The official "Electoral College is outdated" thread

[Jludo]

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.

Do you think your vote should be worth more than someones who lives in a big city?

 

[Streck-Fu]

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.

Actually, as I ran the numbers, Johnson did take more from Trump. When you get down into it, it does vary by state. However, in more states, it seems Johsnon hurt Trump more.

 

[ATM]

Actually, as I ran the numbers, Johnson did take more from Trump.

The numbers you shared challenge that.

Without Johnson, Trump wins by several but less than 10.

With Johnson, Trump wins by 1.

Being a libertarian, I'm good at basic math, so I'll need you to explain and show your work, please.

 

[printcraft]

Let's really make it simple.
How about 1 vote per state?

 

[Streck-Fu]

ATM,
Ummm, you just wrote that without Johnson, Trump wins but with Johnson, it is a virtual tie..

How is that NOT taking from Trump?

One example is Utah in which McMillan took 20% of the vote, Hillary took about 27%, Trump had a little more than 50%, and Johnson about 3%.

So McMillan took 1 EV, Hillary takes what? 2? It should be 1.5 but how do you divide it?...leaving Trump 3..

 

[Jludo]

Ummm, you just wrote tjat without Johnson, Trump wins but with Johnson, it is a virtual tie..



How is tjat NOT taking from Trump?

Q.E.D.

 

[HubertGummer]

Do you think your vote should be worth more than someones who lives in a big city?

No, but with the EC, the states get more of an even voice.

Do you want to be ruled by candidates chosen by NY and LA? You do realize that those people have much different priorities than the people in the middle, right?

 

[HubertGummer]

Let's really make it simple.
How about 1 vote per state?

Deal!

 

[ATM]

ATM,
Ummm, you just wrote that without Johnson, Trump wins but with Johnson, it is a virtual tie..



How is that NOT taking from Trump?

My bad. I reassessed and must publicly eat that last bit of snark.

mmmmmm....

cold bitter clinging snark.

I'll go play elsewhere for an hour and think about what I've done.

Thanks for your exercise, though, it is an interesting topic.

 

[Jludo]

No, but with the EC, the states get more of an even voice.

Do you want to be ruled by candidates chosen by NY and LA? You do realize that those people have much different priorities than the people in the middle, right?

So you don't think your vote should count for more than someone living in a big city.

 

[Streck-Fu]

ATM,

No worries. I think we are all on the same side when it comes to bacon.

See edited post above for relative example in Utah.

 

[HubertGummer]

So you don't think your vote should count for more than someone living in a big city.

Again, no I don't, but I think every state should have a say, not just the big liberal cities who don't give a **** about how their liberal policies affect the rest of the country.

 

[Jludo]

Again, no I don't, but I think every state should have a say, not just the big liberal cities who don't give a **** about how their liberal policies affect the rest of the country.

They are mutually exclusive ideas, there is nothing wrong with thinking someone living in a smaller rural state should have a vote worth more than someone living in LA. However you can't claim you hold each vote in the same esteem.

 

[Streck-Fu]

They are not exclusive. The reality of a straight popular election is that 4 or 5 cities will elect a Democrat president every time.
Period.

 

[KG1]

The numbers you shared challenge that.

Without Johnson, Trump wins by several but less than 10.

With Johnson, Trump wins by 1.

Being a libertarian, I'm good at basic math, so I'll need you to explain and show your work, please.

Math is hard. Sometimes it doesn't add up.

 

[ATM]

ATM,

No worries. I think we are all on the same side when it comes to bacon.

See edited post above for relative example in Utah.

The way I initially looked at the results of your exercise was, who ended up with the EC votes Johnson would have "earned"? Trump got them.

Every Johnson vote was awarded to Trump and 2 votes were lost or would be awarded by some other method. So an EC vote for Johnson could be seen as an EC vote for Trump in the other exercise.

Then I looked at how those votes would be perceived as having been taken from Trump, who hadn't "earned" them but ended up with them if Johnson couldn't receive them. That's the vantage from which most of INGO had argued, so I cede that point.

 

[ATM]

Math is hard. Sometimes it doesn't add up.

I was distracted!

My mom had wandered outside in her bath robe and was flirting with what appeared to be a homeless lawyer.

 

[Jludo]

They are not exclusive. The reality of a straight popular election is that 4 or 5 cities will elect a Democrat president every time.
Period.

That's the reality of weighing each persons vote equally.

 

[HubertGummer]

They are mutually exclusive ideas, there is nothing wrong with thinking someone living in a smaller rural state should have a vote worth more than someone living in LA. However you can't claim you hold each vote in the same esteem.

Not when you understand how the system is set up though. Individual votes are even when cast. Each voter has equal say which candidate wins the state. Then the state votes are cast to see which candidate wins the most state votes.

It was set up that way for a reason and it doesn't need to be changed just because the fragile snowflakes didn't get the candidate they wanted.

 

[Streck-Fu]

What I actually did in states where Johnson (or anyone else) earned less than .75% of an electoral vote, I would award it to the candidate with a higher decimal value of electoral votes above their whole number share.
For example, Hillary draws 45.7% and Trump draws 43.4%, I would give Johnsons share of a vote to Hillary.

This is purely a method to smooth the percentages and can't be used to evaluate voting trends without Johnson.