Spike in Black support for Trump

[Bill the Cat]

Honestly, there needs to be a change in the way Presidential elections are happening. As it stands, there are enough strongly liberal states to almost capture the election outright with the other 23 conservative states not even bothering to be tallied. How can we continue to claim to be a representative republic if half the country's votes don't even matter?

[Cow Poke]

Honestly, there needs to be a change in the way Presidential elections are happening. As it stands, there are enough strongly liberal states to almost capture the election outright with the other 23 conservative states not even bothering to be tallied. How can we continue to claim to be a representative republic if half the country's votes don't even matter?

Yup, it becomes a numbers game where candidates know which states they have to work, and others they can pretty much ignore.

[One Bad Pig]

Honestly, there needs to be a change in the way Presidential elections are happening. As it stands, there are enough strongly liberal states to almost capture the election outright with the other 23 conservative states not even bothering to be tallied. How can we continue to claim to be a representative republic if half the country's votes don't even matter?

Given that the winner of the popular vote usually tracks pretty well with the outcome (one variance in the last 20 election cycles)....

[JimL]

Yup, it becomes a numbers game where candidates know which states they have to work, and others they can pretty much ignore.

It doesn't become a numbers game CP, it is a numbers game, thats how elections work. BtC is just upset about the fact that the democrats have so many more strongly liberal states than republicans have strongly conservative states. In other words ya'll upset because the numbers ain't with ya'll.

[Cow Poke]

It doesn't become a numbers game CP, it is a numbers game, thats how elections work. BtC is just upset about the fact that the democrats have so many more strongly liberal states than republicans have strongly conservative states. In other words ya'll upset because the numbers ain't with ya'll.

I'm not upset at all, JimmyLou.... it was just an observation that some states don't get to see much of the candidates because of the way the electoral college numbers add up.

Then, again ---- maybe they're BLESSED!


Bless your heart.

[JimL]

I'm not upset at all, JimmyLou.... it was just an observation that some states don't get to see much of the candidates because of the way the electoral college numbers add up.

Then, again ---- maybe they're BLESSED!


Bless your heart.

Thats not what BtC was whining about CP, he was whining because he's upset about the fact that in an election the majority wins, thats how democracy works, and to his chagrin, the great majority seems to be going for Hillary. Seems he doesn't understand why strongly liberal states are so strongly liberal, they have a whole lot of liberals living there.

[Terraceth]

Given that the winner of the popular vote usually tracks pretty well with the outcome (one variance in the last 20 election cycles)....

It is true that the winner of the majority of the popular vote not becoming president only happened three times in history, so generally speaking winning the electorate means you won the electoral college. But I feel that the electoral college skews things. California and Texas, which in a popular vote election (or an election system where the electoral college gives proportional votes rather than winner take all, as is actually the case in Maine) would be huge battlegrounds due to their populations, are instead afterthoughts because the majority votes in such states are so dependable to a particular party. If the popular vote was what mattered, we'd see very different tactics from campaigns, such as focusing on those two states, and I wonder to what extent that could alter the popular vote away from providing the same result as the electoral college would have.

Additionally, I speculate there is a fair amount of voter apathy in these kinds of reliably Democratic/reliably Republican states that causes fewer people to vote because they figure their vote can't count due to the electoral college. Knowing that their vote actually could make a difference may cause more people to go out and vote and this could cause different results.

So basically, while it's true that very few presidential elections would have different results if, after votes were taken, they had switched to it being whoever won the popular vote, that's ignoring all of the effects that a popular vote election would have before anyone votes, such as different campaign focuses and different attitudes from the voters.

[Cow Poke]

Thats not what BtC was whining about CP...

He wasn't whining, JimmyLou. And you have repeatedly shown how bad you really suck at mind reading.

Bless your heart.

[Bill the Cat]

Thats not what BtC was whining about CP, he was whining because he's upset about the fact that in an election the majority wins, thats how democracy works, and to his chagrin, the great majority seems to be going for Hillary. Seems he doesn't understand why strongly liberal states are so strongly liberal, they have a whole lot of liberals living there.

I made a comment. It wasn't whining. Typical liberal stupidity...

[Cow Poke]

I made a comment. It wasn't whining. Typical liberal stupidity...

Careful, Bill, you're triggering - he'll need a safe space.

[One Bad Pig]

I made a comment. It wasn't whining. Typical liberal stupidity...

I dunno, it's a little unfair to liberals to take JimL as typical.

[JimL]

I made a comment. It wasn't whining. Typical liberal stupidity...

Okay, you weren't whining, you were complaining that the majority of the country seems to disagree with you politically.

[Bill the Cat]

Okay, you weren't whining, you were complaining that the majority of the country seems to disagree with you politically.

No. I was commenting that the larger population states basically are voting for the Democratic candidate as a rule, and they have made it to where the less populous states are getting little to no say in electing the POTUS. It's what the founders feared would happen, and it's the reason the Electoral College was put in place, to try to reduce the power of the populated states and make the less popular states have a more even say. It certainly helped for the first 150 years, but times have changed and in my opinion, it's time to re-examine the Electoral College.