Posted by David

For clarification- you're wrong cause she ended up winning the popular vote. But look at this map. Varied interests are far and wide. So let's not act like big cities have no influence when it comes to the popular vote.

I never said they have no influence. I said they don't have anywhere near an overruling influence that you claimed. Popular vote = 1 person 1 vote. Why shouldn't a city with 8 million people end up having more influence over a county in idaho with only thousands? It should. I pointed out that the biggest 10 cities in America only make up 9% of the popular vote, and the next largest cities drop substantially in population. Using the popular vote wouldn't give thr biggest cities the deciding factor. By using the electoral college, you're literally debunking up to 49.9% of that state's votes who chose the losing candidates. With the electoral college, candidates only visit a very small number of states during their campaign because they know they're going to win a # of states, so they only focus on a select few number of states and they cater toward them. In a popular vote, candidates would have to focus on a bigger picture campaign that appeals to people across the country because no candidate can win solely by getting big cities, nor by getting small counties across the country.

 

Posted by MikvaGraal

Clinton barely won popular vote, with illegals voting,dead people votes and misfunctioning polling stations, that's why she didn't ask for a recount in the states that were down to the wire

Law 47 of The 48 Laws of Power: Do not go past the mark you aimed for, in victory learn when to stop.

If you already won then there's no reason to continue blabbing because once you reach your aim there's nowhere to go but down. This statement opens you up to be trolled/clowned.


If I was one of those mean trolls I would point out how she lost 3 states by 1% that account for 59 electoral votes. So it would probably be in her best interest to ask for a recount.  

NYC has as much sway as 4 states combined in a popular vote and its not even a state. </point>

 

It's funny in that video. She says winning only the south is not good enough, and then proceeds to highlight a bunch of south states that are completely different than one another. Grouping Texas and Florida into same-minded states is naive and just funny. Same with the portrayal of the Midwestern states. It grouped North/South Dakota with the Rust Belt states. States like Michigan and Wisconsin are almost always Democratic, while North/South Dakota are almost always Republican. That video acts as if one party would win the entire Midwestern states (of which are either swing states or solidly Republican or Democrat) or same with the South. So it is correct with the statement that you can't win the electoral college if only one portion of the country votes for you, but you can (and do) win the electoral college if only a couple swing states vote for you. Most of the country's states are decided before the election even starts. Candidates focus on select few states (which contradicts what that lady in the video said was the point of the electoral college - preventing candidates from focusing on one specific area). Seems like it backfired.

Posted by David

NYC has as much sway as 4 states combined in a popular vote and its not even a state. </point>

NYC has a population of 8.4 million people.

America has a population of 318.9 million people.

NYC makes up 2.6% of the population. I think it would be pretty difficult to win the popular vote with just NYC, but I guess you could try if you think it's possible.


------

The electoral college assumes each state is comprised of like-minded people, but that's completely false. Most states have at least 30% of people from a different party, and some states (swing states) are often 50/50 split. That video acts as if the white people would all vote together and create a tyrannical rule in America. Evidence shows that people don't vote based on race, gender, or any other physical factors. People vote based on socio-economic factors. The reasoning for the electoral college makes no sense and is disputed by tons of evidence we have today.  

The electoral college is a sham. How is that not visible to some, if not most, people?  

You're assuming that 318.9 million people in America actually vote. They don't. Big cities tend to get high voter turnout (obviously).

120,000,000 people voted this election..... If you cater to big cities and tell them what they want to hear you can get at least 23,000,000 votes (20% of the popular vote) out of them. If you don't see how big of a dent that actually is capable of being, you don't understand how elections work.

"Most of the country's states are decided before the election even starts."
^ doesn't make sense and clearly wasn't the case in this election.

Zoomed in on the important part of the picture for you to read again:

The states being Nebraska, Montana, Iowa and Idaho


all of this without mentioning we aren't a direct democracy. We're a Republic. We always have been.

 

I can't even

 

Quit whining about the popular vote. No one whined when Bush won electoral and his opponent won the popular vote.  

Posted by David

You're assuming that 318.9 million people in America actually vote. They don't. Big cities tend to get high voter turnout (obviously).

120,000,000 people voted this election..... If you cater to big cities and tell them what they want to hear you can get at least 23,000,000 votes (20% of the popular vote) out of them. If you don't see how big of a dent that actually is capable of being, you don't understand how elections work.

Zoomed in on the important part of the picture for you to read again:

The states being Nebraska, Montana, Iowa and Idaho

You assume that everyone in the city votes lol.

http://www.amny.com/news/elections/n...ays-1.12594476

2.5 million of the 8.4 million living in NYC actually voted in the recent election. 2.5M out of 120M means NYC only accounted for 2.1% of the vote. That doesn't back your claim that big cities would control the vote in a popular vote. It actually contradicts that claim.

Posted by David

"Most of the country's states are decided before the election even starts."
^ doesn't make sense and clearly wasn't the case in this election.

States like California, Texas, and the many others. Yes. I would have bet my life on California going to the Democrats. The electoral college actually rigs the votes in favor of big states that control most of the vote. Cali has 55 of the 270 needed to win the election. California alone (no matter who you vote for, because it's all or nothing) gives a candidate 20% of the needed votes to win. Completely contradicts the whole point you claim the electoral college provides by making votes fair. It just gave California 20% of the votes someone needs to win an election.

To quote you: If you don't understand how the electoral college does the exact opposite of what you claim, you don't understand how elections work.  

It really doesn't matter. Voter turnout this election in general across the country was really low so you'd have to end up doing the math when adjusted to the total voters, but I guarantee you it will not make much of a difference.

Like I said:

There's no reason a map should look like this and the red candidate loses, even if the blue candidate technically got more votes. This is why we are a constitutional republic.  

Voter turnout nationwide has been on a decline for decades. This election year actually had more voters than did election cycle in NYC. In 2012 only 2.1M people voted in NYC, compared to this year's 2.5M. It has consistently been low each election. This year and in 2008 were high compared to recent elections. 2004 only had 2.28M people vote in NYC. The math doesn't justify your reasoning at all. Barely half of NYC's population is even registered alone, and of that, only about half of those registered actually go out and vote. However, a big city like NYC has much higher impact in the state's vote, since the total # of votes is much less than that nationwide. That means that the big cities actually have a much larger impact in the electoral vote than they do in a popular vote.  

Bruh you really don't see the ONE thing that connects this election with the 2008 election? Nobody is running for re-election.. That 100% effects turnout. But none of that even matters, my point is illustrated in that picture and the caption attached to it. If you disagree with that then idk what to tell you besides you're stubbornly refusing to see why the electoral college is valid.

It's like agreeing to play a baseball game and losing by 2 runs but then starting a riot cause you got more hits than the other team.  

Posted by David

Bruh you really don't see the ONE thing that connects this election with the 2008 election? Nobody is running for re-election.. That 100% effects turnout. But none of that even matters, my point is illustrated in that picture and the caption attached to it. If you disagree with that then idk what to tell you besides you're stubbornly refusing to see why the electoral college is valid.

I just gave examples of the 2004 and 2012 election too lol... Both of those had someone running for re-election. That illustration shows nothing to back the electoral college. If you disagree with that then idk what to tell you besides you're stubbornly refusing to see why the electoral college is invalid.
Trying to act cool as if I'm the stubborn one even though you're doing the literal exact same thing as me. Hypocrite much?

Posted by David

It's like agreeing to play a baseball game and losing by 2 runs but then starting a riot cause you got more hits than the other team.

1. I voted for Trump.
2. Your analogy makes no sense. You're comparing a game where one person has more runs than the other to an election that has 2 separate results in which each candidate won one of.
3. It seems like you support the electoral college because Trump won. I don't even definitively know who you supported, but based on your recent statement, that's exactly what you're implying.

You keep arguing the same thing without providing any evidence to back it up, while I have provided factual data that proves you wrong, but you continue blindly saying you're right. I can't help it if you won't change your opinion no matter how wrong you are.  

The United States isn't a direct-democracy, it's a democratic republic.

If you refuse to acknowledge these 11 words then I don't understand how anyone but you is being stubborn.  

Posted by David

The entire argument boils down to these 11 words: The United States isn't a direct-democracy, it's a democratic republic.

If you aren't acknowledging this as a fact then I don't understand how anyone but you is being stubborn..

Your point? I know what system of government America is. The whole point of the discussion is because people want change. If you are honestly justifying the electoral college by saying America currently isn't a direct democracy, then that just shows how desperate you are for a reason to justify it. It's honestly hilarious that you even just said that. That's like saying that gay marriage is illegal as your basis to justify why gay marriage should remain illegal. I'm laughing irl.

P.S. that larger text just makes you look more naive.