• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Genius of the Electoral College

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's official now. Hillary's entire popular vote win came entirely from one state: California.

If not for the Electoral College, California would be ruling the whole country, and we don't want that.

The Electoral College was designed to prevent a regional candidate from dominating national elections, and in this case it worked brilliantly.

All that hobnobbing with Hollywood stars and tech magnates paid off for Hillary, but she forgot many of the rest of us.

And most Republicans in California didn't even bother to vote for president knowing it would be completely futile.

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
It's official now. Hillary's entire popular vote win came entirely from one state: California.

If not for the Electoral College, California would be ruling the whole country, and we don't want that.

The Electoral College was designed to prevent a regional candidate from dominating national elections, and in this case it worked brilliantly.

All that hobnobbing with Hollywood stars and tech magnates paid off for Hillary, but she forgot many of the rest of us.

And most Republicans in California didn't even bother to vote for president knowing it would be completely futile.

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Click to expand...
Would it made you feel better if those people were spread out about the country? :roll:
 
LowDown said:
It's official now. Hillary's entire popular vote win came entirely from one state: California.

If not for the Electoral College, California would be ruling the whole country, and we don't want that.

The Electoral College was designed to prevent a regional candidate from dominating national elections, and in this case it worked brilliantly.

All that hobnobbing with Hollywood stars and tech magnates paid off for Hillary, but she forgot many of the rest of us.

And most Republicans in California didn't even bother to vote for president knowing it would be completely futile.

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Click to expand...

I guess all that hacking only works for the electoral and has no effect on the popular vote . :lol:
 
Bob N said:
Would it made you feel better if those people were spread out about the country? :roll:
Click to expand...

If they were, Clinton might actually have won both a plurality of the "popular vote," and the Electoral Collage vote. Just saying. :coffeepap:

The OP's point and the points made when one reads the article are, IMO valid. The Electoral College set up as a compromise by our very wise founders worked exactly as it was supposed to. :yes:

Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
_________________
Trump: +10

Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
_________________
Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
_________________
Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
_________________
Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
_________________
Trump: + 1.4 million
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
If they were, Clinton might actually have won both a plurality of the "popular vote," and the Electoral Collage vote. Just saying. :coffeepap:

The OP's point and the point made when one reads the article is IMO valid. The Electoral College set up as a compromise by our very wise founders worked exactly as it was supposed to.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't change the popular vote by much though. Look, Trump is the new President. But the electoral college does need to go. Why not use an electoral college to vote on lawmakers too?
 
Bob N said:
It wouldn't change the popular vote by much though. Look, Trump is the new President. But the electoral college does need to go. Why not use an electoral college to vote on lawmakers too?
Click to expand...

How do you envision the EC "going"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bob N said:
It wouldn't change the popular vote by much though. Look, Trump is the new President. But the electoral college does need to go. Why not use an electoral college to vote on lawmakers too?
Click to expand...

Because lawmakers are elected to directly represent each sovereign State individually in Congress. (Hence California's population has 2 Senators and 53 Representatives, while Wyoming only has 2 Senators and 1 Representative).

The President is elected to represent ALL sovereign States and the citizens living within each around the nation, not just those States with the most people living in them.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Because lawmakers are elected to directly represent each State individually in Congress. (Hence California's population has 2 Senators and 53 Representatives, while Wyoming only has 2 Senators and 1 Representative).

The President is elected to represent ALL States and the citizens living within each around the nation, not just those States with the most people living in them.
Click to expand...
A mob rule is a mob rule, no matter the size within that region. I do not see that much of a difference.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
How do you envision the EC "going"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Probably here to stay. If that's what you are talking about, But the EC is going to vote Trump.
 
LowDown said:
It's official now. Hillary's entire popular vote win came entirely from one state: California.

If not for the Electoral College, California would be ruling the whole country, and we don't want that.

The Electoral College was designed to prevent a regional candidate from dominating national elections, and in this case it worked brilliantly.

All that hobnobbing with Hollywood stars and tech magnates paid off for Hillary, but she forgot many of the rest of us.

And most Republicans in California didn't even bother to vote for president knowing it would be completely futile.

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Click to expand...
And, let's not forget that California is so out of the main stream of America that they actually have a major "progressive" movement afoot to secede from the Union -- indeed, there's already a 2018 ballot measure in California to vote on whether to have a special secession vote in the spring of 2019!

In addition, California has the largest non-citizen population by far of any state in the union, and, as surveys have shown, quite a number of them had the hubris to vote in November, mostly all of them voting for Hillary.

The EC protects the union against this very situation that is California .. and thankfully so.
 
Bob N said:
Probably here to stay. If that's what you are talking about, But the EC is going to vote Trump.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about anything more than asking you a question about what you said about the EC. There is typically a disconnect between the opinion that the EC should be ended and a pathway to that happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bob N said:
A mob rule is a mob rule, no matter the size within that region. I do not see that much of a difference.
Click to expand...

That's because you don't seem to grasp that the U.S.A. is not a homogeneous "mob." That there is a "mob" in California that reflects views different from "mobs" in the rest of the West, Midwest, South, Southeast, Southwest, North, Northeast,...in fact however you want to divide our nation's various subsets into.

Our founders didn't want our nation to be ruled like Rome; where as long as Caesar controlled that one massive mob in the capitol he could command the whole of the Empire.

Now some claim that campaigns focused on only a few States would already allow for this, but that would only hold water if all of those States were in ideological agreement.

Such an argument presupposes that America is a homogeneous culture, and if you campaign in California, Texas, New York and 6 or seven others you will always win.

But our culture is actually quite heterogeneous, with a number of subcultures having varied, often opposing goals. Texans don't see things the same was as Californians, nor do Ohioans and New Yorker's. People in Wyoming, Idaho, and Nebraska don't see things the same way people in Florida do, and on and on.

The Electoral College was designed for this, to force candidates to campaign more widely than they would otherwise in order to gain ELECTORAL votes rather than simply trying for a popular vote win.

If people in those other 39 or 40 States who don't have massive concentrations of voters as those 10 or 11 start to see campaigns for President which essentially ignore them, then resentment could lead to secession. We are a nation of United "Sovereign" States and some might seek independence if they feel left out of the process entirely.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
It's official now. Hillary's entire popular vote win came entirely from one state: California.

If not for the Electoral College, California would be ruling the whole country, and we don't want that.

The Electoral College was designed to prevent a regional candidate from dominating national elections, and in this case it worked brilliantly.

All that hobnobbing with Hollywood stars and tech magnates paid off for Hillary, but she forgot many of the rest of us.

And most Republicans in California didn't even bother to vote for president knowing it would be completely futile.

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that I am even a little pleased by this election and its final result, but I certainly have no gripe with the Electoral College. It seems a fine institutiin that strengthens the system of presidential democracy.
 
Bob N said:
It wouldn't change the popular vote by much though. Look, Trump is the new President. But the electoral college does need to go. Why not use an electoral college to vote on lawmakers too?
Click to expand...

With respect, we do.

The Electoral College is based on the representation from each state.

Because this country is a Republic, each state expresses its preference for the candidates.

The system was set up to remove the decision from the people because the founders did not foresee the two party system. The system was set up to force all elections to the House of Representatives.

In the State wide elections for the Federal House and Senate, the States express their preference for the representatives to go to Washington.

With respect, this is exactly the same method.
 
Captain Adverse said:
That's because you don't seem to grasp that the U.S.A. is not a homogeneous "mob." That there is a "mob" in California that reflects views different from "mobs" in the rest of the West, Midwest, South, Southeast, Southwest, North, Northeast,...in fact however you want to divide our nation's various subsets into.

Our founders didn't want our nation to be ruled like Rome; where as long as Caesar controlled that one massive mob in the capitol he could command the whole of the Empire.

Now some claim that campaigns focused on only a few States would already allow for this, but that would only hold water of all of those States were in ideological agreement.

Such an argument presupposes that America is a homogeneous culture, and if you campaign in California, Texas, New York and 6 or seven others you will always win.

But our culture is actually quite heterogeneous, with a number of subcultures having varied, often opposing goals. The Electoral College was designed for this, to force candidates to campaign more widely than they would otherwise in order to gain ELECTORAL votes rather than simply trying for a popular vote win.
Click to expand...
No disrespect to you Captain but to me a mob is a mob. We had a mob in Ohio that voted Trump; we had a mob in Pennsylvania that voted Trump; we had a mob in Florida that voted Trump; etc. But we used the electoral system in this past election and right is right, we should adhere to it.
 
code1211 said:
With respect, we do.

The Electoral College is based on the representation from each state.

Because this country is a Republic, each state expresses its preference for the candidates.

The system was set up to remove the decision from the people because the founders did not foresee the two party system. The system was set up to force all elections to the House of Representatives.

In the State wide elections for the Federal House and Senate, the States express their preference for the representatives to go to Washington.

With respect, this is exactly the same method.
Click to expand...
Why haven't we seen more dissension from them in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom