Trump vs Hillary 2016

Quote: Evenbob

With winner take all, AK wouldn't
matter. All the blue areas would
elect a Dem every time.

Voting population of Alaska: approx 280,000. Since 78 (or before) it's voted Republican. The 40% of Dem voters aren't represented, and Alaska 'doesn't matter' as it's almost always 3 red votes. 0 general election campaigns went ahead in Alaska.

It already 'doesn't matter'.

If you care that people are voting illegally, that's a different issue from winner takes all being flawed. That's a problem with the system in place, and the states need to fix it. Just like they need to ensure that any electronic voting machines aren't hacked, and there's a paper trail. Many countries around the world have secure elections. If the US can't, isn't it already a banana republic?

The popular vote card is always played by a party that loses the election and wins the popular vote. Our current prime minister Trudeau when he was running in the last federal election played to whining lefties and promised to change the voting system if elected. Our right wing party in Canada (Conservatives) had been in power for 10 years and never had close to 50% of the vote. Trudeau got elected and polled just under 40% but has a nice majority in our house of commons. It is interesting that there has been no whining from the right side, whining seems to be more of a leftie thing.

Trudeau started to follow through on his promise and made some move to change the system by strucking a committee to look at alternatives. It seems he is probably going to let it fade away and die since polling has shown 70 to 80% are against any change. This even reinforces my whining comment above. The right accept the results of legal elections and decisions that they are against. Lefties always think that they do not need to accept any legal decisions that they do not personally want.

I also find it interesting that the lefties hold themselves up to be the protectors of the minorities and make sure they have representation in the world. What is the EC but a means of making sure that the small states have some meaning full representation and are not run over by the larger states. After all isn't the name of your country the United STATES of America.

Quote: kenarman

The popular vote card is always played by a party that loses the election and wins the popular vote. Our current prime minister Trudeau when he was running in the last federal election played to whining lefties and promised to change the voting system if elected. Our right wing party in Canada (Conservatives) had been in power for 10 years and never had close to 50% of the vote. Trudeau got elected and polled just under 40% but has a nice majority in our house of commons. It is interesting that there has been no whining from the right side, whining seems to be more of a leftie thing.

Trudeau started to follow through on his promise and made some move to change the system by strucking a committee to look at alternatives. It seems he is probably going to let it fade away and die since polling has shown 70 to 80% are against any change. This even reinforces my whining comment above. The right accept the results of legal elections and decisions that they are against. Lefties always think that they do not need to accept any legal decisions that they do not personally want.

I thought it was 75% were in favour of electoral reform in Canada? Probably misremembered.

My preference would be that there is still constituency MPs, but 50 seats awarded proportionally to the national vote. It would reduce the need for the leaders to have to also do constituency work, and have some reflection of the nation as a whole (there's about a 5%-8% Green vote, but only one MP, for example).

Quote:

I also find it interesting that the lefties hold themselves up to be the protectors of the minorities and make sure they have representation in the world. What is the EC but a means of making sure that the small states have some meaning full representation and are not run over by the larger states. After all isn't the name of your country the United STATES of America.

I understand the boost to smaller states in the Senate (2 senators per state). It makes less sense when voting for a single position, as it assumes the states are monochromatic, which they aren't. It's far more nuanced. Just look at the maps of per district. Strong Red states have blue enclaves, and vice versa. When voting for the single elected post of the leader of the nation, it seems an aberration that 1 vote in Wyoming carries more weight than in California.

Quote: Pacomartin

Changing the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment, so that is not going to happen.
.

Like Nate Silver pointed out, congress
tried to change it 700 times in the last
200 years to no avail. There really is
nothing better. The votes are counted
fast and efficiently with little blowback.

Like the experts point out, with a winner
take all system, there would always be
countless recount demands and vote
tampering, it could take months before
the results are known. The way we do it
with the EC, we know hours after the
polls close who won.

Quote: kenarman

Trudeau got elected and polled just under 40% but has a nice majority in our house of commons. It is interesting that there has been no whining from the right side, whining seems to be more of a leftie thing.

While I wouldn't have preferred McCain or Romney if they won, I hardly would question how we got them if they had won. This is more about why someone like Trump gets elected as far as I'm concerned. When he's 2.5 million votes behind the popular vote he is not that popular.

I would also question how someone like Rob Ford got elected, if he wasn't a popular winner either. (I'm just using him as an example I'd be concerned about being in office, yeah, I know he's dead. People may like what he did, but he was hardly fit for office for awhile there.

Quote: rxwine

While I wouldn't have preferred McCain or Romney if they won, I hardly would question how we got them if they had won. This is more about why someone like Trump gets elected as far as I'm concerned. When he's 2.5 million votes behind the popular vote he is not that popular.

How is simple. Even if you assume no illegal alien vote, which I will do for the sake of argument, Hillary won California by 4 million votes. So he is "not that popular" in California, but he is in the rest of the USA. California has almost always been way out of step with the nation, this is just the latest.

In other Trump news you have to be loving how nuts the press is over Trump talking with world leaders. Press and State Dept alike. He is reaching out like an alpha male who gets results and well that is not how it is done. Of course, how it is done is why we have much of the mess we do. Perhaps some straight talking does better?

Quote: AZDuffman

In other Trump news you have to be loving how nuts the press is over Trump talking with world leaders. Press and State Dept alike. He is reaching out like an alpha male who gets results and well that is not how it is done. Of course, how it is done is why we have much of the mess we do. Perhaps some straight talking does better?

Rogue comes to mind. I see rogue actors as people like Patton. They're useful for special purposes, but you need someone who practices more self-control over them. You don't let them go higher than that position.

I note, while a business man, everything he had, was his to gain or lose. I don't trust him because he's playing with all our stuff not his. And he's a rogue actor, imo.

Quote: rxwine

When he's 2.5 million votes behind the popular vote he is not that popular.

So what!! In 1992 Bill Clinton won
when 56% of Americans voted
against him. He was 14 million behind
in the popular vote, but steam rolled
the EC with 370votes! Where was all
screaming and wailing & crying over
that election?

Everybody is tearing their hair out over
2.5 mil? Clinton got 44% of the popular
vote, 56% didn't want him as president.
Where were the riots over that?

Quote: rxwine

While I wouldn't have preferred McCain or Romney if they won, I hardly would question how we got them if they had won. This is more about why someone like Trump gets elected as far as I'm concerned. When he's 2.5 million votes behind the popular vote he is not that popular.

I would also question how someone like Rob Ford got elected, if he wasn't a popular winner either. (I'm just using him as an example I'd be concerned about being in office, yeah, I know he's dead. People may like what he did, but he was hardly fit for office for awhile there.

You use 2.5 million like it means something. Put it in perspective as a percentage, as a stand alone number it means nothing. But 2% doesn't sound as impressive or if I wanted to play that game Hillary received 1% more of the eligible voters. So if you gather 100 people and they split 50/50 for Trump thats okay? Now you have 1 person switch sides and either he becomes popular or unpopular depending which side they stand on? That makes no sense to me. When his approval rating drops to 40% in the polls you can call him unpopular, actually make that 35% since we know the polls will still be biased against him.

Rob Ford was elected with the most votes of any of the candidates but as in most mayorality races in Canada their are multiple candidates and seldom does any candidate receive more than 50%. The city councillors are even worse were you can usually get elected if you receive over 10% in a large city. Rob Ford was actually quite popular (in the Trump kind of way you discount) and likely would have gotten elected again if he hadn't had to drop out because of cancer.

Damn it Bob, please refrain from trying to confuse people with facts. Please stick to innuendos and rhetoric.