Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

You could say all her 3 million lead came from Texas. Or Florida. Or anywhere 3 million people voted for her. If you mean, did she specifically lead by 3 million in California? Because the answer to that is no. She lead like 2.5 million in California.

[Spehss _]

I'm doing some google searching now to refresh my memory and it seems the logic behind the idea is "cut out the votes Clinton got in California and Trump has more of the popular vote". California does have the reputation of being democrat central and going blue every time.

United States is a union of states anyway, basing an election like the presidency on popular vote can easily lead to a tyranny of the majority which is specifically talked about in the federalist papers and how the Constitution would avoid that.

[redwallzyl]

I'm doing some google searching now to refresh my memory and it seems the logic behind the idea is "cut out the votes Clinton got in California and Trump has more of the popular vote". California does have the reputation of being democrat central and going blue every time.

United States is a union of states anyway, basing an election like the presidency on popular vote can easily lead to a tyranny of the majority which is specifically talked about in the federalist papers and how the Constitution would avoid that.

the tyranny of the minority is also a thing and nothing in the Constitution prevents ToTM. id rather the majority than the minority.

[hector13]

I'd rather a fair vote that doesn't depend on a small group (swing states or the East/Wes coast population centers) to be able to win.

I think we've had this same conversation about that a few times since November though...

[Criptfeind]

"cut out the votes Clinton got in California and Trump has more of the popular vote". California does have the reputation of being democrat central and going blue every time.

Well sure, this is technically true. But you might as well say cut out votes trump got in Texas and Clinton wins the electoral collage.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can also say that the last time the Republicans ran someone who wasn't a total shitheel they won California, and every other state besides Minnesota.

[Spehss _]

I'd rather a fair vote that doesn't depend on a small group (swing states or the East/Wes coast population centers) to be able to win.

I think we've had this same conversation about that a few times since November though...

A popular vote based system would probably depend on the East/West coast urban population centers anyway. It's easier to pander to voters compete with the other candidate campaign in person where the highest number of people can be found in one area. This is ignoring the fact that modern media exists and voters can be reached in other ways, since candidates still go out and campaign in person anyway.

Well sure, this is technically true. But you might as well say cut out votes trump got in Texas and Clinton wins the electoral collage.

Texas was a closer competition than California though. Trump won Texas by ~9% while Clinton won California by ~30%. Give another 20 or 30 years of current demographic shift trends and if Democrats pander hard enough they could swing Texas blue, according to my textbook on local Texas politics.

[Criptfeind]

Texas was a closer competition than California though. Trump won Texas by ~9% while Clinton won California by ~30%. Give another 20 or 30 years of current demographic shift trends and if Democrats pander hard enough they could swing Texas blue, according to my textbook on local Texas politics.

Yeah, but unless you think Californians are uniquely unqualified to vote for the president I don't see what that's relevant to.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'd rather a fair vote that doesn't depend on a small group (swing states or the East/Wes coast population centers) to be able to win.

I think we've had this same conversation about that a few times since November though...

A popular vote based system would probably depend on the East/West coast urban population centers anyway. It's easier to pander to voters compete with the other candidate campaign in person where the highest number of people can be found in one area. This is ignoring the fact that modern media exists and voters can be reached in other ways, since candidates still go out and campaign in person anyway.

The weak states and the strong states both stop mattering in a popular vote. Only the votes of individuals matter in this instance, which is better for everyone.

Democrat in Wyoming, under EC: Wyoming always goes Republican, vote irrelevant.

Republican in Wyoming, under EC: Wyoming always goes Republican, vote functionally irrelevant.

Democrat in California, under EC: California always goes Democrat, vote functionally irrelevant.

Republican in California, under EC: California always goes Democrat, vote irrelevant.

Democrat or Republican in North Carolina, under EC: Swing state, all votes matter to ultimate outcome.


Democrat in Wyoming, no EC: Vote counts in overall total for candidate.

Republican in Wyoming, no EC: Vote counts in overall total for candidate.

Democrat in California, no EC: Vote counts in overall total for candidate.

Republican in California, no EC: Vote counts in overall total for candidate.

Democrat or Republican in North Carolina, no EC: Vote counts in overall total for candidate.


Every state but swing is ignored unless there's no EC. The EC is the cause of flyover country, not its solution.

The states do not matter in the Presidential election as there is only one President, but whole swaths of the country are safely ignored because 50% of the popular vote in a state equals 100% of its electoral capacity, and you think this is more likely to protect minority populations?

The irony is that, as a North Carolina resident, I am one of the few Americans who's Presidential vote actually matters. If you don't live in a swing state, your Presidential vote has a 0% effect on the actual outcome.

All people should have an equal vote for President in the same way all people have an equal vote for their state's Senators, because its a unitary position for that jurisdiction, in this case that jurisdiction being the entire nation.

The EC is clearly more marginalizing than removing it, since it encourages Presidential candidates to not care about minority politics in any state they aren't likely to get 50%+1 votes in, nor any majority politics above that certainty.

Having the state bodies vote for President simply makes no sense at all, since it isn't from the plurality of the states that the President gains their authority. Both the majority and minority populations of all areas are better represented in the Presidential elections without the EC.

Every qunoa-stuffed hippie in Californiaistan could come out for every Presidential election, and it wouldn't matter.

[redwallzyl]

Well sure, this is technically true. But you might as well say cut out votes trump got in Texas and Clinton wins the electoral collage.

Texas was a closer competition than California though. Trump won Texas by ~9% while Clinton won California by ~30%. Give another 20 or 30 years of current demographic shift trends and if Democrats pander hard enough they could swing Texas blue, according to my textbook on local Texas politics.
[/quote]

and if demographics make people more inclined to vote democrat that's not an actual issue that makes some state less "fair" or some shit that normal change over time it doesn't matter how many voter are in California or any other state. the republicans just need to pull their had out of their ass and start taking positions to appeal to those people instead of shouting the same old slogans. the systems shouldn't be changed to be "fair" to them. that's not how it works.

[Spehss _]

Yeah, but unless you think Californians are uniquely unqualified to vote for the president I don't see what that's relevant to.

I was only pointing that out to indicate that Clinton got a wider share of the popular votes in California than Texas after

oh I misread. You said cut out Texas and Clinton wins the electoral college, not the popular vote.

I don't think Californians are unqualified to vote for president. _{^{I don't have a very high opinion of California though, blame Hollywood culture.}}

[PTTG??]

I don't have a very high opinion of California though, blame Hollywood culture.

I invite you to dig that hole deeper. Do explain what you mean by "Hollywood culture" and how one neighborhood of rich people manages to infect the entirety of the most populated state in the nation.

[Strife26]

I don't have a very high opinion of California though, blame Hollywood culture.

I invite you to dig that hole deeper. Do explain what you mean by "Hollywood culture" and how one neighborhood of rich people manages to infect the entirety of the most populated state in the nation.

Hollywood culture might be a misnomer, but California culture as being a crazy thing is not inaccurate. Gotta love a state that creates its own parasitic industry based on carcinogen warnings.

[Spehss _]

You can also say that the last time the Republicans ran someone who wasn't a total shitheel they won California, and every other state besides Minnesota.

You mentioning Reagan made me think: If Reagan hadn't run and won, and then Reagan went on to grant amnesty to a bunch of illegal immigrants and basically kicking the "illegal immigration and border control" can down the road instead of addressing the issue, and Bush Senior riding his coattails and shitting up the Middle East during his administration I really doubt modern America would have Trump winning the presidency on platforms amounting to "remove illegals" and "remove terrorists".

But what do I know aside from the general history briefly covered in the American education system.

I don't have a very high opinion of California though, blame Hollywood culture.

I invite you to dig that hole deeper. Do explain what you mean by "Hollywood culture" and how one neighborhood of rich people manages to infect the entirety of the most populated state in the nation.

You could just say "stop posting". Yeah, I'm almost certainly over-generalizing by amounting Hollywood to all of California. Personally I don't hear much about California state politics I'd agree with, like I've heard their taxes are high, cost of living is high, and from what I have seen the populated popular cities look like a mess of urban sprawl which doesn't appeal to me. I'm sure there's nice parts of California as well, but I don't have much interest to move there or find out. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.

[☼Another☼]

I don't have a very high opinion of California though, blame Hollywood culture.

I invite you to dig that hole deeper. Do explain what you mean by "Hollywood culture" and how one neighborhood of rich people manages to infect the entirety of the most populated state in the nation.

You could just say "stop posting". Yeah, I'm almost certainly over-generalizing by amounting Hollywood to all of California. Personally I don't hear much about California state politics I'd agree with, like I've heard their taxes are high, cost of living is high, and from what I have seen the populated popular cities look like a mess of urban sprawl which doesn't appeal to me. I'm sure there's nice parts of California as well, but I don't have much interest to move there or find out. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
[/quote]

This is why you shouldn't really just generalize. You get less awkward situations.