Breaking: Trump, victories for him and US

[scooperhsd]

Ha - if they REALLY want to do something about the EC, do a proper change in the way the electors are selected (and this can be done at the state level).

I personally advocate that each state splits their electors among the candidates based on how the proportion of voters voted - so if 45% voted for one candidate, and 55% for the other candidate , you split the electors the same way (as close as possible - has to be a whole person casting the vote).

When I ran the numbers for the last elections, I believe Mr Trump still carried the Electoral College.

[scooperhsd]

No - the winner is the winner , serves (or is punished by) the entire term.

[Moonshot_1]

No - the winner is the winner , serves (or is punished by) the entire term.

Then why the proportion split at the state level? I like the "winner is the winner" concept as well.

[scooperhsd]

Because those of us who didn't vote for "the winner" don't have a vote.

I've said this before - I REALLY would like to see the Electoral College amended out of the Constitution. However, realizing the difficulty of getting such an amendment passed, I think this split is far more fair  (especially for larger states that of course have more electors).  The Electoral College had its place at the time of the ratification of our current Constitution, however, I think those reasons (speed of communications, mainly) have largely gone away.

I do not expect everybody to agree with me - just my opinion.

[baldo]

Ha - if they REALLY want to do something about the EC, do a proper change in the way the electors are selected (and this can be done at the state level).

I personally advocate that each state splits their electors among the candidates based on how the proportion of voters voted - so if 45% voted for one candidate, and 55% for the other candidate , you split the electors the same way (as close as possible - has to be a whole person casting the vote).

When I ran the numbers for the last elections, I believe Mr Trump still carried the Electoral College.

Would you suggest to use that philosophy in a general election where the candidate who gets 55% and a candidate who gets 45% would serve out 55% of the term first and 45% of the second respectively? If not, why not?

The Constitution does provide for the States to choose the way they select their Electors.

There are already two states that split their votes....

https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/

[Valker]

Because those of us who didn't vote for "the winner" don't have a vote.

I've said this before - I REALLY would like to see the Electoral College amended out of the Constitution. However, realizing the difficulty of getting such an amendment passed, I think this split is far more fair  (especially for larger states that of course have more electors).  The Electoral College had its place at the time of the ratification of our current Constitution, however, I think those reasons (speed of communications, mainly) have largely gone away.

I do not expect everybody to agree with me - just my opinion.

Speed of communication has zero to do with it.

[scooperhsd]

No - at the time of ratification - speed of communications had EVERYTHING to do with the Electoral College. Your diagram is a reflection of TODAY and today's politics on a national level. Not really applicable for a discussion on the Electoral College (which is done on a state by state basis). BTW - I DO live in a gray zone county right next to a blue zone. And without numbers - you're only making an assertion.

If you want a really convincing diagram - don't take the nation as a whole - do it as 50 states. As in - for each state, take your blue zones vs the gray ones.

[Willow]

The purpose of the electoral college was and is to somewhat mitigate the power of the popular vote by giving some power to the states themselves.  It's as valid today as it ever was and in fact it would be, in today's environment, more meaningful to provide one or more electoral votes to each state in addition to the population distribution.

Were he electoral college done away with or the electors distributed according to popular vote there would be no reason for a presidential candidate to campaign on more than six or ten states.  In simple terms it would  cause the votes in most of the states to become meaningless.     

[Serk]

The electoral college sets a floor for each state, making each state matter on it's own.

[Moonshot_1]

Ha - if they REALLY want to do something about the EC, do a proper change in the way the electors are selected (and this can be done at the state level).

I personally advocate that each state splits their electors among the candidates based on how the proportion of voters voted - so if 45% voted for one candidate, and 55% for the other candidate , you split the electors the same way (as close as possible - has to be a whole person casting the vote).

When I ran the numbers for the last elections, I believe Mr Trump still carried the Electoral College.

Would you suggest to use that philosophy in a general election where the candidate who gets 55% and a candidate who gets 45% would serve out 55% of the term first and 45% of the second respectively? If not, why not?

The Constitution does provide for the States to choose the way they select their Electors.

There are already two states that split their votes....

https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/

As I said, the Constitution provides for States to choose the manner of choosing their Electors.
The point I am making is that if you can argue that splitting such a vote is better than simply favoring a winner then why not split the time of the term to be served between the candidates? That way everyone's views can be represented.

[baldo]

Ha - if they REALLY want to do something about the EC, do a proper change in the way the electors are selected (and this can be done at the state level).

I personally advocate that each state splits their electors among the candidates based on how the proportion of voters voted - so if 45% voted for one candidate, and 55% for the other candidate , you split the electors the same way (as close as possible - has to be a whole person casting the vote).

When I ran the numbers for the last elections, I believe Mr Trump still carried the Electoral College.

Would you suggest to use that philosophy in a general election where the candidate who gets 55% and a candidate who gets 45% would serve out 55% of the term first and 45% of the second respectively? If not, why not?

The Constitution does provide for the States to choose the way they select their Electors.

There are already two states that split their votes....

https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/

As I said, the Constitution provides for States to choose the manner of choosing their Electors.
The point I am making is that if you can argue that splitting such a vote is better than simply favoring a winner then why not split the time of the term to be served between the candidates? That way everyone's views can be represented.

That's a different idea.....

[scooperhsd]

The electoral college sets a floor for each state, making each state matter on it's own.

Ok - you're doing the same flaw - PERCENTAGES and not raw numbers. Your premise is that these small areas of Clinton are , in raw numbers, larger than the corresponding to Trump.

Also, turning this around - the high density populations areas may feel the converse - that the "flyover states"  are not sensitive to THEIR needs.  Chew on that for a bit.

[Psychotic Bovine]

The very term "flyover states" shows their utter contempt for the bread basket of this country. 

[Bighead]

The very term "flyover states" shows their utter contempt for the bread basket of this country. 

Amen. Why should a few big cities have say so over the rest of the country

[The emperor has no clothes]

Flyover States :


The term is generally used perjoratively by the aforementioned coastal-dwellers, with the implication that the residents of those states are somehow less cultured and educated. Nevertheless, the people who do live there often wear the designation as a badge of pride, especially since they often see themselves as more honest and hardworking than their snobbish critics. Political divisions also play a part, due to the fact that most of the states generally considered to be in "flyover country" are more conservative than the others, and hold significant sway in national elections.

[J.Mencalice]

Flyover States :


The term is generally used perjoratively by the aforementioned coastal-dwellers, with the implication that the residents of those states are somehow less cultured and educated. Nevertheless, the people who do live there often wear the designation as a badge of pride, especially since they often see themselves as more honest and hardworking than their snobbish critics. Political divisions also play a part, due to the fact that most of the states generally considered to be in "flyover country" are more conservative than the others, and hold significant sway in national elections.

A good read from a couple of years ago by a young lady called "Flyover Nation".  Saw her interviewed on a CSPAN weekend book review show.  She is certainly passionate about her neck of the woods and she sure makes for interesting stories about the folks that live there.  I guess it can be looked up at the local library.

[scooperhsd]

And yes - I grew up in a "flyover state" (Kansas). Moving back there as soon as we get the house sold. Yes - it is a point of pride to be able to say so.

[Psychotic Bovine]

During the height of summer, and the corn, wheat, and soybeans are growing, it's humbling to think all of these farmers are toiling to feed this nation.  It does make me proud to be a Hoosier.

[Valker]

The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent the heavily populated states of the day from controlling the whole country. It was NOT a speed of communication issue. It was formed for the exact same reason that we have senators and representatives. Representatives are based on the ten year census(the only real reason it is a law) but the senate balances it for the less populated states. The entire system is full of checks and balances.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent the heavily populated states of the day from controlling the whole country. It was NOT a speed of communication issue. It was formed for the exact same reason that we have senators and representatives. Representatives are based on the ten year census(the only real reason it is a law) but the senate balances it for the less populated states. The entire system is full of checks and balances.

It’s a pretty good system in my opinion. 

[Serk]

The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent the heavily populated states of the day from controlling the whole country. It was NOT a speed of communication issue. It was formed for the exact same reason that we have senators and representatives. Representatives are based on the ten year census(the only real reason it is a law) but the senate balances it for the less populated states. The entire system is full of checks and balances.

It’s a pretty good system in my opinion. 

Dangit Scooper, stop making me agree with Mr. Head on political issues, I feel all icky and unclean and need to go take multiple showers back to back when that happens! 

[The emperor has no clothes]

The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent the heavily populated states of the day from controlling the whole country. It was NOT a speed of communication issue. It was formed for the exact same reason that we have senators and representatives. Representatives are based on the ten year census(the only real reason it is a law) but the senate balances it for the less populated states. The entire system is full of checks and balances.

It’s a pretty good system in my opinion. 

Dangit Scooper, stop making me agree with Mr. Head on political issues, I feel all icky and unclean and need to go take multiple showers back to back when that happens! 

I’m glad I could be of some use around here.

[Gavin_Sons]

Flyover States :


The term is generally used perjoratively by the aforementioned coastal-dwellers, with the implication that the residents of those states are somehow less cultured and educated. Nevertheless, the people who do live there often wear the designation as a badge of pride, especially since they often see themselves as more honest and hardworking than their snobbish critics. Political divisions also play a part, due to the fact that most of the states generally considered to be in "flyover country" are more conservative than the others, and hold significant sway in national elections.

A good read from a couple of years ago by a young lady called "Flyover Nation".  Saw her interviewed on a CSPAN weekend book review show.  She is certainly passionate about her neck of the woods and she sure makes for interesting stories about the folks that live there.  I guess it can be looked up at the local library.

Dana loesch?

[Motodad71]

The purpose of the electoral college was and is to somewhat mitigate the power of the popular vote by giving some power to the states themselves.  It's as valid today as it ever was and in fact it would be, in today's environment, more meaningful to provide one or more electoral votes to each state in addition to the population distribution.

Were he electoral college done away with or the electors distributed according to popular vote there would be no reason for a presidential candidate to campaign on more than six or ten states.  In simple terms it would  cause the votes in most of the states to become meaningless.     

Head of the nail in your comments, those founding fathers were brilliant beyond their years and in their foresight.