Electoral college

[disneysteve]

I'm in California, one of the most populous states in the country. Rarely does anyone campaign here and our vote doesn't much count during the primary.

In this election, Hillary won 2 major areas--San Francisco and Los Angeles, both long-term Democratic strongholds. Trump won the majority of the rest of the state. But Hillary won the "whole" state

I'm confused. I just checked the election results for California.

Clinton: 5,860,714 (62%)
Trump: 3,151,821 (33%)

Where are you getting that Trump won the "majority of the rest of the state". It looks like it wasn't even close. Electoral college or popular vote wouldn't have altered the outcome here.

[kork13]

I'm confused. I just checked the election results for California.

Clinton: 5,860,714 (62%)
Trump: 3,151,821 (33%)

Where are you getting that Trump won the "majority of the rest of the state". It looks like it wasn't even close. Electoral college or popular vote wouldn't have altered the outcome here.

Pretty sure the point being made is that about half of the counties in California voted for Trump, mostly in northern & eastern California.

That's an interesting dynamic that I was looking at on election night & the following day. Almost without exception, large urban areas voted Democratic, while rural or less dense population areas almost all voted Republican. It almost seems that our politics come down to demographics & social factors involved with population density as the prime influence.

[disneysteve]

Pretty sure the point being made is that about half of the counties in California voted for Trump

It doesn't matter how many counties voted for which candidate. It matters how many people did. We count votes, not counties.

It almost seems that our politics come down to demographics & social factors

Absolutely. Always has. Probably always will. That's certainly nothing new.

[Singuy]

This is the year where the electoral college seemed really flawed. It's not like Trump and Clinton were neck and neck, one party pretty much dominated the other if you look at the electoral college. But when it comes to the votes from actual citizens, the person who got crushed actually won. It's not an ideal system if the electoral college has a mismatch with the popular vote by a little, but by such a huge margin?

The fact is, more populated states will have their population increase faster(more people = more kids, not to mention increase life expectancy thanks to modern medicine) than the less populated states. If these states are not getting additional electoral college votes, then the system will eventually collapse.

[kork13]

It doesn't matter how many counties voted for which candidate. It matters how many people did. We count votes, not counties.

Yes, of course. Merely trying to clarify.

This is the year where the electoral college seemed really flawed. It's not like Trump and Clinton were neck and neck, one party pretty much dominated the other if you look at the electoral college. But when it comes to the votes from actual citizens, the person who got crushed actually won. It's not an ideal system if the electoral college has a mismatch with the popular vote by a little, but by such a huge margin?

The fact is, more populated states will have their population increase faster(more people = more kids, not to mention increase life expectancy thanks to modern medicine) than the less populated states. If these states are not getting additional electoral college votes, then the system will eventually collapse.

To your second point first... Electoral college votes are recalculated every 10 years based on census results. Notably, in the most recent census, some Democratic stronghold states lost 1-2 delegates (NY lost 2), while swing & Republican states picked up some (Texas gained 4, Florida gained 2).

I'm not trying to say either one of them should or should not have been victorious... But look at the numbers. The margin is about 1℅ of voters. 60.84M votes for Clinton, 60.27M votes for Trump. I would hardly call that a "crushing" victory in the popular vote. The margin in California (nearly 30%) certainly is, but that is not the case across the country. By and large, the margin of popular victory (Republican or Democrat) is around 5-7%, sometimes more, sometimes as small as 0.2%.

I really don't care who won, because I deeply dislike both of them, and I think our country made a terrible mistake allowing these two to become the nominees. But it does seem a bit self-righteous & hypocritical of Clinton's supporters to have demanded during the debates that Trump promise to abide by the result, then throw a tantrum when he surprisingly won (according the rules as they currently stand). Likewise, I have to give Clinton alot of credit for having accepted the defeat gracefully.

Right or wrong, the electoral college, designed with a hybrid of votes based on both statehood and population, has done exactly what it was designed to do -- give our Republic's smaller states a voice while preventing the more populous states from overriding them entirely. We were founded as a democratic republic (not a pure democracy), with a strong slant toward state rights. That can absolutely be changed, but only as the act of a unified Congress, which simply won't happen right now, given the current division running throughout our country (not to mention the fact that our 2-party system basically encourages polarization). Like it or hate it, the election result is constitutionally valid, and we're stuck with it.

Bottom line: We've made our own bed, and now we have to sleep in it. Hopefully Trump learns how to moderate his words and actions somewhat, and decides not to seek re-election, then in 4 years we can try again and hopefully both parties will do a better job of picking the "leader of the free world".

[disneysteve]

The margin is about 1℅ of voters. 60.84M votes for Clinton, 60.27M votes for Trump. I would hardly call that a "crushing" victory in the popular vote.

it does seem a bit self-righteous & hypocritical of Clinton's supporters to have demanded during the debates that Trump promise to abide by the result, then throw a tantrum when he surprisingly won (according the rules as they currently stand).

I agree with both points.

As for one side being hypercritical, it's kind of funny how Trump kept saying the election was rigged - until he won.

We were founded as a democratic republic (not a pure democracy)

So few people understand that fact.

Hopefully Trump learns how to moderate his words and actions

I think almost everyone agrees with this regardless of which side of the aisle they are on.

[StormRichards]

You are off topic. I never addressed those folks who didn't come out to vote.

My response to your post was 100% on topic and 100% correct.

Gore and Clinton having winning the popular vote is meaningless because you have no idea how many people stay home because of the electoral college. Considering all of the experts were predicting a Clinton win, it isn't a far stretch to suggest a lot of Trump supporters in the expected blue states stayed home feeling their vote wasn't going to matter.

[StormRichards]

This is the year where the electoral college seemed really flawed. It's not like Trump and Clinton were neck and neck, one party pretty much dominated the other if you look at the electoral college. But when it comes to the votes from actual citizens, the person who got crushed actually won. It's not an ideal system if the electoral college has a mismatch with the popular vote by a little, but by such a huge margin?

The fact is, more populated states will have their population increase faster(more people = more kids, not to mention increase life expectancy thanks to modern medicine) than the less populated states. If these states are not getting additional electoral college votes, then the system will eventually collapse.

47.8% compared to 47.3%

You and I have VERY different opinions as to what is considered a huge margin.

[kork13]

As for one side being hypercritical, it's kind of funny how Trump kept saying the election was rigged - until he won.

Hahaha yes, I almost commented on that fact, and found it highly ironic. Even as the votes were being tallied he carried on with that rubbish, right up until it became apparent he was taking a lead. Not a word of it since. Lol

[Singuy]

47.8% compared to 47.3%

You and I have VERY different opinions as to what is considered a huge margin.

Maybe it is my grammar.

The margin between 290 vs 228. That's a HUGE margin. It's almost to the point that the electoral college no longer represents what the citizens wanted since the person with a blow out 290 electoral votes ended up losing the popular vote.

[frugal saver]

I'm confused. I just checked the election results for California.

Clinton: 5,860,714 (62%)
Trump: 3,151,821 (33%)

Where are you getting that Trump won the "majority of the rest of the state". It looks like it wasn't even close. Electoral college or popular vote wouldn't have altered the outcome here.

In the coast counties, Clinton won by 90% or more. In the inland counties, it was either 50/50 or Trump won.

At the moment, it's 5.8 million votes for Clinton, with 3.1 million votes for Trump. And 4.3 million votes yet to be counted. They won't release the final vote until December.

[StormRichards]

Maybe it is my grammar.

The margin between 290 vs 228. That's a HUGE margin. It's almost to the point that the electoral college no longer represents what the citizens wanted since the person with a blow out 290 electoral votes ended up losing the popular vote.

I understand your position now. Thank you for clarifying.

Also, I completely agree with you. The electoral college absolutely needs to go.

However, as I previously stated, there is no way of knowing who would have won the popular vote absent the electoral college because people do stay home because of it.

[Singuy]

This video pretty much sums up the problem of the electoral college. You can literally win the presidency even if 79% of the citizens voted against you. You can win with just 21% of the votes taking advantage of the unfair electoral college system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_286635&feature=iv&index=13&list=PLqs5ohhass_TF9mg-mqLie7Fqq1-FzOQc&src_vid=OUS9mM8Xbbw&v=7wC42HgLA4k

Video was made in 2011, not from a butt hurt liberal yesterday.

[StormRichards]

This video pretty much sums up the problem of the electoral college. You can literally win the presidency even if 79% of the citizens voted against you. You can win with just 21% of the votes taking advantage of the unfair electoral college system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_286635&feature=iv&index=13&list=PLqs5ohhass_TF9mg-mqLie7Fqq1-FzOQc&src_vid=OUS9mM8Xbbw&v=7wC42HgLA4k

Video was made in 2011, not from a butt hurt liberal yesterday.

Someone should have tweeted it to Obama back in 2011

[Singuy]

Someone should have tweeted it to Obama back in 2011

LoL, yeah considering how he couldn't pass sensible gun control provision (like preventing terrorist watch list people from getting guns which most people support)..I seriously doubt he can abolish the electoral system. That's pretty much ingrained into the constitution. Also the electoral college gives the red states with low population an advantage. This is why the democrats always ended up losing the electoral votes but wins the popular vote (happend 2/5 past elections since 2000). Republicans will say that Obama is trying to destroy the constitution if he brings it up.