Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
why trump won
Comments
-
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
In your worst case scenario, the candidate would have to at least carry 11 states. -
You'd have a point if electoral votes weren't distributed in proportion to population.greenblood said:
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
That's not at all why the electoral college was made anyway. You're supposed to have voted for the elector from your district within the state then allow him to vote for whoever he wants. Basically a member of congress that only votes for president. At some point states figure out they could draw more power by making their electors vote the same way leaving us with winner take all in all states but NE and ME. -
What is the obsession over states? If anything, getting rid of the EC would empower red voters in blue states and vice versa.greenblood said:
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
In your worst case scenario, the candidate would have to at least carry 11 states.
Half the country didn't vote. Knowing a state is automatically red or blue likely plays a big role in that.
How is dominating CA and NY any different from narrowly winning FL and PA??? Not to mention your 95% and 85% figures are pure bullshit considering the biggest % win was WY at 70%. NY and CA were ~60% blue. If a candidate can add 25-35% to that, good for them.
At least in my system, every other vote matters as much as the next. -
Your system is how the states vote. Look at Oregon for example: 80% of the state's population lie in Portland and Eugene. With that being the case, any candidate that carries 65% of the vote in those two cities wins every election in the state...period. Which is why we've had liberal leaders in our state since I can remember. Policies and leaders in our state are dictated by two counties. Which completely isolates everyone east and west of the I5 corridor.ThomasFremont said:
What is the obsession over states? If anything, getting rid of the EC would empower red voters in blue states and vice versa.greenblood said:
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
In your worst case scenario, the candidate would have to at least carry 11 states.
Half the country didn't vote. Knowing a state is automatically red or blue likely plays a big role in that.
How is dominating CA and NY any different from narrowly winning FL and PA??? Not to mention your 95% and 85% figures are pure bullshit considering the biggest % win was WY at 70%. NY and CA were ~60% blue. If a candidate can add 25-35% to that, good for them.
At least in my system, every other vote matters as much as the next. -
The president is the president of the country. They are supposed to represent every single person and each person equally. Each person's vote should matter in direct proportion. Right now due to the two extra electors each state is given each vote carries more weight in a low population state. The house and senate are great concepts to balance out representation but the electoral college is a bad extension.
-
Why not just get rid of the Senate if population 'trumps' all?
Those founding fathers were radical mofos but they covered alot of inequities and compromised the big/small state thing pretty well.
It's too bad the concept isn't taught in high school civics courses any more so people aren't such dumbfucks about the whole rationale behind the electoral college.
-
Why should small rural communities have votes that are disproportionately more valuable than voters in densely populated urban areas? They should be equal.greenblood said:
Your system is how the states vote. Look at Oregon for example: 80% of the state's population lie in Portland and Eugene. With that being the case, any candidate that carries 65% of the vote in those two cities wins every election in the state...period. Which is why we've had liberal leaders in our state since I can remember. Policies and leaders in our state are dictated by two counties. Which completely isolates everyone east and west of the I5 corridor.ThomasFremont said:
What is the obsession over states? If anything, getting rid of the EC would empower red voters in blue states and vice versa.greenblood said:
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
In your worst case scenario, the candidate would have to at least carry 11 states.
Half the country didn't vote. Knowing a state is automatically red or blue likely plays a big role in that.
How is dominating CA and NY any different from narrowly winning FL and PA??? Not to mention your 95% and 85% figures are pure bullshit considering the biggest % win was WY at 70%. NY and CA were ~60% blue. If a candidate can add 25-35% to that, good for them.
At least in my system, every other vote matters as much as the next. -
They made the electoral college because they didn't trust citizens to pick a leader, not because of state inequities.PurpleThrobber said:Why not just get rid of the Senate if population 'trumps' all?
Those founding fathers were radical mofos but they covered alot of inequities and compromised the big/small state thing pretty well.
It's too bad the concept isn't taught in high school civics courses any more so people aren't such dumbfucks about the whole rationale behind the electoral college.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htmAlexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
Hamilton also wrote that this system of intermediaries would produce a greater amount of stability, and that an “ … intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.” -
CHRIST.PurpleThrobber said:Why not just get rid of the Senate if population 'trumps' all?
Those founding fathers were radical mofos but they covered alot of inequities and compromised the big/small state thing pretty well.
It's too bad the concept isn't taught in high school civics courses any more so people aren't such dumbfucks about the whole rationale behind the electoral college.
It's an outdated model that the Founders themselves changed multiple times. It wasn't some grand design. -
A Republican won the #2 position in the state last night.greenblood said:
Your system is how the states vote. Look at Oregon for example: 80% of the state's population lie in Portland and Eugene. With that being the case, any candidate that carries 65% of the vote in those two cities wins every election in the state...period. Which is why we've had liberal leaders in our state since I can remember. Policies and leaders in our state are dictated by two counties. Which completely isolates everyone east and west of the I5 corridor.ThomasFremont said:
What is the obsession over states? If anything, getting rid of the EC would empower red voters in blue states and vice versa.greenblood said:
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
In your worst case scenario, the candidate would have to at least carry 11 states.
Half the country didn't vote. Knowing a state is automatically red or blue likely plays a big role in that.
How is dominating CA and NY any different from narrowly winning FL and PA??? Not to mention your 95% and 85% figures are pure bullshit considering the biggest % win was WY at 70%. NY and CA were ~60% blue. If a candidate can add 25-35% to that, good for them.
At least in my system, every other vote matters as much as the next.
But still.
