalized national elections.  The decentralization of the states overseeing elections is better IMO.  I just don’t like the Electoral College. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

I like it a lot.  Though I think it needs Texas to really become a reality.  And good fucking luck there.  Our state is dumb.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

I like it a lot.  Though I think it needs Texas to really become a reality.  And good fucking luck there.  Our state is dumb.

It’s easier than changing the US constitution 

[NowThis 931]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

I like it a lot.  Though I think it needs Texas to really become a reality.  And good fucking luck there.  Our state is dumb.

but the Dem states will go Dem anyway and are the only ones participating in this Compact right? 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, tjhooker said:

tyranny of the majority many of you are for and not for the intended design of our republic.  please, read the federalist papers as to why things are the way they are.  makes complete since.  this is all by masterful design.  

It was designed to protect minority interests with the understanding that the majority would always have some power. Instead, it permits a tyrannical minority to shit all over majority interests. 

And I know you prefer tyranny of the minority. The problem that you have there is that it always leads to revolution when the majority finally has enough. 

[wildcat09 29561]

The idea that the electoral college was part of a master design is hilariously stupid. It was a last-minute compromise between factions that couldn’t agree on anything but everyone wanted to get home so figured it was good enough.

It was so “masterfully designed” we had to amend the Constitution to fix it after our first election of a president not named George Washington turned into a complete and total clusterfuck.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The idea that the electoral college was part of a master design is hilariously stupid. It was a last-minute compromise between factions that couldn’t agree on anything but everyone wanted to get home so figured it was good enough.

It was so “masterfully designed” we had to amend the Constitution to fix it after our first election of a president not named George Washington turned into a complete and total clusterfuck.

The 12th Amendment fixed a technical defect regarding votes for President and Vice President.  The state-by-state counting of electoral votes and its basic structure were preserved.

The fact that its basic function was preserved in the amendment process 20 years after ratification kinda indicates that everyone thought it was important.  They could have just repealed it in favor of a popular vote.

Edited March 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Incredulity 11861]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The 12th Amendment fixed a technical defect regarding votes for President and Vice President.  The state-by-state counting of electoral votes and its basic structure were preserved.

The fact that its basic function was preserved in the amendment process 20 years after ratification kinda indicates that everyone thought it was important.  They could have just repealed it in favor of a popular vote.

Stop with facts.

 

MOAR LEFTIST TALKING POINTS !!!!!!’

[wildcat09 29561]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The 12th Amendment fixed a technical defect regarding votes for President and Vice President.  The state-by-state counting of electoral votes and its basic structure were preserved.

The fact that its basic function was preserved in the amendment process 20 years after ratification kinda indicates that everyone thought it was important.  They could have just repealed it in favor of a popular vote.

I think it’s likely more indicative of the fact that they couldn’t get enough people to agree on anything better. The southern states were never going to ratify an amendment that reduced their power.

[wildcat09 29561]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Stop with facts.

 

MOAR LEFTIST TALKING POINTS !!!!!!’

*has no understanding of status quo bias but thinks he’s clever*

[Incredulity 11861]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

*has no understanding of status quo bias but thinks he’s clever*

You got fucking owned.  

Keep denying, deflecting and dissembling.

 

[NowThis 931]

hypothetical -- what is the highest percentage of votes for a losing candidate?

ie , can someone get 70% of the popular vote but still lose the EC?  Seems like an interesting Excel project (for me). That's how bad the EC can get, completely subvert the will of the people. 

[hpslugga 4096]

1 hour ago, NowThis said:

hypothetical -- what is the highest percentage of votes for a losing candidate?

ie , can someone get 70% of the popular vote but still lose the EC?  Seems like an interesting Excel project (for me). That's how bad the EC can get, completely subvert the will of the people. 

That's easy, you just take the fewest amount of states needed to get to 270  have that candidate win by 1-2 votes in each of those states, and then get completely swept in the rest. In this experiment, we'll presume it to be a true 2-person race

So here they are for 2016: California,Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and then Wyoming (because the preceding 10 give you 267, so we just need the smallest state that allocates 3 EC votes):

Candidate A carries those 11 states with 35,317,784 votes, and has crossed the 270 EC barrier
Candidate B: Sweeps the other 39 states plus DC with a grand total of 101,351,492 votes, yet he only has 269 EC votes

So the answer to your question is about 3/4ths of the total vote.

Edited March 25, 2019 by hpslugga

[FondrenRoad 4378]

6 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's easy, you just take the fewest amount of states needed to get to 270  have that candidate win by 1-2 votes in each of those states, and then get completely swept in the rest. In this experiment, we'll presume it to be a true 2-person race

So here they are for 2016: California,Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and then Wyoming (because the preceding 10 give you 267, so we just need to smallest state that allocates 3 EC votes):

Candidate A carries those 11 states with 35,317,784 votes, and has crossed the 270 EC barrier
Candidate B: Sweeps the other 39 states plus DC with a grand total of 101,351,492 votes, yet he only has 269 EC votes

It can be worse. All states have 2 electors reflecting their senators, so voting power per vote is much higher in low population states. So you have to run the numbers in the other direction. The winner takes all the lowest population states by 1 vote to get to 270. Loser sweeps the rest. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[NowThis 931]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's easy, you just take the fewest amount of states needed to get to 270  have that candidate win by 1-2 votes in each of those states, and then get completely swept in the rest. In this experiment, we'll presume it to be a true 2-person race

So here they are for 2016: California,Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and then Wyoming (because the preceding 10 give you 267, so we just need to smallest state that allocates 3 EC votes):

Candidate A carries those 11 states with 35,317,784 votes, and has crossed the 270 EC barrier
Candidate B: Sweeps the other 39 states plus DC with a grand total of 101,351,492 votes, yet he only has 269 EC votes

266

103,202,348

272

33,466,889

 

i did an Excel scenario where the R guy had just 33.4 million votes about 24.6% and won with 272 EVs.  Presumption was barely winning states with 50.1% of the vote and getting swept in the Dem states with large populations.  it could be slightly worse if only 1 or 2 votes per state decided the winner instead of 5000 as in most of my 'close' states.  I think the max % for the loser is around 77-78%, based on 2016 total votes by state. Still, the system can produce some bizarre scenarios.  Five POTUS elections have had the popular winner lose. 

[hpslugga 4096]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It can be worse. All states have 2 electors reflecting their senators, so voting power per vote is much higher in low population states. So you have to run the numbers in the other direction. The winner takes all the lowest population states by 1 vote to get to 270. Loser sweeps the rest. 

Ah then I stand corrected...that IS worse.

[NowThis 931]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It can be worse. All states have 2 electors reflecting their senators, so voting power per vote is much higher in low populatuon states. So you have to run the numbers in the other direction. The winner takes all the lowest population states by 1 vote to get to 270. Loser sweeps the rest. 

run the numbers then, see what you get. I'd be interested to see if the worst case scenario breaks 80%. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Ah then I stand corrected...that IS worse.

Actually, one possible compromise reform to the electoral college is to have it reflect the population and to eliminate the 2 senate based electors. It would still allow small states to be heard and swing states to still exist while also making every person's vote be closer to equal. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, NowThis said:

run the numbers then, see what you get. I'd be interested to see if the worst case scenario breaks 80%. 

No patience to manually do that. Where are you running your numbers?

[Incredulity 11861]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

No patience to manually do that. Where are you running your numbers?

Fantasyland

[NowThis 931]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

No patience to manually do that. Where are you running your numbers?

on my super computer  ... lol no , my desktop with Excel. 

I had to give the Dems the small states and all their votes, otherwise it wasn't close enough, ie the Rep would have close to 300.  So the best I could do was 272-266 and the Dem with 75.51% of the popular vote. 

only took abotu 25 minutes, used Wiki as my source. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by NowThis

[Guest Lobo]

38 states regardless of size needed to amend the constitution and modify/remove/replace the EC—-right?   So having a bunch of big population centers in states like California and Texas aren’t enough?   So there’d be these ‘swing states’ of you will, where you’d need a 50%+1 strategy of their legislature, eh?  Hmmm, as if they were a sort of college of elected folks?   Hmmmmm 

[maninblack 7975]

14 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Let's pander to Kansas, learn from their wisdom, and strive to be like Kansas.

Break up the union then you won't have to worry about Kansas

[NowThis 931]

	2016 POTUS		Dem		Rep
	Total EV	Total Votes	EV	Votes	EV	Votes
Alabama	9	2,123,372		1,059,563	9	1,063,809
Alaska	3	318,608		158,985	3	159,623
Arizona	11	2,573,165		1,284,009	11	1,289,156
Arkansas	6	1,130,635		564,187	6	566,448
California	55	14,181,595	55	14,181,595
Colorado	9	2,780,247	9	2,780,247
Connecticut	7	1,644,920	7	1,644,920
Delaware	3	443,814	3	443,814
District of Columbia	3	311,268	3	311,268
Florida	29	9,420,039		4,700,599	29	4,719,440
Georgia	16	4,114,732		2,053,251	16	2,061,481
Hawaii	4	428,937	4	428,937
Idaho	4	690,255		344,437	4	345,818
Illinois	20	5,536,424	20	5,536,424
Indiana	11	2,734,958		1,364,744	11	1,370,214
Iowa	6	1,566,031	6	1,566,031
Kansas	6	1,184,402		591,017	6	593,385
Kentucky	8	1,924,149		960,150	8	963,999
Louisiana	8	2,029,032		1,012,487	8	1,016,545
Maine (at-lg)	4	747,927	4	747,927
Maryland	10	2,781,446	10	2,781,446
Massachusetts	11	3,325,046	11	3,325,046
Michigan	16	4,799,284	16	4,799,284
Minnesota	10	2,944,813	10	2,944,813
Mississippi	6	1,209,357		603,469	6	605,888
Missouri	10	2,808,605		1,401,494	10	1,407,111
Montana	3	497,147		248,076	3	249,071
Nebraska (at-lg)	5	844,227		421,269	5	422,958
Nevada	6	1,125,385		561,567	6	563,818
New Hampshire	4	744,296	4	744,296
New Jersey	14	3,874,046	14	3,874,046
New Mexico	5	798,319	5	798,319
New York	29	7,721,453	29	7,721,453
North Carolina	15	4,741,564		2,366,040	15	2,375,524
North Dakota	3	344,360		171,836	3	172,524
Ohio	18	5,496,487		2,742,747	18	2,753,740
Oklahoma	7	1,452,992		725,043	7	727,949
Oregon	7	2,001,336	7	2,001,336
Pennsylvania	20	6,165,478	20	6,165,478
Rhode Island	4	464,144	4	464,144
South Carolina	9	2,103,027		1,049,410	9	1,053,617
South Dakota	3	370,093		184,676	3	185,417
Tennessee	11	2,508,027		1,251,505	11	1,256,522
Texas	38	8,969,226		4,475,644	38	4,493,582
Utah	6	1,131,430		564,584	6	566,846
Vermont	3	315,067	3	315,067
Virginia	13	3,984,631		1,988,331	13	1,996,300
Washington	12	3,317,019	12	3,317,019
West Virginia	5	714,423		356,497	5	357,926
Wisconsin	10	2,976,150	10	2,976,150
Wyoming	3	255,849		127,669	3	128,180
U.S. Total	538	136,669,237	266	103,202,348	272	33,466,889
				75.51%		24.49%

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Break up the union then you won't have to worry about Kansas

Okay. Let's do it. 

[tantric superman 4668]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The idea that the electoral college was part of a master design is hilariously stupid. It was a last-minute compromise between factions that couldn’t agree on anything but everyone wanted to get home so figured it was good enough.

It was so “masterfully designed” we had to amend the Constitution to fix it after our first election of a president not named George Washington turned into a complete and total clusterfuck. 

Yep, that's how shit liked that worked.

The interesting thing is, it's still better than simple majority where we are asking states to give up power to a federal government.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

34 minutes ago, NowThis said:

on my super computer  ... lol no , my desktop with Excel. 

I had to give the Dems the small states and all their votes, otherwise it wasn't close enough, ie the Rep would have close to 300.  So the best I could do was 272-266 and the Dem with 75.51% of the popular vote. 

only took abotu 25 minutes, used Wiki as my source. 

Why 300?  Are you giving Texas to the GOP or something?  This is a hypothetical to determine the maximum possible discrepancy.  Parties don't even matter.  You can't make any assumptions based on past votes.  You can get to exactly 268 with the top population states if you swap NJ and WA.

So popular vote winner sweeps:  CA 55, TX, 38, NY 29, FL 29, PA 20, IL 20, OH 18, GA 16, MI 16, NC 15, WA 12 for 268.

EC winner wins all the rest by 1 vote each for 270.

That will give you the biggest difference in popular vote.

Edited March 25, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[NowThis 931]

so redid it purely by biggest states first, loser takes all those votes. VA actually had 13 EVs with WA 12, so that was a minor adjustment.

Someone can become President with only 22.76% of the popular vote. 

	2016 POTUS		Dem		Rep
	Total EV	Total Votes	EV	Votes	EV	Votes
California	55	14,181,595	55	14,181,595
Texas	38	8,969,226	38	8,969,226
New York	29	7,721,453	29	7,721,453
Florida	29	9,420,039	29	9,420,039
Illinois	20	5,536,424	20	5,536,424
Pennsylvania	20	6,165,478	20	6,165,478
Ohio	18	5,496,487	18	5,496,487
Georgia	16	4,114,732	16	4,114,732
Michigan	16	4,799,284	16	4,799,284
North Carolina	15	4,741,564	15	4,741,564
Washington	12	3,317,019	12	3,317,019
New Jersey	14	3,874,046		1,937,022	14	1,937,024
Virginia	13	3,984,631		1,992,315	13	1,992,317
Tennessee	11	2,508,027		1,254,013	11	1,254,015
Arizona	11	2,573,165		1,286,582	11	1,286,584
Indiana	11	2,734,958		1,367,478	11	1,367,480
Massachusetts	11	3,325,046		1,662,522	11	1,662,524
Maryland	10	2,781,446		1,390,722	10	1,390,724
Missouri	10	2,808,605		1,404,302	10	1,404,304
Minnesota	10	2,944,813		1,472,406	10	1,472,408
Wisconsin	10	2,976,150		1,488,074	10	1,488,076
South Carolina	9	2,103,027		1,051,513	9	1,051,515
Alabama	9	2,123,372		1,061,685	9	1,061,687
Colorado	9	2,780,247		1,390,123	9	1,390,125
Kentucky	8	1,924,149		962,074	8	962,076
Louisiana	8	2,029,032		1,014,515	8	1,014,517
Oklahoma	7	1,452,992		726,495	7	726,497
Connecticut	7	1,644,920		822,459	7	822,461
Oregon	7	2,001,336		1,000,667	7	1,000,669
Nevada	6	1,125,385		562,692	6	562,694
Arkansas	6	1,130,635		565,317	6	565,319
Utah	6	1,131,430		565,714	6	565,716
Kansas	6	1,184,402		592,200	6	592,202
Mississippi	6	1,209,357		604,678	6	604,680
Iowa	6	1,566,031		783,015	6	783,017
West Virginia	5	714,423		357,211	5	357,213
New Mexico	5	798,319		399,159	5	399,161
Nebraska (at-lg)	5	844,227		422,113	5	422,115
Hawaii	4	428,937		214,468	4	214,470
Rhode Island	4	464,144		232,071	4	232,073
Idaho	4	690,255		345,127	4	345,129
New Hampshire	4	744,296		372,147	4	372,149
Maine (at-lg)	4	747,927		373,963	4	373,965
Wyoming	3	255,849		127,924	3	127,926
District of Columbia	3	311,268		155,633	3	155,635
Vermont	3	315,067		157,533	3	157,535
Alaska	3	318,608		159,303	3	159,305
North Dakota	3	344,360		172,179	3	172,181
South Dakota	3	370,093		185,046	3	185,048
Delaware	3	443,814		221,906	3	221,908
Montana	3	497,147		248,573	3	248,575
U.S. Total	538	136,669,237	268	105,566,229	270	31,103,008
				77.24%		22.76%

[dcar00 14907]

4 hours ago, NowThis said:

hypothetical -- what is the highest percentage of votes for a losing candidate?

ie , can someone get 70% of the popular vote but still lose the EC?  Seems like an interesting Excel project (for me). That's how bad the EC can get, completely subvert the will of the people. 

As it relates to the President, its the will of the states.  why even have a Senate? 

[Scooter Monzingo 821]

So, someone tell me who had the popular vote but lost the election due to the EC going back to, let’s say FDR’s first term?

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It wouldn’t shock me to see some Democrat inspired “Move to Texas” campaign in the next decade, to help push our state to the blue side.

And it’s fucking stupid that something like that could matter when electing the leader of our country.

That started 183 years ago...

and has been ramped up like a motherfucker in the past 20 years.

[NowThis 931]

4 hours ago, Scooter Monzingo said:

So, someone tell me who had the popular vote but lost the election due to the EC going back to, let’s say FDR’s first term?

The current system started before the Civil War. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but received less than half of the electoral votes. He lost out to John Quincy Adams.

A few decades later, in 1876, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election by one electoral vote to Rutherford B Hayes.

In 1888, Grover Cleveland also clinched the most popular votes in the country but conceded his 168 electoral college votes to Benjamin Harrison’s 233 electoral votes 

2000 Al Gore

2016 HR Clinton

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 hours ago, NowThis said:

so redid it purely by biggest states first, loser takes all those votes. VA actually had 13 EVs with WA 12, so that was a minor adjustment.

Someone can become President with only 22.76% of the popular vote. 

	2016 POTUS		Dem		Rep
	Total EV	Total Votes	EV	Votes	EV	Votes
California	55	14,181,595	55	14,181,595
Texas	38	8,969,226	38	8,969,226
New York	29	7,721,453	29	7,721,453
Florida	29	9,420,039	29	9,420,039
Illinois	20	5,536,424	20	5,536,424
Pennsylvania	20	6,165,478	20	6,165,478
Ohio	18	5,496,487	18	5,496,487
Georgia	16	4,114,732	16	4,114,732
Michigan	16	4,799,284	16	4,799,284
North Carolina	15	4,741,564	15	4,741,564
Washington	12	3,317,019	12	3,317,019
New Jersey	14	3,874,046		1,937,022	14	1,937,024
Virginia	13	3,984,631		1,992,315	13	1,992,317
Tennessee	11	2,508,027		1,254,013	11	1,254,015
Arizona	11	2,573,165		1,286,582	11	1,286,584
Indiana	11	2,734,958		1,367,478	11	1,367,480
Massachusetts	11	3,325,046		1,662,522	11	1,662,524
Maryland	10	2,781,446		1,390,722	10	1,390,724
Missouri	10	2,808,605		1,404,302	10	1,404,304
Minnesota	10	2,944,813		1,472,406	10	1,472,408
Wisconsin	10	2,976,150		1,488,074	10	1,488,076
South Carolina	9	2,103,027		1,051,513	9	1,051,515
Alabama	9	2,123,372		1,061,685	9	1,061,687
Colorado	9	2,780,247		1,390,123	9	1,390,125
Kentucky	8	1,924,149		962,074	8	962,076
Louisiana	8	2,029,032		1,014,515	8	1,014,517
Oklahoma	7	1,452,992		726,495	7	726,497
Connecticut	7	1,644,920		822,459	7	822,461
Oregon	7	2,001,336		1,000,667	7	1,000,669
Nevada	6	1,125,385		562,692	6	562,694
Arkansas	6	1,130,635		565,317	6	565,319
Utah	6	1,131,430		565,714	6	565,716
Kansas	6	1,184,402		592,200	6	592,202
Mississippi	6	1,209,357		604,678	6	604,680
Iowa	6	1,566,031		783,015	6	783,017
West Virginia	5	714,423		357,211	5	357,213
New Mexico	5	798,319		399,159	5	399,161
Nebraska (at-lg)	5	844,227		422,113	5	422,115
Hawaii	4	428,937		214,468	4	214,470
Rhode Island	4	464,144		232,071	4	232,073
Idaho	4	690,255		345,127	4	345,129
New Hampshire	4	744,296		372,147	4	372,149
Maine (at-lg)	4	747,927		373,963	4	373,965
Wyoming	3	255,849		127,924	3	127,926
District of Columbia	3	311,268		155,633	3	155,635
Vermont	3	315,067		157,533	3	157,535
Alaska	3	318,608		159,303	3	159,305
North Dakota	3	344,360		172,179	3	172,181
South Dakota	3	370,093		185,046	3	185,048
Delaware	3	443,814		221,906	3	221,908
Montana	3	497,147		248,573	3	248,575
U.S. Total	538	136,669,237	268	105,566,229	270	31,103,008
				77.24%		22.76%

Nah, it can still be worse if you adjust turnout. Winner gets to 270 in states where only 1 person votes.  Loser hits 268 in states where every eligible voter votes. So a candidate could win with only 11 votes. 

And looking at your numbers, Florida and Montana really turn out, don't they?  Florida I get. Swing state, but why does Montana show up at the polls?

Edited March 25, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[NowThis 931]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Nah, it can still be worse if you adjust turnout. Winner gets to 270 in states where only 1 person votes.  Loser hits 268 in states where every eligible voter votes. So a candidate could win with only 11 votes. 

well i was using actual 2016 data. 

How about if no one voted? Who wins then?