Will Clinton win the popular vote and by how much?

[Zymologist]

That would work in larger states, but smaller states that have only a few electoral votes, it would not be possible to divide it fairly. and even if you could, it would just end up being a mirror of the popular vote, so why not just go to a popular vote and eliminate the electoral college?

I think they reason the decided on the electoral college was because it was the most efficient way to get a large nationwide vote done before we had easy long distance communications. Each state would have to send representatives to Washington to vote for them. Now we can just count each individual vote easily, which is how we determine the electoral votes live on TV.

Yeah, I guess it would be weird in a state like Montana (3). States like California and Texas do seem a bit odd, with how much power they have, but I wouldn't have any idea how to go about changing that for the better.

[rogue06]

I'm gonna predict that the Arizona results will reverse that and Trump will win the popular vote.

But I was wrong yesterday, so...

A lot of that going around.

[rogue06]

Sorry guys, it's screwed up when somebody gets more votes than any other candidate and is not the winner.

From the very beginning the founding fathers understood that the country would dissolve if a fraction of the states could dictate who the president of the country was. Would you want to stay in a county if the politicians knew they could ignore you completely and cater to the whims of six maybe seven states?

[Sparko]

That would work in larger states, but smaller states that have only a few electoral votes, it would not be possible to divide it fairly. and even if you could, it would just end up being a mirror of the popular vote, so why not just go to a popular vote and eliminate the electoral college?

I think they reason the decided on the electoral college was because it was the most efficient way to get a large nationwide vote done before we had easy long distance communications. Each state would have to send representatives to Washington to vote for them. Now we can just count each individual vote easily, which is how we determine the electoral votes live on TV.

so my distance idea was wrong.

Here is an article explaining the reasoning behind the Electoral College and how it started:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...toral-college/

[robrecht]

I'm gonna predict that the Arizona results will reverse that and Trump will win the popular vote.

But I was wrong yesterday, so...

Arizona is currently reporting on 98% of their precincts and Clinton's lead has grown to over 206,000 so I think we're gonna have another one of these situations.

[Sparko]

I think one possible downfall to the popular vote idea is that if there are several candidates running, the vote could get split up in such a way that nobody has a majority and the election is a bust. With electoral votes, that is less likely to happen because third party votes are less likely to take an entire state. An example I read was that Ross Perot had 19% of the popular vote when he was running, but not enough in any one state to get any electoral votes.

[robrecht]

Yeah, I guess it would be weird in a state like Montana (3). States like California and Texas do seem a bit odd, with how much power they have, but I wouldn't have any idea how to go about changing that for the better.

... Either way, istm, the large population centers have the most sway in elections. CA has 55(?) votes and we in AK have only 2. Simply by living in AK I feel my vote is essentially useless. ...

Think of it this way. The individual votes for people living in the least populated states are 18.3 times more valuable in determining the president than the votes of individuals living in the most populous states. Hmmm ... maybe you should also pay a higher rate of federal income tax?

I'm in kind of a weird mood today, so I'm just throwing this out there....

What if the electoral college was more proportional? For example, if the vote goes 80%-20% in California, instead of the 55 electoral votes going to the 80%, why not do an 80/20 split of the electoral votes (44/11)?

This solves the intrastate issue, but does not resolve the up to 18.3x interstate disproportional vote value mentioned above.

[robrecht]

I would propose a 3 pronged approach:

1) Popular Vote
2) 1 State, 1 Vote
3) Electoral College

Win 2 or more, and you win the Presidency. That addresses the majority of the shortcomings of the 3 individually.

You get points for creative thinking, but can you imagine repeatedly trying to explain the reasons for such a complicated approach. People would be even more convinced that the system is rigged!

[Mountain Man]

Arizona is currently reporting on 98% of their precincts and Clinton's lead has grown to over 206,000 so I think we're gonna have another one of these situations.

Where are you seeing that? The New York Times tracking site is showing Trump with a 4.5% lead in Arizona with 99% reporting.

Michigan is ridiculously close, however. Trump has a .3% lead with 100% reporting.

[robrecht]

Where are you seeing that? The New York Times tracking site is showing Trump with a 4.5% lead in Arizona with 99% reporting.

Michigan is ridiculously close, however. Trump has a .3% lead with 100% reporting.

I'm talking about the national popular vote.

[mikewhitney]

That would work in larger states, but smaller states that have only a few electoral votes, it would not be possible to divide it fairly. and even if you could, it would just end up being a mirror of the popular vote, so why not just go to a popular vote and eliminate the electoral college?

I think they reason the decided on the electoral college was because it was the most efficient way to get a large nationwide vote done before we had easy long distance communications. Each state would have to send representatives to Washington to vote for them. Now we can just count each individual vote easily, which is how we determine the electoral votes live on TV.

True, the logistics and uncertainties are reduced by having a smaller number of voters. But the design also was to be able to have voters acting on state interests who were knowledgeable about the candidates as well as the states' interests. Relatedly, there was the intent to avoid a democracy in preference for a Constitutional Republic.

[Zymologist]

Think of it this way. The individual votes for people living in the least populated states are 18.3 times more valuable in determining the president than the votes of individuals living in the most populous states. Hmmm ... maybe you should also pay a higher rate of federal income tax?

This solves the intrastate issue, but does not resolve the up to 18.3x interstate disproportional vote value mentioned above.

On the other hand, with the current system, if you're a conservative voter in California, your vote would appear to count for nothing (for example).

[Mountain Man]

Well, I think the county map shows that the electoral college system is working:

Screen Shot 2016-11-09 at 4.21.16 PM.jpg

Should a national office really be decided by those isolated pockets of blue?

[robrecht]

Well, I think the county map shows that the electoral college system is working:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19495[/ATTACH]

Should a national office really be decided by those isolated pockets of blue?

This statement would have some validity if we believed the rights of citizens are to be allocated on a proportional basis in accord with square acreage of land ownership or use. Instead we believe our rights are endowed by God on each individual and we no longer allow the ownership of some individuals either.

[robrecht]

On the other hand, with the current system, if you're a conservative voter in California, your vote would appear to count for nothing (for example).

You would need to convince enough of your neighbors in your state to arrive at a majority in your state for your vote to take effect. In principle no different than if you had to do so at the federal level.