Lots of salty folks running around

 

And lots of folks gloating. That's what happens when one side wins and the other side loses. If you're referring to me, I'm not salty. I didn't vote for either, and wasn't expecting my guy to win.

 

I get the Dems being a little salty though. I can only imagine the narrative though if the tables had been turned and Trump had won the popular vote and lost the election.

Exactly, but how many California and New York Republicans stay home because of the EC? If there was a popular vote would more of these people turn out? I don't know. If the EC is suppressing the vote in California and New York, it is not suppressing the Dem vote, it is suppressing the Republican vote. A popular vote may change the views of many people who do not vote.

 

And how many Texas, Kentucky and other traditionally Red states do Dems stay home?? You cannot argue that it doesn't affect both sides.

And lots of folks gloating. That's what happens when one side wins and the other side loses. If you're referring to me, I'm not salty. I didn't vote for either, and wasn't expecting my guy to win.

 

I get the Dems being a little salty though. I can only imagine the narrative though if the tables had been turned and Trump had won the popular vote and lost the election.

 

I'm not referring to anyone in particular.

This is something we can agree on. Right or wrong, I have viewed this thread as whining that HRC should have won because she won the popular vote. The EC may very well suppress the vote and if that is the case, then other alternatives may be better. My feeling though is that Democrats would lose a lot more elections without the electoral college. I don't think the result of this election changes.

 

In 2012 voter turnout was around 70% in swing states. It was below 50% in non-swing states. I think that's pretty good evidence the EC reduces participation.

And how many Texas, Kentucky and other traditionally Red states do Dems stay home?? You cannot argue that it doesn't affect both sides.

 

Correct. My point is previous election results do not matter. If the EC is suppressing the vote, we have no idea what an election under the popular vote model would look like. I am basing my opinion on this... Texas went republican with a vote difference= 800,000. California went Dem with a vote difference = 2.5 million. New York went Dem with vote difference = 1.5 million.

Like I said earlier in the thread: I want both sides to have more involvement. I want my vote to be as powerful as a democrat on California and I want a California Republican's vote to count as much as a Kentucky Republican.

 

I would love for my side to win every election, but if it is by the way of voter suppression I'm not for it.

 

Someone mentioned sen races...I'm on my phone so I can't go back....but those are state reps to our Congress. Sometimes they forget who they represent but they are there at the behest of their home state. Cal has no business voting on KY representation

"11,000 freaking adults really woke their butts up, got dressed, travelled to a polling location, stood in line, and voted for freaking Harambe."

This is the reason the founding fathers put in the electoral college, and why we should always have some version of it in place.

"11,000 freaking adults really woke their butts up, got dressed, travelled to a polling location, stood in line, and voted for freaking Harambe."

This is the reason the founding fathers put in the electoral college, and why we should always have some version of it in place.

 

How does the EC solve that?

 

Unless you want it to go back to how it was originally intended, with well-connected elites choosing the president instead of average citizens.

How does the EC solve that?

 

Unless you want it to go back to how it was originally intended, with well-connected elites choosing the president instead of average citizens.

How many electoral votes did Harambe have?

How many electoral votes did Harambe have?

 

What difference does that make? Harambe, or any other joke candidate, doesn't somehow have a better chance of winning under a straight popular vote.

What difference does that make? Harambe, or any other joke candidate, doesn't somehow have a better chance of winning under a straight popular vote.

 

You asked how the electoral college solves that and i told you. Thats what it was intended to do.

You asked how the electoral college solves that and i told you. Thats what it was intended to do.

 

It didn't do anything. :lol2:

It didn't do anything. :lol2:

 

It didn't allow those idiots to vote for president. If you want to defend the people who voted for Harambe go ahead, they are the reason there is an electoral college is all i'm saying. I want to modify it from where it is right now. You go ahead and keep on defending those votes and see how successful that is.

It didn't allow those idiots to vote for president. If you want to defend the people who voted for Harambe go ahead, they are the reason there is an electoral college is all i'm saying. I want to modify it from where it is right now. You go ahead and keep on defending those votes and see how successful that is.

 

Ok.

That must have been a huge amount of work?

No work to it. I just googled the question and got the answer. In 2012 Romney won 226 congressional districts and Obama won 209. When I posted I said 25 as the advantage but it was 17 districts. I was going on memory of what I saw when I looked it up and got the number in my post wrong. I was thinking it was 25, but actually only 17. Obama carried 26 states to Romney's 24. The final count would have been Romney 274 electoral votes to 261 for Obama.