What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"But Hillary won the popular vote!" (1 Viewer)

So, people think we should abandon the electoral college and go with majority rule?  Stop and REALLY THINK about that.  A woman's right to an abortion given by a majority vote by the people, or by a decision of NINE people?  Did gay marriage become law due to the popular vote, or the decision of NINE people?  Majority (mob) rule is not the path that you want to go down... especially progressive leaning people.  

The system that we have is not perfect, and at times it benefits the minority group (in this case, Trump voters). But if you want to change to majority rule, well, that is a really stupid response.

If you are upset with the election results, then you need to be influencing your state congressional representative for the policy you want, not throw a hissy fit because you didn't get your way.  Here, have a trophy and come back once you grow up. 

Oh yeah, I voted for Hillary, and the DB's in the press and childish antics of Hillary supporters makes me happy she lost... although not thrilled with Trump winning.

 
D-Day said:
So, people think we should abandon the electoral college and go with majority rule?  Stop and REALLY THINK about that.  A woman's right to an abortion given by a majority vote by the people, or by a decision of NINE people?  Did gay marriage become law due to the popular vote, or the decision of NINE people?  Majority (mob) rule is not the path that you want to go down... especially progressive leaning people.  

The system that we have is not perfect, and at times it benefits the minority group (in this case, Trump voters). But if you want to change to majority rule, well, that is a really stupid response.

If you are upset with the election results, then you need to be influencing your state congressional representative for the policy you want, not throw a hissy fit because you didn't get your way.  Here, have a trophy and come back once you grow up. 

Oh yeah, I voted for Hillary, and the DB's in the press and childish antics of Hillary supporters makes me happy she lost... although not thrilled with Trump winning.
Click to expand...
There is a major difference between electing a President by majority/plurality and voting on individual issues like abortion by majority. 

 
Ilov80s said:
There is a major difference between electing a President by majority/plurality and voting on individual issues like abortion by majority. 
Click to expand...
How much extra popular votes the losers had when they did not win the electoral college?  I would guess the margin is not very high.

 
I think the issue is how big does the gap start to get between the popular vote and the electoral outcomes. When Gore won it was by a pretty thin 500,000 votes. Analysis suggests Hillary is going to end up as much as 2,000,000 votes and 2% ahead. Since the President is the lead executive of all the people, it starts to get problematic if he's making partisan decisions that reflect a clear minority.  I'm not sold on the idea that it needs to change, but if it starts to happen 40-50% of the time (as is has in 2 of the last 5) and we start to see that gap widening it's obviously going to cause more problems. 

 
Ilov80s said:
Sorry, I am not sure what you are asking. 
Click to expand...
Just saying that different candidates winning popular vs electoral votes usually happens when the race is very tight.

I am okay with changing the system if (1) the Constitution is amended before the election, and (2) protection of smaller states and prevention of large scale fraud are less relevant today.

Personally, I think the Primary process is more problematic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rohn Jambo said:
Just saying that different candidates winning popular vs electoral votes usually happens when the race is very tight.

I am okay with changing the system if (1) the Constitution is amended before the election, and (2) protection of smaller states and prevention of large scale fraud are less relevant today.

Personally, I think the Primary process is more problematic.
Click to expand...
 I don't think that's really true. Here is a breakdown of all elections in terms of % of popular votes vs electoral college.  

As for changing it, I would say that if the wheels move forward to remove the electoral college, we should aim for 2024. It needs to be far enough ahead for both parties to prepare for the switch. I doubt this happens. 

I agree, the primary situation is a mess. 

 
mr roboto said:
In states where it was apparent that one of the two candidates would win, certain voters (such as myself)  May have decided to vote for a third-party candidate as a statement vote against the two-party system because those voters knew that their individual vote was irrelevant in their state which may have gone overwhelmingly to one of the two candidates. 
Click to expand...
Using the last numbers I saw, Clinton was at 47.94% and Trump was at 47.44% leaving 4.62% to third party candidates.  That's a statistical tie that might be changed by protest third party votes, but it would be hard for either to pull majority out of those numbers.

Clinton took California and New York by a combined 4.25 million votes.  It takes Trump Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana and Alaska to make up that many votes.

SoBeDad said:
Regarding the electoral college - why is is proportional representation + 2? The +2 seems unfair - it gives people in small states a lot more say than people in large states.
Click to expand...
If you take the +2 out you end up with 436 electoral votes and 219 needed to win.  Taking the states each won and removing the +2 you get Trump with 232 and Clinton with 188 ... still a Trump victory.

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
I think the issue is how big does the gap start to get between the popular vote and the electoral outcomes. When Gore won it was by a pretty thin 500,000 votes. Analysis suggests Hillary is going to end up as much as 2,000,000 votes and 2% ahead. Since the President is the lead executive of all the people, it starts to get problematic if he's making partisan decisions that reflect a clear minority.  I'm not sold on the idea that it needs to change, but if it starts to happen 40-50% of the time (as is has in 2 of the last 5) and we start to see that gap widening it's obviously going to cause more problems. 
Click to expand...
The point is you have no idea if this is true based on the popular vote in an electoral college contest. 

 
mr roboto said:
The point is you have no idea if this is true based on the popular vote in an electoral college contest. 
Click to expand...
Right. This also means you are taking it as a given that the electoral college is suppressing participation in noncompetitive states, which is probably another good argument against it. 

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
I think the issue is how big does the gap start to get between the popular vote and the electoral outcomes. When Gore won it was by a pretty thin 500,000 votes. Analysis suggests Hillary is going to end up as much as 2,000,000 votes and 2% ahead. Since the President is the lead executive of all the people, it starts to get problematic if he's making partisan decisions that reflect a clear minority.  I'm not sold on the idea that it needs to change, but if it starts to happen 40-50% of the time (as is has in 2 of the last 5) and we start to see that gap widening it's obviously going to cause more problems. 
Click to expand...
No single President enacted policies that pleased 100% of the people but they and Congress usually support what most Americans want.  Take Hillary for example.  She supported LGBT rights today when she did not before, and this reflects the changing sentiment of the country.

I am for peaceful protests but not when organizations incite riots for political reasons.

 
Ilov80s said:
 I don't think that's really true. Here is a breakdown of all elections in terms of % of popular votes vs electoral college.  

As for changing it, I would say that if the wheels move forward to remove the electoral college, we should aim for 2024. It needs to be far enough ahead for both parties to prepare for the switch. I doubt this happens. 

I agree, the primary situation is a mess. 
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right.  The spread is less than 1% in the last three but 3% and 10+% (wow) in the two older ones.

I have mixed feelings about candidates spending much more time in big urban centers and less so in smaller towns and cities.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some people don't remember Rush Limbaugh telling us that Bill Clinton wasn't our president because he didn't get 50% of the popular vote.

 
[scooter] said:
Some people don't remember Rush Limbaugh telling us that Bill Clinton wasn't our president because he didn't get 50% of the popular vote.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with Rush Limbaugh.  Everyone played by the same rules so we've got to change the rules first if they are not right.

 
Mjolnirs said:
Using the last numbers I saw, Clinton was at 47.94% and Trump was at 47.44% leaving 4.62% to third party candidates.  That's a statistical tie that might be changed by protest third party votes, but it would be hard for either to pull majority out of those numbers.

Clinton took California and New York by a combined 4.25 million votes.  It takes Trump Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana and Alaska to make up that many votes.

If you take the +2 out you end up with 436 electoral votes and 219 needed to win.  Taking the states each won and removing the +2 you get Trump with 232 and Clinton with 188 ... still a Trump victory.
Click to expand...
That's what I posted elsewhere.  But the +2 gave us Bush instead of Gore. Thank you, over-represented small states.

 
Walking Boot said:
Change the rules, you change the game, and change the incentive.

Entirely possible that hundreds of thousands of people in upstate NY or Northern California would have found the time to vote.

Looking at Popular Vote totals is meaningless.

Everyone who wants to criticize the Electoral College first needs to read and understand the short article Math Against Tyranny before they can begin to discuss it.
Click to expand...
You don't think there is something seriously wrong if hundreds of thousands are not voting because they perceive their vote as meaningless?  

 
Walking Boot said:
Making the argument about the popular vote after the fact, you might as well go back and re-score the last 50 Super Bowls and see who would have won if all the PATs were from the new distance. Maybe we should take a few trophies away. Bills probably would have one. 
Click to expand...
I've been saying the electoral college is stupid ever since I started voting.  Nobody except a small minority of crazies is calling for the election results to be changed.

 
NCCommish said:
We have term limits. it's called voting. I have already outlined the problems term limits have brought to state legislatures the big one being that lobbyists get more power because the constant shuffle means the pols have to rely on them. Because they are the only ones around long enough to learn the system.

Gerrymandering is a huge problem which both parties are very guilty of. Districts should be drawn by an algorithm not people. Also there should be a lot more districts. Districts are so large too many people end up not being represented. At least twice as many.
Click to expand...
Big yes to the bolded.   We the little prior people are supposed to have a voice in Washington primarily through our Representative.  I don't think it needs to be one per 30,000  anymore because technology has made it easier to connect with people since 1790,  but it's impossible for my voice to be heard when it's one of 700,000.

 
Maybe this was already stated and I am not sure this is actually true but I read that the popular vote may not be in Hillary's favor when you consider the absentee vote. In the article I read it stated that absentee votes are not counted unless they are necessary to determine the outcome of a state election. For instance, if Trump lost a state by 1,000 votes and there were only 500 absentee ballots then then they would not be counted but if there was 5,000 absentee ballots then they would be counted. 

Historically the absentee ballots have been about 66% in favor of the republican primarily because of the military vote. The article stated there are probably hundred of thousands of Trump votes that are not being counted.

 
As I posted in one of the other thousand threads, the electoral college only exists because of slavery.  It should be long gone.  The three-fifths compromise allowed the number of electors in slave states to be boosted by the number of their slaves (so they could get credit for the size of their population, without, you know, giving slaves the right to vote). This is a direct quote from Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention:

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."

 
Walking Boot said:
Making the argument about the popular vote after the fact, you might as well go back and re-score the last 50 Super Bowls and see who would have won if all the PATs were from the new distance. Maybe we should take a few trophies away. Bills probably would have one. 
Click to expand...
The Super Bowl champ is determined by who scored the most points.  Not who won the most quarters.  I don't think the election results should change this go round, but I think the EC system is stupid.

 
Brony said:
The Super Bowl champ is determined by who scored the most points.  Not who won the most quarters.  I don't think the election results should change this go round, but I think the EC system is stupid.
Click to expand...
There are ways to change it, they just aren't easy.

 
          Good reason for EC.  Can't have only high populated urban areas having all the power.  Low populated states must have a voice and 3 electoral votes isn't much as it is

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU said:
          Good reason for EC.  Can't have only high populated urban areas having all the power.  Low populated states must have a voice and 3 electoral votes isn't much as it is
Click to expand...
:goodposting:  

The EC presents at least SOME hope that the President-Elect has to cater to all citizens, not just those in California, Illinois, and New York.

 
Walking Boot said:
So, less than 1 in 10 Hillary voters are so butthurt they want a do-over.
Click to expand...
I love that the petitioners have made the time to go to these lengths after the fact, but not to go out and vote for her last Tuesday to clinch the electoral vote as was the pre-election conclusion across the board.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
The current state of retail
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
Phil Elliott
Phil Elliott
rockaction
Argumentum Ad Personam - An Explanation of the Fallacy and Its Tactical Use
2
Replies
55
Views
1K
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem
titusbramble
  • Locked
FBG FFA Countdown - The Greatest Video Games Ever - project on hold
2 3
Replies
115
Views
4K
FBG Moderator
F

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top