electoral college thread for liblib to hate on

[sonofdaxjones]

Less than 400K votes seperate the two. 

[420seriouscat69]

Stupid JOhnson! Taking the popular vote away from Trump over Hillary. 

[Tobias]

she got over 2 million more votes than him? what was gore's popular vote margin over bush?

last i saw was like 500k

[steve dave]

ok. I saw it on twitter linking to a NYT page that was probably using old data.

[Tobias]

ny times

[Rage Against the McKee]

Maybe, with only the candidates on the ballot, you are to arrange them in an sd-like list from party balls, SLTH, to BID status.  Party balls candidates receive a +1 vote, SLTH candidates get 0, and BID get a -1.  It's possible that every candidate get a +1 or -1 rating.  Then all the +1's and 0's and -1's are totaled for each state, and then the regular EC takes over.  In this scenario, radical Republicans and Democrats might still give the Gary Johnson type's the +1, and he could carry a state and it would be a good compromise between two finger-down-throat candidates.

Yes, I've thought about a negative vote system also. Each voter could allocate one positive vote and one negative vote. The candidate with the most negatives cannot win.

In this scenario tho, HRC would have lost by an even bigger margin.

No, all the people that voted 3rd party would have voted a + vote for their 3rd party candidate and a - vote for Trump. Trump would have gotten the most negative votes and therefore not allowed to win.

Johnson would have won under that system. Trump and Clinton would both finish close to 0. Nobody would waste a - vote on a 3rd party.

[stunted]

if the election was actually fair, trump wins the popular in a landslide. love the crying though.

[sys]

clinton will probably be up by about a million when all the votes are counted (most of the remaining votes are from california).

[stunted]

clinton will probably be up by about a million when all the votes are counted (most of the remaining votes are from california).

if the election was actually fair, trump wins the popular in a landslide. love the crying though.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Add Eric Holder to the list of reactionary liberals who want to abolish the electoral college.

[star seed 7]

Add Eric Holder to the list of reactionary liberals who want to abolish the electoral college.

He's a very smart man

[Mrs. Gooch]

Maybe, with only the candidates on the ballot, you are to arrange them in an sd-like list from party balls, SLTH, to BID status.  Party balls candidates receive a +1 vote, SLTH candidates get 0, and BID get a -1.  It's possible that every candidate get a +1 or -1 rating.  Then all the +1's and 0's and -1's are totaled for each state, and then the regular EC takes over.  In this scenario, radical Republicans and Democrats might still give the Gary Johnson type's the +1, and he could carry a state and it would be a good compromise between two finger-down-throat candidates.

Yes, I've thought about a negative vote system also. Each voter could allocate one positive vote and one negative vote. The candidate with the most negatives cannot win.

In this scenario tho, HRC would have lost by an even bigger margin.

No, all the people that voted 3rd party would have voted a + vote for their 3rd party candidate and a - vote for Trump. Trump would have gotten the most negative votes and therefore not allowed to win.

Johnson would have won under that system. Trump and Clinton would both finish close to 0. Nobody would waste a - vote on a 3rd party.

No you don't add the positive and negative votes together. The negative is more like a "Hell No!" vote.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Add Eric Holder to the list of reactionary liberals who want to abolish the electoral college.

He's a very smart man

Yeah not knowing who the president is while recounts are conducted across the nation sounds awesome. Florida 2k x 50.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Eric Holder is so smart he could write a legal opinion stating the constitutionally established electoral college system can be abolished by executive order.

#fascism

[sys]

Yeah not knowing who the president is while recounts are conducted across the nation sounds awesome. Florida 2k x 50.

it's cute (if being stupid is cute) that you think national elections would be close enough for recounts.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yeah not knowing who the president is while recounts are conducted across the nation sounds awesome. Florida 2k x 50.

it's cute (if being stupid is cute) that you think national elections would be close enough for recounts.

You're kidding right? I think you're kidding. Let's go with that.

[sys]

there hasn't been a presidential election with a popular vote margin of less than 500k in over a century.

[sys]

oops, kennedy-nixon was 112k 56 years ago.  i think my point remains.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

No it really doesn't. Bush v. Gore was decided by less than half of one percent. Trump v. Clinton will likewise be decided by less than 1%. In most states that is automatic grounds for recount.

Moreover, they're still counting votes now! If the electoral college did not exist, we still wouldn't know who our president is, and I guarantee you we'd be having Bush v. Gore in every state of the union right now. That really cannot be denied. The same would have also happened in 2000. In a country of over 350 million people we should thank our lucky stars we have something more sophisticated than the popular vote. The Founders were wise. Eric Holder and his ilk are morons.

[sys]

No it really doesn't. Bush v. Gore was decided by less than half of one percent. Trump v. Clinton will likewise be decided by less than 1%. In most states that is automatic grounds for recount.

Moreover, they're still counting votes now! If the electoral college did not exist, we still wouldn't know who our president is, and I guarantee you we'd be having Bush v. Gore in every state of the union right now. That really cannot be denied.

not only can it be denied, it is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) drivel.

1. clinton will very likely win the popular vote by over 1%.
2. under 1% does not trigger an automatic recount in most states.
3. you're right, they're still counting votes now in many states, and yet we've known who the president elect will be for days.  the same would be true without an electoral college.  just as we can now project state winners before all votes are counted, we'd be just as capable of the same nationwide.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Gore'S popular vote margin was almost exactly one half of one percent. And even that number was in flux for weeks after the election as straggling votes continued to be counted. If you really believe the Florida recount wouldn't have gone national with such a small and changing margin, I don't know what to tell you.

The same goes for 2016. Hillary's current margin is .45%. And they're still counting votes! Now you can predict that Hillary's margin will continue to grow, and you may likely be right, but if you're really telling yourself that Trump or ANY candidate would accept such results while votes were still being counted - particularly military absentee ballots - and without recounts, you are out of your mind.

[Kat Kid]

The process should be even more electoral-y.  Have each county be winner-take-all.  Makes individual votes even more important and doesn't lump city people and hicks together.

That's an interesting idea.  Would each county be weighed the same (i.e. Riley County KS and Cook County IL are each "1")? 

No, by population proportion.

I'd actually want to break it down even smaller than counties, but I think counties is the smallest thing we have that virtually everyone lives in one of.

Well, you could do precincts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sys]

now over a million vote difference.  amazing how people were able to project that at 8 pm on the 8th instead of waiting a week amidst confusion and chaos.

[stunted]

grats sys, when will clinton be inaugurated?

[sys]

my post was for ksu-w, stunted.  he doesn't think americans are smart enough to hold a national election.