Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Jumbo

By Jumbo
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

How would that work?

Let's take Cali. There are ~39.25M people in CA, 8,753,788 voted for Clinton and 4,483,810 voted for Trump. That's a total of 13,237,598 votes. CA has 55 EC votes. Clinton would receive 36.3 and Trump 18.7.

 

And the whole popular vote debate? Clinton won the popular vote by 2.86M. She won CA by 4.27M and NY by 1.74M. Think about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Let's take Cali. There are ~39.25M people in CA, 8,753,788 voted for Clinton and 4,483,810 voted for Trump. That's a total of 13,237,598 votes. CA has 55 EC votes. Clinton would receive 36.3 and Trump 18.7.

 

And the whole popular vote debate? Clinton won the popular vote by 2.86M. She won CA by 4.27M and NY by 1.74M. Think about that.

How is proportional different from a popular vote as far as results go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Wyoming citizens (and not just voters) had 1 electoral college vote per 186k people (3 EC votes for a state pop of 560k). California has 1 electoral vote per 670k people (55EC votes in a state pop of 37+ million). <-- That was as of the 2010 census.

 

Individual Wyoming voters had at least 3x the electoral voting power as the California voter. That is, unless you want to assign 220 EC votes to California to balance the states populations.

You know, it's really funny how simple majority is wonderful...until you are in the minority. Only a Californian (who lives in a state that makes up 20% of the EC needed to win) would complain about being under represented. Wyoming didn't win the election for Trump. The EC is designed to prevent simple majority rule, since we live in a representative republic. The FF vision of this country was never simple democracy.

Edited by Popeman38
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hersh said:

How is proportional different from a popular vote as far as results go?

You don't think more people would turn out to vote that way? Simple majority means Rep voters in blue states stay home and Dem voters in red states stay home. Why bother voting Rep in CA when you know the Dems have an almost 2 to 1 advantage? Clinton won CA by more than 4 million votes. That alone is 6% of her total vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

You know, it's really funny how simple majority is wonderful...until you are in the minority. Only a Californian (who lives in a state that makes up 25% of the EC) would complain about being under represented. Wyoming didn't win the election for Trump. The EC is designed to prevent simple majority rule, since we live in a representative republic. The FF vision of this country was never simple democracy.

A representative republic based on democratic principles. Let's not leave that part out. 

 

I thought the electoral college was designed to prevent someone like Trump from getting elected. Ya know, the EC voters were supposed to be the smart ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

7 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

You know, it's really funny how simple majority is wonderful...until you are in the minority. Only a Californian (who lives in a state that makes up 25% of the EC) would complain about being under represented. Wyoming didn't win the election for Trump. The EC is designed to prevent simple majority rule, since we live in a representative republic. The FF vision of this country was never simple democracy.

 

California has 10.2% of the EC. Not 25%.  Unless 55/538 is 25%. Maybe it is in a Betsy DeVos world. I dunno. Fake news and all. 

 

That said (and all kidding aside), I felt the same way growing up in Virginia Beach. The electoral college is an outdated method because the FF didn't trust joe public to directly elect a President. We do now (well some of us do).

 

But the reality exists, if the plurality of the voters choose to elect someone directly, and they live whereever the live, that that is a representation of the US. 

 

Artificially drawn county/state/legislative lines deciding electoral college votes is archaic. And really, kind of silly. 

 

 

Edited by The Evil Genius
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
Just now, Popeman38 said:

You don't think more people would turn out to vote that way? Simple majority means Rep voters in blue states stay home and Dem voters in red states stay home. Why bother voting Rep in CA when you know the Dems have an almost 2 to 1 advantage? Clinton won CA by more than 4 million votes. That alone is 6% of her total vote.

You didn't answer my actual question.  Ya know what would really motivate more people to vote because they know their vote would matter regardless of where they live? A straight popular vote.

 

I believe Clinton wins in a proportional vote at the end of the day. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
Just now, Jumbo said:

it's good posting guys but let's put the brakes on the EC OT soon...

 

By talking through the EC for the umpteenth time, we are formulating a plan to counteract Putins next effort to get Trump re-elected. See, on topic. Why do you hate America? Long live Putin. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

California has 10.2% of the EC. Not 25%.  Unless 55/538 is 25%. Maybe it is in a Betsy DeVos world. I dunno. Fake news and all. 

 

That said (and all kidding aside), I felt the same way growing up in Virginia Beach. The electoral college is an outdated method because the FF didn't trust joe public to directly elect a President. We do now (well some of us do).

 

But the reality exists, if the plurality of the voters choose to elect someone directly, and they live whereever the live, that that is a representation of the US. 

 

Artificially drawn county/state/legislative lines deciding electoral college votes is archaic. And really, kind of silly. 

20% of the EC needed to win. Went back an edited. Work getting in the way of debate.

14 minutes ago, Hersh said:

You didn't answer my actual question.  Ya know what would really motivate more people to vote because they know their vote would matter regardless of where they live? A straight popular vote.

 

I believe Clinton wins in a proportional vote at the end of the day. 

I disagree. The EC still affords rural states protections from coastal domination, they have a voice. By stripping the heartland of EC votes, you literally marginalize them. If the fear of Trump winning the WH wasn't enough to motivate a voter, what happens when an Al Gore type runs against a Bob Dole type?

 

OK. I'm fine with that, because I didn't vote for guy who won. I never thought he had a chance.

 

EDIT: Proportional EC vote results (using whole numbers) - Clinton 265, Trump 260, Johnson 11, McMullin 2

 

The election goes to the Congress to vote on the next President.

 

main-qimg-4b195083eb7b8589fc6beb46047424f2-p

 

https://www.quora.com/Would-Hillary-have-won-if-all-states-allotted-their-electorial-college-votes-proportional-to-the-popular-vote-in-that-state

Edited by Popeman38
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
  • Author
Posted

5 russian diplomats died mysteriously since december...and how many more spies? :ph34r:

 

imagine this---say the whole russia deal actually turned out to be a genuine influence/collusion/hacking etc reality involving trump & co

 

and that it seems likely there were yuge financial advantages and/or ideological foreign policy gains (to an agenda that many americans would find unattractive)...that really were behind the love of putin and mother russia shown by captain wombat-wig...imagine how in hindsight all horribly crazily obvious it all was all along lmao...that would be some wild ****...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

My only thought on the EC.. the founders were wise. And this is part of it. The EC is no small bit of thinking, and i think it works for the purpose.

I trust they knew what they were doing, since they did in so many other areas that have been able to fit with changing times and attitudes.

 

~Bang

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy

AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

imagine how in hindsight all horribly crazily obvious it all was all along lmao...that would be some wild ****...

I was thinking about this today.  I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, except from a purely entertainment stand point.  For instance, I enjoy watching Room 237 to hear about the wild Kubrick moon landing theories, etc.

 

But with this, I feel like I'm telling myself it has to be a conspiracy because it could never be this obvious.  But could it?  :ph34r:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, mistertim said:

The more Trump yells about how all of this news is "fake" the more and more guilty he seems.

To the rest pf the world with functioning brains. But to his adoring sycophants he's just singing the third verse of their favorite tune. Faux News taught them the song that the librawl MSM can't be trusted. This is a crowd that has had 20 years worth of opening acts and finally the headliner is on stage.

 

(I'm actually really proud of this post from a rhetorical metaphorical stand point.) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Bang said:

My only thought on the EC.. the founders were wise. And this is part of it. The EC is no small bit of thinking, and i think it works for the purpose.

I trust they knew what they were doing, since they did in so many other areas that have been able to fit with changing times and attitudes.

 

~Bang

 

I don't think that the Founding Fathers imagined that a political party in the future would gerrymander the heck out of Congressional districts.

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...