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.

 

I tried the same thing and must have worded it wrong. Can you do the 2000 election for us?

How many electoral votes did Harambe have?

 

How many electoral votes did Gary Johnson have?? The electoral college has no influence on who (or what) people vote for. If 11k people voted for Harambe under a popular vote system, would it have made any more of a difference than it did under the current system??

How many electoral votes did Gary Johnson have?? The electoral college has no influence on who (or what) people vote for. If 11k people voted for Harambe under a popular vote system, would it have made any more of a difference than it did under the current system??

 

Exactly why a vote for Gary Johnson carried the same weight as Harambe. Just saying. :lol: And that was not a shot at you rjs4470.

I tried the same thing and must have worded it wrong. Can you do the 2000 election for us?

If congressional districts had been used for the electoral college in the 2000 presidential race Bush would have won the electoral vote by a 282-256 margin. He won 222 congressional districts and 30 states.

There's no way of knowing who would have won without the Electoral College. The candidates and their campaigns KNOW the system and they campaign accordingly. If we went by straight popular vote, the candidates would have campaigned TOTALLY differently...so we really don't know what would have happened in that instance.

By the way, those campaigning against the EC need to understand the implications of removing it. By removing the EC, you would have candidates that only really campaigned in areas where they were highly likeable. They would be focused on getting ALL of those people out, and not worried about trying to win over voters from the other side or independents. It would actually lead to a much more divided system.

 

The EC makes candidates campaign in places that are close...and therefore they have to adapt their message to appeal to the "swing voters"...which is exactly what america needs. I don't want my politician only trying to appeal to his/her side of the fence. The whole point is to try and move past partisan politics...and the EC requires candidates to think and adapt their message to be more appealing to ALL.

I see both sides of this issue. It wouldn't bother me if we went straight popular vote & it wouldn't bother me if we stayed the course.

By the way, those campaigning against the EC need to understand the implications of removing it. By removing the EC, you would have candidates that only really campaigned in areas where they were highly likeable. They would be focused on getting ALL of those people out, and not worried about trying to win over voters from the other side or independents. It would actually lead to a much more divided system.

 

The EC makes candidates campaign in places that are close...and therefore they have to adapt their message to appeal to the "swing voters"...which is exactly what america needs. I don't want my politician only trying to appeal to his/her side of the fence. The whole point is to try and move past partisan politics...and the EC requires candidates to think and adapt their message to be more appealing to ALL.

 

I haven't seen a whole lot of moving past partisan politics in our elections. This election was as negative and personal as they come, and just as much driven by "getting out the vote" from both parties. I don't see any evidence the EC has forced any sort of positivity or compromise into our politics. On top of that, our politics are as regionally polarized as they've ever been. The EC certainly hasn't encouraged any sort of national harmony.

 

I also think getting rid of the EC would have almost the opposite effect of your scenario. Reps/Dems couldn't simply write off blue/red states as a given. I think we'd see a lot more "whistlestop" campaigning and barnstorming across the country instead of jetting between two or three different states. I also think more issues would be in play and that would present more opportunities for each party to branch out across the country.

 

The red and blue county maps are a bit deceiving as well, in reality the country is a lot more purple than solidly either one. Reps/Dems would be more encouraged to get out their vote in blue/red counties because every vote would matter. So, the country as a whole is much more purple, but the EC forces everything to be black and white (or red and blue) by state.

 

At the end of the day, I don't see much changing except more people's votes would matter and more people would vote.

I haven't seen a whole lot of moving past partisan politics in our elections. This election was as negative and personal as they come, and just as much driven by "getting out the vote" from both parties. I don't see any evidence the EC has forced any sort of positivity or compromise into our politics. On top of that, our politics are as regionally polarized as they've ever been. The EC certainly hasn't encouraged any sort of national harmony.

 

I also think getting rid of the EC would have almost the opposite effect of your scenario. Reps/Dems couldn't simply write off blue/red states as a given. I think we'd see a lot more "whistlestop" campaigning and barnstorming across the country instead of jetting between two or three different states. I also think more issues would be in play and that would present more opportunities for each party to branch out across the country.

 

The red and blue county maps are a bit deceiving as well, in reality the country is a lot more purple than solidly either one. Reps/Dems would be more encouraged to get out their vote in blue/red counties because every vote would matter.

 

At the end of the day, I don't see much changing except more people's votes would matter and more people would vote.

 

Let's just say I totally disagree.

 

If you spent time on "enemy" turf in a popular vote election you'd just be wasting your time. It's a lot easier to convince people who already have beliefs in line with you to come out and vote then it is to convince someone who doesn't believe in the same principals as you to totally change their view and switch over.

Let's just say I totally disagree.

 

If you spent time on "enemy" turf in a popular vote election you'd just be wasting your time. It's a lot easier to convince people who already have beliefs in line with you to come out and vote then it is to convince someone who doesn't believe in the same principals as you to totally change their view and switch over.

 

I don't know what's any different about that right now. But what I'm getting at is a state like KY is solidly red under EC rules, but a significant number of Democrats live here. The reverse is true for California or New York. In an election where every vote matters, the parties would be foolish to ignore these previously ignored states. We are more purple than not, and the EC distorts that in red or blue for reasons that don't exist anymore.

The Electoral College Still Makes Sense Because We’re Not A Democracy

The Electoral College Still Makes Sense Because We’re Not A Democracy

We have a WINNER!!

Would you guys feel the same if rogue electors vote for Hillary when they meet?

 

Only 24 states force electors to vote the winner of the state.

Would you guys feel the same if rogue electors vote for Hillary when they meet?

 

Only 24 states force electors to vote the winner of the state.

 

No, but I wouldn't like it if it were reverse and Hillary won in the EC and rogue electors voted for Trump. I feel the EC gives the will of the people as a nation. Going rogue isn't giving the will of the people their voice. I don't think the popular vote gives the people a voice since only large cities (who always overwhelmingly vote Democrat) would be the only ones that decide the election.

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/14947568_1210269139012580_3771659126421417319_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=cede2f652e25d971051524a6b84f7607&oe=58C72021