Two Counties Gave HRC her ENTIRE PV Plurality
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:21:13 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Dereich)
  Two Counties Gave HRC her ENTIRE PV Plurality
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Two Counties Gave HRC her ENTIRE PV Plurality  (Read 7715 times)
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,661


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 29, 2016, 10:24:20 PM »

Get rid of Cook County, IL and Los Angeles County, CA, and Trump wins the PV.  This is why we have the EC- to protect the rest of America from two counties out of over 3000.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2016, 10:37:12 PM »

Get rid of Cook County, IL and Los Angeles County, CA, and Trump wins the PV.  This is why we have the EC- to protect the rest of America from two counties out of over 3000.

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement and argument to make....

So now Presidential elections should be decided on the basis of what political party wins the most counties in either a given state or nationally???

Andrew Jackson would be turning over in his grave just reading such an insane argument for universal disenfranchisement....

I can't believe you have a Tennessee avatar, and are representing an ultimate Anti-Jacksonian position when it comes to elections in America, and need to assume you are deliberately just trying to "poke the sleeping dog with a stick" and not actually serious about this at all.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2016, 10:39:45 PM »

Oh. So our Founding Fathers assumed that Cook County and Los Angeles County could not possibly elect the right person to be President.
The one and only way to assure that the right person gets elected President is by making sure that the winner has the support of the most counties.
Not the most voters, but the most counties.
Uh-huh.
I think that if a simple, first-past-the-post method of electing the Governor of a state is good enough for nearly all states, then it's good enough of a method to elect the President of the United States.
The Chief Executive of a state compared to the Chief Executive of the United States -- why should the method of electing the latter be different than the method of electing the former?
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2016, 11:02:03 AM »

The Republican attacks on people who live in urban areas are disgusting.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2016, 11:31:38 AM »

I guess the OP would be a stalwart supporter of this very representative system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Unit_System
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2016, 12:01:35 PM »

four counties (which combined are smaller than either cook or l.a.co.) gave trump his entire (alleged) electoral college majority

(s. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=253682.0)
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2016, 02:29:01 PM »

A compromise would be for all of USA to adopt the ME NE system for EV.    Under that system the Dems would have to be much more rural in nature to stay competitive. 
Logged
Fubart Solman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,696
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2016, 11:36:11 PM »

A compromise would be for all of USA to adopt the ME NE system for EV.    Under that system the Dems would have to be much more rural in nature to stay competitive. 

That would be a great idea if congress districts weren't massively Gerrymandered. Romney would've won in 2012 and I guarantee that Trump would still have won 2016, despite both losing the popular vote.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2016, 11:53:16 PM »

And just one state (Texas) gave Trump his ENTIRE EC win. Cook and LA are HUGE and tossing them aside like they're less important than a county of 2,000 residents is ridiculous. Sorry, but if you believe that rural votes are worth more than urban votes, you don't believe in democracy. Yes, there are more people living in urban or suburban areas. There are also more white people, more women, and more people who are working class. If you don't like the fact that urban voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic, maybe you could try, you know, finding out why they do, seeing them as people who happen to think differently from you, and consider that the Republican Party might need to make some tweaks if it's going to appeal to more voters in these areas. Treating urban voters like they're garbage and deserve to be sidelined... not a good strategy. I realize that the Democrats have sidelined rural voters too much as well, but this issue goes both ways, and it's time both sides acknowledged this.
Logged
BaldEagle1991
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,660
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2016, 12:21:29 AM »

And just one state (Texas) gave Trump his ENTIRE EC win. Cook and LA are HUGE and tossing them aside like they're less important than a county of 2,000 residents is ridiculous. Sorry, but if you believe that rural votes are worth more than urban votes, you don't believe in democracy. Yes, there are more people living in urban or suburban areas. There are also more white people, more women, and more people who are working class. If you don't like the fact that urban voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic, maybe you could try, you know, finding out why they do, seeing them as people who happen to think differently from you, and consider that the Republican Party might need to make some tweaks if it's going to appeal to more voters in these areas. Treating urban voters like they're garbage and deserve to be sidelined... not a good strategy. I realize that the Democrats have sidelined rural voters too much as well, but this issue goes both ways, and it's time both sides acknowledged this.

Don't blame Texas for this! Florida was a huge factor.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2016, 01:50:27 AM »

>sigh<

I am honestly not sure how to explain the concept that "a vote is a vote" and that arbitrary political boundaries should not be used to justify weighting some ballots more than others, so I'm going to tell a story in the hopes that we can finally lay this argument to rest.

***

Many centuries ago, there lived a good and wise king who was nearing the end of his life. Having no children to inherit the throne after his death, he decreed that the crown would pass to he who would win the most for his people.

The terms were announced three years from the day when the choice of the new king would be made, and the contenders for the throne instructed to prepare their dowries. Though many pronounced intent to claim the prize, by the end of the three years but two men appeared at court to make their offering to the kingdom.

The first man, a merchant who had won great wealth from the ports of far-off lands, came smartly into the hall. He was followed by three attendants; each attendant carried a great oak coffer, and each coffer contained 1,000 gold talents.

"My liege," said the merchant, "I bring you these three coffers of gold, which I have earned by the careful execution of my trade, and which I now intend to bestow upon the people, should you be so just as to deliver unto me the throne."

At the conclusion of his speech, the second man entered the room. He was a soldier, the conqueror of many lands, and he drew behind him a cart on which were piled 5,000 talents of the same make and metal as those in the coffers of the merchant.

"My good and gracious king," said he, "all this I have won in the conquest of our enemies, and this I now present to you, that it may be given to the people when I shall be their ruler."

The king's trusted chancellor, having heard these speeches, approached the two and said, "Verily, then the merchant shall be king, for he has brought three coffers of gold, while the soldier offers but one cart."

"Not so," said the monarch, "you have mistaken the product for the parts. By the rules of our compact, the soldier shall be king; for while the merchant's gift comes in more containers, the soldier's is the greater sum; and whether it is drawn in one cart or in twenty, its value is the same."
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2016, 03:18:41 AM »

>sigh<

I am honestly not sure how to explain the concept that "a vote is a vote" and that arbitrary political boundaries should not be used to justify weighting some ballots more than others, so I'm going to tell a story in the hopes that we can finally lay this argument to rest.

***

Many centuries ago, there lived a good and wise king who was nearing the end of his life. Having no children to inherit the throne after his death, he decreed that the crown would pass to he who would win the most for his people.

The terms were announced three years from the day when the choice of the new king would be made, and the contenders for the throne instructed to prepare their dowries. Though many pronounced intent to claim the prize, by the end of the three years but two men appeared at court to make their offering to the kingdom.

The first man, a merchant who had won great wealth from the ports of far-off lands, came smartly into the hall. He was followed by three attendants; each attendant carried a great oak coffer, and each coffer contained 1,000 gold talents.

"My liege," said the merchant, "I bring you these three coffers of gold, which I have earned by the careful execution of my trade, and which I now intend to bestow upon the people, should you be so just as to deliver unto me the throne."

At the conclusion of his speech, the second man entered the room. He was a soldier, the conqueror of many lands, and he drew behind him a cart on which were piled 5,000 talents of the same make and metal as those in the coffers of the merchant.

"My good and gracious king," said he, "all this I have won in the conquest of our enemies, and this I now present to you, that it may be given to the people when I shall be their ruler."

The king's trusted chancellor, having heard these speeches, approached the two and said, "Verily, then the merchant shall be king, for he has brought three coffers of gold, while the soldier offers but one cart."

"Not so," said the monarch, "you have mistaken the product for the parts. By the rules of our compact, the soldier shall be king; for while the merchant's gift comes in more containers, the soldier's is the greater sum; and whether it is drawn in one cart or in twenty, its value is the same."

yeah but the kingdom was A Republic, Not A Democracy
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2016, 08:39:25 AM »

Get rid of York and Lancaster County, PA, Livingston County, MI and Waukesha County, WI  and Clinton wins the EV. This is why we should have the PV- to protect the rest of America from four counties out of over 3000.
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2016, 10:15:41 AM »

Get rid of York and Lancaster County, PA, Livingston County, MI and Waukesha County, WI  and Clinton wins the EV. This is why we should have the PV- to protect the rest of America from four counties out of over 3000.
exactly
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2016, 10:27:04 AM »

LOL. This statement is ridiculous, ExtremeRepublican.

Shouldn’t every vote count the same? Just imagine you live in a county that heavily votes Republican in a statewide race, while your party wins that election with a one percent margin. What now if a Democrat comes around and says: “If we remove this county, we would have won!”. What would be your reaction? Would you like that?

You can get almost any result if you want, if you remove certain areas of a state. You could turn CA red or UT blue. Trying to win more votes than your opponent… isn’t democracy supposed to be about this simple principal?
Logged
libertpaulian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2016, 02:37:08 PM »

LOL. This statement is ridiculous, ExtremeRepublican.

Shouldn’t every vote count the same? Just imagine you live in a county that heavily votes Republican in a statewide race, while your party wins that election with a one percent margin. What now if a Democrat comes around and says: “If we remove this county, we would have won!”. What would be your reaction? Would you like that?

You can get almost any result if you want, if you remove certain areas of a state. You could turn CA red or UT blue. Trying to win more votes than your opponent… isn’t democracy supposed to be about this simple principal?

That's why we're thankfully not a democracy.
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2016, 02:44:15 PM »

This is a weak argument. The reason for the electoral college, like so many things laid out in the constitution, is to provide checks and balances, int his case on the larger states. It's not about counties. It's about holding back "the violence of factions" frequently mentioned in the federalist papers.

That said, the electoral college does need reform. I would prefer that the winner of each state get two electors and then have the rest be proportionally distributed. That would provide greater incentives to vote in safely red and blue states. Perhaps the Cruz supporters down in Texas who didn't show up to vote for Trump would have done so reluctantly if they thought their votes actually mattered in stopping Clinton and the same goes for all those anti-Trump protesters in Portland and elsewhere who didn't even vote.

Perhaps we could compromise by using the Mexican system to elect our president. In that, the candidate with the most votes wins, but every voter must show a photo ID proving their citizenship and eligibility to vote. Democrats get a popular vote. GOP gets voter ID. Sounds like a good compromise to me!
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,124
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2016, 02:58:29 PM »
« Edited: December 01, 2016, 03:10:04 PM by TimTurner »

This is a weak argument. The reason for the electoral college, like so many things laid out in the constitution, is to provide checks and balances, int his case on the larger states. It's not about counties. It's about holding back "the violence of factions" frequently mentioned in the federalist papers.
Too many people on this site don't really understand the level of prescient wisdom in our constitutional framework.
I am not dead-set against reforming the EC altogether. But I think we ought to be very careful about how we tamper with it, if we tamper with it. America has had a record of stability that few other nations can dream of matching. We shouldn't be trash-talking our constitutional framework, we should be talking it up!
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2016, 03:02:05 PM »

I am yet to hear a reasonable argument for why some citizens ought to have more representation than others, and yet that is the end result of all arguments for why the majority ought to be disenfranchised in favor of giving extra votes to arbitrarily drawn, sparsely populated political districts. If it is indeed true that "governments... [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed," ought not the will of the governed be the most important factor in selecting the head of government?

Perhaps we could compromise by using the Mexican system to elect our president. In that, the candidate with the most votes wins, but every voter must show a photo ID proving their citizenship and eligibility to vote. Democrats get a popular vote. GOP gets voter ID. Sounds like a good compromise to me!
I could support this, provided we take the necessary steps to ensure that all voting age citizens receive a photo ID.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2016, 05:42:45 PM »

I am yet to hear a reasonable argument for why some citizens ought to have more representation than others, and yet that is the end result of all arguments for why the majority ought to be disenfranchised in favor of giving extra votes to arbitrarily drawn, sparsely populated political districts. If it is indeed true that "governments... [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed," ought not the will of the governed be the most important factor in selecting the head of government?

The implied sensibility is inevitably that the (even in this election) relatively more well-heeled people who vote for Republicans count as 'the governed', whereas the riffraff who vote for Democrats deserve to be ruled.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I could support this, provided we take the necessary steps to ensure that all voting age citizens receive a photo ID.
[/quote]

^
Logged
FrancoAgo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 665
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -6.66, S: -3.33

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2016, 07:27:48 PM »

I think that for a federal nation like US the EC has solid bases for work, but need some limit to state population there is too difference within California and Wyoming
w/o population limit the EC could distort the vote

put that the 50 states have around the same census population what would happen?
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,661


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2016, 03:26:09 AM »

I think that for a federal nation like US the EC has solid bases for work, but need some limit to state population there is too difference within California and Wyoming
w/o population limit the EC could distort the vote

put that the 50 states have around the same census population what would happen?

We use the state redristicting tool to gerrymander the new states every 10 years
Logged
Bismarck
Chancellor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,343


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2016, 02:36:58 PM »

Hypothetically if a republican candidate got 90% of the vote in the southern states and won the popular vote but lost all the other states should that person be president?  I don't think so.
Logged
Skye
yeah_93
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,579
Venezuela


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2016, 07:21:15 PM »

Reverse Bandit thread.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2016, 10:13:46 PM »

Hypothetically if a republican candidate got 90% of the vote in the southern states and won the popular vote but lost all the other states should that person be president?  I don't think so.

If you get the most votes, you should win, regardless of where those people live.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 13 queries.