Tories 1 Labour 0

[MajGenl.Meade]

Various sensible things

Had you checked the link, you would doubtless see that I quoted two sentences from the 3 arguments in favor of the EC. So you can't really quote me quoting them as if they were my notions.

It is especially unpleasant that (knowing my opposition to the Jan 6 horror and Trump and all he stands for) you would (pretend) that my desire to avoid mob rule indicates that I only want to avoid Democrat party rule. Rude. I've voted Dem far more than I've voted Rep FWIW, even in this month's election.

I also quoted from the 3rd argument in favor of the EC and showed that Hamilton argument has been shown to be wrong - I thought it was fair and balanced. I'm sorry you can't smile at the irony.

There were 3 arguments against the EC, which I didn't quote because (a) people can read the link and (ii) they'd already been covered here including the utterly irrelevant "it was all because of slavery" - so what? Might as well argue "it was all because of men voting and not women". True perhaps but without meaning today. I thought you might find it interesting that Trump opined the EC should be done away with after the 2016 election. We know he must have been honest about that (not)

PS in your statistic you'd do better to stop at 2020. The percentage of disaster goes up in your favor. There is no presidential election in 2021 and 2022 so you can leave them out. 8 years out of 20 - or more accurately, 2 elections out of 5.

(and that's very silly Econo)

[Bicycle Bill]

I do not want mob rule by the Left Coast and its ilk; that's a reasonable objection. I prefer checks and balances (although Hamilton's belief that the EC "ensures that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" was proved wrong in 2016 )

Again you make with the argument about being 'ruled by the left coast', as if EVERYBODY in that evil place known as Californica are going to vote as a single bloc.  That's never going to happen – hell's bells, they can't even decide which football or baseball team to support!!

Once more — and slowly this time, so it will sink in. And for the benefit of clarity, I'll ignore all suggestions concerning ranked voting for the time being.
————————————
The United States, despite the plural name, is a single country (united, y'know?).
There are 154,600,000 (more or less) registered voters in the United States.
     *source: US Census; "Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2020" (see fig. 1)*
They are voting for the person who will be the President of this single country.
Each person has one vote.
So let them cast their votes, whether it's in Los Angeles, Billings (MT), Rochester (MN), or Bug Tussle (WV).  Then add 'em up.  Whoever gets the most OUT OF ALL OF THE VOTES CAST wins a four-year lease on the Oval Office.  As for the rest of you — better luck next time.
And the members of the EC can get on with doing something meaningful for a change.

Now, I do agree with you that there are a lot more people in Cali than in, say Montana or Missouri.  But even assuming, let's say, that the ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, down to the last little old lady on a respirator in a nursing home, decides to vote for J.P. Sleazebag because he's a native son (remember when THAT used to be a factor, albeit a minor one, in selecting a Presidential ticket?), they can still be outnumbered and outvoted by the sheer weight of numbers of the rest of the nation.

The problem, as I see it, is in getting these other voters to take their civic responsibility seriously and get out there to vote.  Because of his bloviation, his empty promises, and his constant litany of unverified 'facts', misleading statements, innuendo, and outright lies, Trump was able to do that with his base in 2016, and damned near did it again in 2020.  And that's what I'm afraid might happen eight days from now.

-"BB"-

[Econoline]

(and that's very silly Econo)

Thank you for noticing that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I do not want mob rule by the Left Coast and its ilk

Again you make with the argument about being 'ruled by the left coast',

Again I am misquoted, presumably by accident. But to make sure, do you know what "and its ilk" means?

[Bicycle Bill]

I do not want mob rule by the Left Coast and its ilk

Again you make with the argument about being 'ruled by the left coast',

Again I am misquoted, presumably by accident. But to make sure, do you know what "and its ilk" means?

I am fully aware of what "it's ilk" means.  Let me ask you — do you consider Madison (WI) to be of "the Left Coast and its ilk"?

If your answer is yes, then I'm forced to assume that to you, "its ilk" would be other places occupied (or from your viewpoint, I suppose, 'infested') by people that, like California, have historically voted Democrat and espouse certain liberal policies and positionns.  This speaks more to a desire to have people who hold certain conservative or even reactionary views in positions of power by whatever means necessary — which is the hallmark of MAGA and Trumpism.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

I am fully aware of what "it's ilk" means.  Let me ask you — do you consider Madison (WI) to be of "the Left Coast and its ilk"?

Thanks for the apology.

Does Wisconsin have a huge urban proletariat that vastly outnumbers the population of most states?

Is anyone going to acknowledge that if HRC (for whom I voted) had a 5 million advantage in California alone and only 2 million after the rest of the country voted, then the majority of "ROC" voted against her? Maybe my math is wrong (quite possible).

She lost by 3 million votes in non-California America. It doesn't sound right, even to me. Obviously I'm missing something

[Bicycle Bill]

Is anyone going to acknowledge that if HRC (for whom I voted) had a 5 million advantage in California alone and only 2 million after the rest of the country voted, then the majority of "ROC" voted against her? Maybe my math is wrong (quite possible).

She lost by 3 million votes in non-California America. It doesn't sound right, even to me. Obviously I'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything.  I think that you're looking at it as a "them (California/New York) vs. the rest of the country" thing.

And that's not how elections (are supposed to) work.  EVERYBODY gets a vote and it doesn't matter where they live.  Like I've said before, add 'em up and whoever gets the most overall is the winner.  And if it turns out that someone's major support tends to be located in one geographical location, or distributed among the populace on the basis of urban vs rural or college-educated vs HS dropouts, then that's just the way the cookie crumbled.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

EVERYBODY gets a vote and it doesn't matter where they live.  

OK I'll agree that the "where they live" is not an actual factor. And everybody does get a vote.

However, I will continue to disagree that the state of California should outweigh every other state when every other state voted contrarily to how CA voted. The tyranny of the brute majority is obviated by the Electoral College - thus far and I hope continues to do so - as it was intended it should.

So let's get away from this "HRC got more votes" argument when what it really means is HRC won California and lost the popular vote in the other states combined. If anything, the Electoral College earned her more credit than your "let the votes count" argument does.

And still the EC is composed of persons selected by popular voting for House reps (435), not simply the numbers of popularly voted Senators (100). So all the whining about Senators rather misses the bigger number, don't it just? Maine (I think) does some proportional thingie with its 4 electors.

I think you might want to do away with the +3 votes for DC since that isn't even a state - highly disproportionate influence there compared to California -
Washington DC 712,816 div by 3 = 1 vote per 237,605 population
California 39.24 million div by 55 = 1 vote per 713,455

Or is there ahem some reason that we wouldn't like that??? You don't say!!!!

The 23rd Amendment was a bipartisan effort so maybe there could be a 28th Amendment to remove the EC. I'll be voting no (via my representatives, whoever that may be)

[ex-khobar Andy]

So let's get away from this "HRC got more votes" argument when what it really means is HRC won California and lost the popular vote in the other states combined. If anything, the Electoral College earned her more credit than your "let the votes count" argument does.

You make it sound as if HRC (and I acknowledge that you voted for her) lost 49 states and won just the one, California. No. HRC won 20 states and Trump won 29. (I am including DC and excluding ME and NE which split their votes. DC is not of course a state but it gets three electoral votes.). HRC had 65,853,516 popular votes and 227 electoral votes. Trump had 62,984,825 popular votes and 304 electoral votes. So because of the built-in imbalance of the EC, HRC had to find 290,682 votes for each EC vote. Trump had only to find 207,186 votes for each EC vote. To put it another way, Trump had to expend only 207186/290682 = 71% of the effort for each EC vote; or each of HRC's voters was disenfranchised by 29% compared to each Trump voter. (I am using the Wikipedia numbers - I have not independently verified them.)

[MajGenl.Meade]

So let's get away from this "HRC got more votes" argument when what it really means is HRC won California and lost the popular vote in the other states combined. If anything, the Electoral College earned her more credit than your "let the votes count" argument does.

You make it sound as if HRC (and I acknowledge that you voted for her) lost 49 states and won just the one, California. No. HRC won 20 states and Trump won 29. etc etc

Don't doubt your numbers. Thanks for the ack. It was a useless vote in Ohio but one must try.

I clearly wrote "lost the popular vote in the other states combined". I don't make it "sound as if she lost 49 states and won just the one" - you make it sound that way. It is clear: outside California, more people voted for Pinocchio than voted for HRC.

Absent the EC and using the much-bleated "the one with most votes should win" standard, the state of California alone would have decided the2016 election - the rest of America's votes meant nothing at all. That's the voters of 1 state trumping (oh sorry) the majority of voters of 49 states.

Hence my suggestion that we should just turn it all over to California and sleep-in on the Second Tuesday of November once every four years. Then all those complaining now about the EC will be happy. The mob will rule.

[datsunaholic]

Absent the EC and using the much-bleated "the one with most votes should win" standard, the state of California alone would have decided the2016 election - the rest of America's votes meant nothing at all. That's the voters of 1 state trumping (oh sorry) the majority of voters of 49 states.

That's not what it means at all. Absent the EC, it wouldn't matter what State the votes came from. Just like in State Governor's elections it doesn't matter what county the votes come from. In my State, the most populous county is almost 30% of the State's population, and the COMBINED TOTAL population of the 5 smallest counties could sit comfortably in Seattle's MLB stadium.

The fact that the difference in vote totals for California exceeded the difference for the other 49 States is simply a statistic. Under the EC, the 4,483,810 votes for Trump in California didn't matter either. Under the EC, the 32,453,822 votes for Clinton in Red States didn't matter. Nor did the 21,808,259 votes for Trump in the Blue States. (Clinton got over 10 million more votes in Red states than Trump got in Blue states? Statistics can be framed any way you want the numbers to lean).

The President is the only office, the only position, in fact the only ballot item that every voter in the US would have on their ballot... and it's only an advisory vote. It isn't binding - the EC vote is the one that counts, and it gives disproportionate power to small states.

[Gob]

This means that for the presidential election, the average Wyoming voter has 400,863/73,849 = 5.4 times the heft of the average California voter.

How is this remotely democratic? How can any fair minded person of any political stripe think this is reasonable?

USA exporting democracy world wide, (don't need it, as you don't use it at home.)

[MajGenl.Meade]

g - the EC vote is the one that counts, and it gives disproportionate power to small states

And an excellent idea it is!

I guess you are agreeing that outside California, HRC got less of the popular vote than Trump. Or is that just a "statistic"?

[Bicycle Bill]

Absent the EC, it wouldn't matter what State the votes came from. Just like in State Governor's elections it doesn't matter what county the votes come from. In my State, the most populous county is almost 30% of the State's population, and the COMBINED TOTAL population of the 5 smallest counties could sit comfortably in Seattle's MLB stadium.

The fact that the difference in vote totals for California exceeded the difference for the other 49 States is simply a statistic. Under the EC, the 4,483,810 votes for Trump in California didn't matter either. Under the EC, the 32,453,822 votes for Clinton in Red States didn't matter. Nor did the 21,808,259 votes for Trump in the Blue States. (Clinton got over 10 million more votes in Red states than Trump got in Blue states? Statistics can be framed any way you want the numbers to lean).

The President is the only office, the only position, in fact the only ballot item that every voter in the US would have on their ballot... and it's only an advisory vote. It isn't binding - the EC vote is the one that counts, and it gives disproportionate power to small states.

I would have perhaps used the word 'coincidence' instead of 'statistic', but the point is still made.

So there you go, Meade.  What Datsun said.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

This seems like a good place to park this link: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks BSG. I read that some days ago. Although it would take a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, the power to determine how the Electors are chosen belongs to the states. Thus, Maine and Nebraska enacted a law allocating one electoral vote to the popular vote winner. I mentioned Maine before and forgot about N.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Absent the EC and using the much-bleated "the one with most votes should win" standard, the state of California alone would have decided the2016 election - the rest of America's votes meant nothing at all. That's the voters of 1 state trumping (oh sorry) the majority of voters of 49 states.

Once again of course this is bollocks, Meade and you know it. It's about as relevant as saying that Trump won the state of Montana by 102,00 votes and HRC won the rest of the country by a whopping 2,970,222 million votes. It is of course a true statement but irrelevant. No-one has ever suggested limiting the US presidential election to California or Montana or Tuvalu, for that matter.

There is an argument for the EC - skimpy and invalid though it is - but 'no-one outside California counts' isn't it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Absent the EC and using the much-bleated "the one with most votes should win" standard, the state of California alone would have decided the2016 election - the rest of America's votes meant nothing at all. That's the voters of 1 state trumping (oh sorry) the majority of voters of 49 states.

Once again of course this is bollocks . . . It is of course a true statement but irrelevant

Guess I keep making true statements that are bollocks.

If there were no Electoral College and a simple majority ruled, then although the voters in the Rest of America chose Trump over Clinton by 3 million votes, the voters of California would have decided matters. S'fact.

I don't think you do satire very well

[Econoline]

So basically you're saying that all inhabitants of California—many of whom may have nothing in common with each other besides living in the second-largest of of the 48 contiguous US states, some of whom might live a thousand miles away from others at the other end of the state—rural, suburban, urban, young, old, rich, poor, high school dropout, college graduate, male, female, black, white, left-wing, right-wing, Asian, Latino, indigenous, and "other"...all these people should have the power of their vote diminished simply because of the accident of geography.

Do you also think that, say, white people should have their vote diminished solely because of the accident and sheer numbers of their race?

Maybe two centuries ago, when geography cut people off from each other and there was no radio/TV/internet to allow presidential candidates to connect with individual voters, it might have made sense to think only of large collective groups rather than individual voters. But now we as citizens (and candidates as candidates) should acknowledge that we are all individual citizens and, as such, all entitled to a separate, individual vote. (No matter what the result.)

[MajGenl.Meade]

So basically you're saying that

No, no and er . . . no.

Basically I'm saying that the Electoral Commission serves a purpose, which is to prevent big states from choosing the President regardless of anyone else's votes. As to whether that's a purpose that should continue, it is in the hands of the 50 states as to HOW they select the Electors.

In other areas (House and Senate), the big states have greater strength than small ones. California has the most of all and its influence and that of its voters is heftier than any other state. I don't complain about that.

The bigger states have the most influence in the Electoral College. The whinging that goes on about the EC only comes up when liberals don't like the result.

I remain undecided as to whether every vote should count equally for the Presidency. That is, I tend to side with the idea that some kind of filter is a good idea. However, changing the composition of the EC by allocating Electors (proportionately) according to the national number of votes might be the best approach.

It's a curious dilemma. People seem enamored of the idea of "winner takes all" on a national level while decrying it at a local level. Fix it then. Get out the vote.

One argument that mitigates against the idea is that Trump endorsed "winner takes all" nationally in 2016 because as a demagogue he recognizes that you can fool enough people all of the time. Which he did, under the EC regime so he may not have been honest about that. (Satire, possibly)