What A Difference 2 Percentage Points Makes | FiveThirtyEight - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Megadave;51346443]The primary purpose of the electoral college is to prevent an incompetent/criminal president from ascending to the throne. In that purpose, it has failed, and should be either removed completely or changed entirely.[/QUOTE] The Electors haven't actually voted yet, but I doubt any of them will fall on their sword to stop Trump, let alone enough to matter.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;51347596]The Electors haven't actually voted yet, but I doubt any of them will fall on their sword to stop Trump, let alone enough to matter.[/QUOTE] If they did for some reason vote not for Trump despite being in a state that voted for him, then that'll only make things even worse. The Electoral College is stupid, but it's even stupider that in most states they aren't legally required to vote for the candidate their state supports. Imagine if say a majority of Electoral College people voted Sanders or Kaisch as President, for example. If I am correct, a lot couldn't be punished, right?

[QUOTE=catbarf;51346878]I don't understand why the electoral college needs to be maintained. In its current form with a winner-takes-all system, [b]minority political groups in a state have no power.[/b] If it were made strictly proportional, then you might as well go the whole way with a direct popular vote. A voter in a small state shouldn't have 3-4x the voting power of a Californian.[/QUOTE] yet the candidate with the least votes of the two managed to win. clearly they do have power considering the majority didn't win.

[QUOTE=stupid10er;51347672]yet the candidate with the least votes of the two managed to win. clearly they do have power considering the majority didn't win.[/QUOTE] How did you miss where I said 'in a state'? The votes of Republicans in California counted for zilch. The votes of Democrats in Texas were worthless. Trump's victory doesn't invalidate the fact that a winner-takes-all system makes it so that if your political party isn't strong enough in your state to have a decent shot of winning it, your vote makes no difference whatsoever. And that's a big part of what leads to weirdness like this, where a candidate can win despite commanding a minority of the popular vote.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51345936]It's a winner takes whatever really, a lot of it is dependent on the state. Some are winner take all, some are proportionate to the popular vote, some states require that the electorate vote with the winner of the popular vote, others can have their electorate vote against the popular. It's a ball of fuck really.[/QUOTE] I love how people massively overstate the complexity of the electoral college. It's a fucking winner take all system with a certain amount of votes allocated to every state. How hard is it to understand? Two states have congressional districts that allocated electoral votes. Faithless electors have never swung an election before, and most likely never will. Also, no state allocates electors proportional to popular vote, you probably think that because you see vote splitting in Maine and Nebraska, but that's just winner take all by congressional district. (you also may have this election confused with the primaries, which are actually confusing) That being said, it should have been abolished about 100 years ago. But really, this meme of "omg the electoral college how does it works!?!?!?!?!?!" is getting tired.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51345936]It's a winner takes whatever really, a lot of it is dependent on the state. Some are winner take all, some are proportionate to the popular vote, some states require that the electorate vote with the winner of the popular vote, others can have their electorate vote against the popular. It's a ball of fuck really.[/QUOTE] All of them are winner take all minus Maine and Nebraska.

Woah, Are you saying that Hillary would have won if she got more Electoral votes?

[QUOTE=Megadave;51346443]The primary purpose of the electoral college is to prevent an incompetent/criminal president from ascending to the throne. In that purpose, it has failed, and should be either removed completely or changed entirely.[/QUOTE] no the primary purpose of the electoral college is to be practical in an era where the fastest method of communication was to put a guy on a horse and wish him good luck

[QUOTE=Sableye;51347187]all but two are winner take all, and nebraska is two seperate states electoral wise while maine is proportional[/QUOTE] Not quite, they apportion a few electors based on the state-wide vote then the rest based on votes in congressional districts.

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;51346299]No, it doesn't. That's the whole point. Texas has tons of Democrats, but never enough to overcome the Republican hold on the state. New York is more than just NYC, and everything outside of King County, WA is Republican. The Electoral College distorts results everywhere it's used, you can't say that the distortion in California is too big without saying that distortion anywhere is too big without being arbitrarily discriminatory.[/QUOTE] [THUMB]https://i.gyazo.com/1c64d2dcc47cb529f7352aa70d860007.png[/THUMB] Not everywhere outside King County.

[QUOTE=Sovietzek;51346334]Nate Silvers trying to salvage whatever credibility he still has, too bad his career is going to recede harder than his hairline.[/QUOTE] The people responsible for Silver's career understand how polling and statistics work and recognize that when someone says "This thing has a low chance of happening" and "this thing" ends up happening it doesn't mean the person who claimed it had a low chance of happening is [I]wrong[/I].

the problem with the electoral college is how much it favors small states, not how much it favors california lol

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51349354]the problem with the electoral college is how much it favors small states, not how much it favors california lol[/QUOTE] That's the entire point of having the college. Like I've always said.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51349564]That's the entire point of having the college. Like I've always said.[/QUOTE] Like most of us already knew. I haven't seen a good argument for why small states should have more of a say over foreign or social policy, though, or why four Californians having the same voting power as a guy from Wyoming is the perfect mix, or why the system is worth the downsides such as voter apathy and not actually resulting in attention being paid to smaller states but rather swing states, which Florida proves can be something else entirely. Like I get why it was put in place, but I don't get why people want it to [I]stay[/I] in place.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51349857]Like most of us already knew. I haven't seen a good argument for why small states should have more of a say over foreign or social policy, though, or why four Californians having the same voting power as a guy from Wyoming is the perfect mix, or why the system is worth the downsides such as voter apathy and not actually resulting in attention being paid to smaller states but rather swing states, which Florida proves can be something else entirely. Like I get why it was put in place, but I don't get why people want it to [I]stay[/I] in place.[/QUOTE] a lot of those small states were given that power for their farms and natural resources. the high populous cities depend on the outlying farms in the same way that the largely blue California depends on surrounding red states for water. [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] dont fuck with the people that feed you. you need them to be happy

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51349882]a lot of those small states were given that power for their farms and natural resources. the high populous cities depend on the outlying farms in the same way that the largely blue California depends on surrounding red states for water. [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] dont fuck with the people that feed you. [B]you need them to be happy[/B][/QUOTE] Yeah, we kinda manage to do that in Denmark, too. If the farmers become too unhappy, we kinda, y'know, give them some concessions - like we do with other industries in this country. We don't let them vote four times, though, just because they live in some specific area of the country. And how about the people in those states living in the cities, not producing food? Why do they get get to decide more? You also kinda wrote that in past tense, while I asked for reasons why it's needed or useful [I]today[/I]. Beyond a vague threat of the food producing population pulling off a revolution or whatever, what good arguments do you have?

You have to get past this 1 vote = 4 vote crap and look at the bigger picture about how our government is ran constitutionally. Once you have a firm grasp on that, then everyone should realize how stupid of an idea it is for us to scrap the electoral college.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51350051]You have to get past this 1 vote = 4 vote crap and look at the bigger picture about how our government is ran constitutionally. Once you have a firm grasp on that, then everyone should realize how stupid of an idea it is for us to scrap the electoral college.[/QUOTE] Can you explain it, please?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51350051]You have to get past this 1 vote = 4 vote crap and look at the bigger picture about how our government is ran constitutionally. Once you have a firm grasp on that, then everyone should realize how stupid of an idea it is for us to scrap the electoral college.[/QUOTE] I ask you to explain me why the thing is so great, and instead you say "well if you understood, you'd know" - how great. If you feel like actually explaining it to me, please, feel free.

'It is in the Constitution' isn't a be-all-end-all argument

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51350051]You have to get past this 1 vote = 4 vote crap and look at the bigger picture about how our government is ran constitutionally. Once you have a firm grasp on that, then everyone should realize how stupid of an idea it is for us to scrap the electoral college.[/QUOTE] What would you say if I said that I dont think that the Constitution is infallible? Because a vast majority of our constituents, legislators, and even the framers of the constitution would likely agree with me considering the very existence of amendments.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51350000]Yeah, we kinda manage to do that in Denmark, too. If the farmers become too unhappy, we kinda, y'know, give them some concessions - like we do with other industries in this country. We don't let them vote four times, though, just because they live in some specific area of the country. And how about the people in those states living in the cities, not producing food? Why do they get get to decide more? You also kinda wrote that in past tense, while I asked for reasons why it's needed or useful [I]today[/I]. Beyond a vague threat of the food producing population pulling off a revolution or whatever, what good arguments do you have?[/QUOTE] New York city still ain't a farm hub and geographically/state for state speaking the majority of the country is red. The electoral college hasn't been stagnant for all those years either and has adjusted based on census outcomes. A farmers vote isn't worth 4 votes it's worth 1 vote in his state. Certain states have a bigger worth to help compensate for their population ratios. It's needed today to make sure that all states have a say in the electoral process and so that the election isn't completely up to the biggest states by population. Even with this system the dem's have won many times, it's not hard when people vote. It's intentionally more difficult for a candidate to win by focusing only on those high populace centres to promote campaigning in the lower states as well. We use similar artificial voter inflation techniques in Canada as well to make sure our minority provinces have influence [editline]11th November 2016[/editline] Come up with an amendment that doesn't have obvious fall out for these minority states and you'll probably see it made, but as it stands we don't really have a prepared solution to do this.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51352256]Whatever you say about "electoral college exists to make small states matter" is bullshit at the end of the day because in the end only battleground states matter[/QUOTE] Did you see the jigsaw of states that mattered in Tuesday? They were considered locks for the Dems, but ended up being their entire demise. No one expected Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire to be the focus.

Is all this talk of getting rid of the electoral college serious? Is it something that can be changed realistically or would there be too much overall pressure? Has it even been attempted? Or is it more an issue brought up when someone's candidate loses, but is then forgotten until the next loss. Wasn't that what happened to Gore? Then there was 8 years of Obama, so I am wondering was there an attempt to fix this system, did it fail or was it never tried since the backlash would be too great?

[QUOTE=Fetret;51352579]Is all this talk of getting rid of the electoral college serious? Is it something that can be changed realistically or would there be too much overall pressure? Has it even been attempted? Or is it more an issue brought up when someone's candidate loses, but is then forgotten until the next loss. Wasn't that what happened to Gore? Then there was 8 years of Obama, so I am wondering was there an attempt to fix this system, did it fail or was it never tried since the backlash would be too great?[/QUOTE] Even though I've discussed this issue a lot even when it weren't thoroughly topical as right now, I don't think it can be realistically changed. The best case scenario seems to be proportional votes in each state, as that's apparently up to the state to decide - spreading awareness of the problem is key, though.

[QUOTE=Fetret;51352579]Is all this talk of getting rid of the electoral college serious? Is it something that can be changed realistically or would there be too much overall pressure? Has it even been attempted? Or is it more an issue brought up when someone's candidate loses, but is then forgotten until the next loss. Wasn't that what happened to Gore? Then there was 8 years of Obama, so I am wondering was there an attempt to fix this system, did it fail or was it never tried since the backlash would be too great?[/QUOTE] The people with the power to change the system are the ones who benefit from it by definition. Why would the Senators from the small states and the swing states ever agree to something that reduces the power their states have.

[QUOTE=Fetret;51352579]Is all this talk of getting rid of the electoral college serious? Is it something that can be changed realistically or would there be too much overall pressure? Has it even been attempted? Or is it more an issue brought up when someone's candidate loses, but is then forgotten until the next loss. Wasn't that what happened to Gore? Then there was 8 years of Obama, so I am wondering was there an attempt to fix this system, did it fail or was it never tried since the backlash would be too great?[/QUOTE] It realistically cannot be changed as it's going to need an amendment. States however can change [I] how[/I] they give their votes. Look at Maine or Nebraska

i don't think the polls were wrong, i think they didn't take into account that democrats didn't come out to vote also i don't understand the "electoral college is good for smaller states" argument most of the time campaigning was in michigan, florida, ohio and pennsylvania what candidate was spending a lot of time in idaho, oregon, nebraska?

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51350207]'It is in the Constitution' isn't a be-all-end-all argument[/QUOTE] let's uphold the values of our founding fathers! [quote]Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.[/quote] uh nvm It is true that we probably can't kill the electoral college. At best I think the federal government can mandate that electors vote proportionally based on their state's wishes. [QUOTE=Untouch;51354307]i don't think the polls were wrong, i think they didn't take into account that democrats didn't come out to vote also i don't understand the "electoral college is good for smaller states" argument most of the time campaigning was in michigan, florida, ohio and pennsylvania what candidate was spending a lot of time in idaho, oregon, nebraska?[/QUOTE] Yep, whether you're big or small is irrelevant, whether you're a swing state or not is

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51350207]'It is in the Constitution' isn't a be-all-end-all argument[/QUOTE] [URL="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-people-hate-the-electoral-college-but-its-not-going-away-soon/"]Heres[/URL] why the electoral college (probably) will never be changed. And the bottom line is: Its in the constitution and that makes its next to impossible to change - Especially when it has only hurt Democrats, ever.