The official "Electoral College is outdated" thread

[KG1]

Yes, let's leave it alone while we change it.

That same constitution created what has now become my greatest enemy, with all the best intentions of an exceptional generation.

Perhaps I am in the minority capable of appreciating brilliant inventors despite their failed experiments, despite the wonderful inventions and experiments which are no longer suited for our daily use, despite a lot of things.

So what's your proposal?

 

[Jludo]

Better solution, popular vote attached to a civics test. Can't name the 3 branches of government? You don't get a say.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Wait wut?

I'ma gonna need a definition of "tyranny" from you.

The affordable care act.

 

[miguel]

There is a process for changing the Constitution. If people want to change it, they should follow it. No short cuts.

 

[T.Lex]

The affordable care act.

That's what you picked as an example of tyranny?

Anyone gone to a concentration camp for that yet? Been denied fundamental rights because of it?

I'm not tracking you.

 

[Jludo]

There is a process for changing the Constitution. If people want to change it, they should follow it. No short cuts.

and it's existence should be vigorously debated in public forums such as these.

 

[Ericpwp]

My Doctor retired and I lost my HMO.

 

[ATM]

So what's your proposal?

Discussion, same as usual, but not in jamil's thread.

Perhaps elsewhere: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/384265-american-beliefs.html

 

[Streck-Fu]

Just for the hell of it, I took at look at how the results from this election would look if each state's electoral votes were distributed according to the candidates share of the state's popular election. It really changes things. Most states were very close. I first did it for Trump and Hillary only and Trump would still win by several electoral votes but less than 10. But when looking at the state results, I saw that Johnson took a good percentage of some states (some over 5%) especially in Wash, Oregon, Cal, and Illinois, Texas, etc so I went back and added in his share.
EDITED TO ADD: McMullin took 20% of Utah earning 1 electoral vote. Johnson took 3% so the EVs in Utah are Trump=3, Hillary =2, and McMillin = 1


The final results are:
Hillary = 264
Trump = 263
Johnson = 9
McMullin = 1


There is 1 electoral vote lost in the fractions across 50 states.

 

[T.Lex]

Just for the hell of it, I took at look at how the results from this election would look if each state's electoral votes were distributed according to the candidates share of the state's popular election. It really changes things. Most states were very close. I first did it for Trump and Hillary only and Trump would still win by several electoral votes but less than 10. But when looking at the state results, I saw that Johnson took a good percentage of some states (some over 5%) especially in Wash, Oregon, Cal, and Illinois, Texas, etc so I went back and added in his share.

The final results are:
Trump = 264
Hillary = 263
Johnson = 9


There are 2 electoral votes lost in the fractions across 50 states.

Wow - that's a pretty cool exercise! Thanks for doing that.

Which brings up another issue - still require a majority of EC or just go with the winner.

And what would the tie-breaker be?

I'll admit, the current House = POTUS, Senate = Veep seems like a bad idea.

ETA
The Rep Trumps built a wall between me and giving you rep. But, I'll get you later.

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

 

[chipbennett]

Just for the hell of it, I took at look at how the results from this election would look if each state's electoral votes were distributed according to the candidates share of the state's popular election. It really changes things. Most states were very close. I first did it for Trump and Hillary only and Trump would still win by several electoral votes but less than 10. But when looking at the state results, I saw that Johnson took a good percentage of some states (some over 5%) especially in Wash, Oregon, Cal, and Illinois, Texas, etc so I went back and added in his share.

The final results are:
Trump = 264
Hillary = 263
Johnson = 9


There are 2 electoral votes lost in the fractions across 50 states.

That is - at least one reason - why you cannot proportion EC votes by popular vote percentage. Try using WTA for 2 at-large EC votes, and 1 vote for the winner of each congressional district, per state. See if you get something more reliable.

 

[LPMan59]

Boxer has introduced an amendment to abolish the EC

because boxer knows better than the FFs.

Lol

 

[ATM]

Trump = 264
Hillary = 263
Johnson = 9

At least it would shut up the constant droning about 3rd party votes being wasted.

It also looks like a vote for Johnson ended up being a vote for Trump in this election, just the opposite of what the INGO collective voice kept proclaiming.

Interesting exercise, indeed.

 

[Jludo]

Here's an interesting breakdown from 2009 (I assume it's not changed a ton) of the percent population vs electoral college vote.

FairVote - Population vs. Electoral Votes

 

[Jludo]

That is - at least one reason - why you cannot proportion EC votes by popular vote percentage. Try using WTA for 2 at-large EC votes, and 1 vote for the winner of each congressional district, per state. See if you get something more reliable.

More reliable in what sense?

 

[chipbennett]

At least it would shut up the constant droning about 3rd party votes being wasted.

It also looks like a vote for Johnson ended up being a vote for Trump in this election, just the opposite of what the INGO collective voice kept proclaiming.

Interesting exercise, indeed.

I'm not sure on what you base that assessment?

 

[chipbennett]

More reliable in what sense?

More reliable in the sense that EC votes are not lost or partially proportioned due to rounding errors.

 

[T.Lex]

At least it would shut up the constant droning about 3rd party votes being wasted.

It also looks like a vote for Johnson ended up being a vote for Trump in this election, just the opposite of what the INGO collective voice kept proclaiming.

Interesting exercise, indeed.

I'm not sure on what you base that assessment?

Because it appears to have drawn votes from HRC. At least I think that's what he means.

I'll ask his mom.

 

[ATM]

I'm not sure on what you base that assessment?

Which candidate actually received the EC votes which Johnson would have received according to the alternate study?

The results speak for themselves, no?

Johnson would have produced a near tie between the other two as a spoiler. Otherwise, Trump won.




My mom's out back talking to some wino. "Mom! Get back inside!"

 

[HubertGummer]

To me, its simple.

Without the EC, the few major democrat cities would decide the president for the entire country and the less populated states wouldn't get a say in what is or isn't good for them. People in the cities have a different view of how life should be than people in flyover country.

I for one don't want to give that up.