It's not a state. But the people voted. I repeat, neither Clinton got a majority of the vote (for president).
Nixon got something like 43%, then justified overthrowing Allende because Allende won with a plurality of 45% or something like that, but it was more than Nixon got. You wanna talk about the 2000 election now?
Are you really gonna play semantics? Don't you ever get tired of that? They got the most votes of any candidate. That better?
The "semantics " are quite important. In many places, they hold following elections between the top two vote recipients to assure an actual majority. Clinton knew the rules, hired the best strategists money can buy, and had a $billion to spend. She played to the rules. AND LOST. Trump got the most votes in 30 states. If not more. A lopsided victory in one population dense area should not determine the entire election results.
Oh, see that's my problem. I didn't know it was just one population dense area. I got bad info. My bad.
Trump won everywhere but California by millions of votes. It was only a very lopsided victory in California that barely put her over the top in the popular vote. Without the EV, you might have 5 candidates get 19% and 1 get 25%. Hardly a reasonable victory. With the EC, nobody would get the 270 to win, which is more representative of the actual result.
So instead people in Wyoming should have their vote hold more weight in the electoral college (1 electoral vote for every 715,000 people) compared to Texas (1 electoral vote for every couple million people)? Rural states are overrepresented. That's why Republics have won the presidency without winning the popular vote 4 out of the 5 times it's happened (the other one was before modern parties existed), because rural votes republican. All votes should count as one, how does that make anyone underrepresented? If anything it'll get more people out to vote in a state that surely leans one way or another.
The reason republicans lost the popular vote is there was a lopsided victory in the most populous state, run by democrats. Even so, it was very close. If it was florida, there'd have been an automatic recount
Well with the minimum 3 electoral votes per state it does give rural states more electoral votes per population, and usually that does take Republicans as well.
By your logic, there shouldn't be any representatives in congress for Montana, right? Or should the House have 10's of thousands of members? If the latter, they wouldn't get anything done ever. Or... the senate is a bad idea because each Montana senator represents far fewer people? Or maybe Montana should get some representation, which is the beauty of the system our founders came up with. 1 for the representative, 2 for the senators. That's how it goes. California still gets ~20x the representation in the electoral college. And ~60x in the House.
im not sure how saying something like: "we should determine the winner of elections based on who gets the most votes." is some weird idea. if the argument is "well, we do it a different way, so it will always be that way", then expect people to want to debate that.
5 candidates. 3 get 20%, 1 gets 21%, the other gets 19%. Most votes? I don't agree. In that scenario, nobody would get the 270, so it would go to the House. Which is probably, no certainly, the way it should be.
I'm torn about it but in fairness.....local to you is an urban center that benefits greatly from the electoral vote...Southern Cal has a lot of clout...I do understand the mess that would come with only a popular vote....could take half a first term to sort out the results
I didn't know this about Nebraska or Maine...interesting article..I read another article yesterday where a guy proposed that states with close results should pass the electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote.
Intersting. I watch a lot of YouTube videos from this site. http://www.sciencebuzz.org/topics/electoral-college-math/arguments-in-favor Be sure to click on the links within the article.
Great site....I'll enjoy reading through these ...bookmarked it. Read one for and one against. I still like the idea of a popular vote first...with neck and neck electoral votes going to the popular vote leader at the end...the majority vote still wins but the popular vote is the deciding tie breaker and you have to win it to be elected....I'll read a few more of those articles later ...thanks for the link
