Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Trump on The Electoral College rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Clinton Smith
United States
Port Arthur
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just now listened to Donald Trump explain that the Electoral College makes it very difficult for the Democrats to lose presidential elections, and it makes it very difficult for the Republicans to win presidential elections.


He is an astoundingly dumb man.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Although as time and the population demographics change, I would say he may be right. Clearly only a few states in this Union actually can be lableled as true swing states, and those are tending to grow in terms of minority populations, whom don't always favor Dems, but in general, do.

One only need to take a look at the past 40 years of electoral maps to see that the center of the country in general swings Repub, (what one might term the Bible Belt and the Heartland), while coastal states tend to lean Democratic.

I am convinced, that, if the Repubs do not begin focusing their efforts on attracting more minority voters, especially in those states that might be categorized as 'swing', then they will be in a world of hurt in 20 or 30 more years.

271 electoral college votes needed to win;

California - 55
Texas - 38
Florida - 29
Pennsylvania - 20
Illinois - 20
New York - 29

These 6 states have 191 electoral votes, which is 70% of what you need to win the Presidency.

California - Solid Blue
Texas - Solid Red, but possibly changing in the future?
Florida - Swing State
Pennsylvania - Swing State
Illinois - Usually Blue
New York - Usually Blue

Is it any wonder that;

a) Candidates focus their time on these key states
b) The Republicans may have a hard time, other than Texas, they have to work hard for the rest of those states.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am no U.S. Presidential scholar but I maintain that Donald Trump is the dumbest man to ever hold the office of president of the United States.

Does anyone more schooled in the history of the office have information to counter my claim?
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Pustilnik
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Twice in recent history (2000 and 2016) the Democrats had more popular votes than the Republicans but lost the election. Therefore, it is clear to me that the electoral college favors the Republicans. For now.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MikePustilnik wrote:
Twice in recent history (2000 and 2016) the Democrats had more popular votes than the Republicans but lost the election. Therefore, it is clear to me that the electoral college favors the Republicans. For now.


When speaking about the Electoral college, the overall popular vote is inconsequential, meaning they are not in the same equation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desertfox2004 wrote:
I am no U.S. Presidential scholar but I maintain that Donald Trump is the dumbest man to ever hold the office of president of the United States.

Does anyone more schooled in the history of the office have information to counter my claim?


There is a brick wall that swayed oh so slightly, indicating that it once tutored Mr. Trump.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar the Woebringer
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
mb
He just talked about that during the latest press conference? (I can't bring myself to watch or listen to him).

It's utterly bizarre that he's still bringing up the election. I know that's how he is (like with the small hands slight) but it's so weird. Kind of lends credence that really all he wanted was to win...not actually be President.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
edgarthewoebringer wrote:
He just talked about that during the latest press conference? (I can't bring myself to watch or listen to him).

It's utterly bizarre that he's still bringing up the election. I know that's how he is (like with the small hands slight) but it's so weird. Kind of lends credence that really all he wanted was to win...not actually be President.


And furthermore, I would suggest that his whole obstructionism of the Russian investigation is due to the fact, that in his own mind, it invalidates the election results.

Then again, if he is guilty of playing with the Russians and attempting to influence the election, the election results would be invalidated. Hmmmm, could it be, that, perhaps he is stonewalling, because he knows he or members of his team are guilty?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
edgarthewoebringer wrote:
He just talked about that during the latest press conference? (I can't bring myself to watch or listen to him).

It's utterly bizarre that he's still bringing up the election. I know that's how he is (like with the small hands slight) but it's so weird. Kind of lends credence that really all he wanted was to win...not actually be President.


he goes back to the high-water mark of his Presidency - when he was President-elect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
California citizens despite their large number of electoral votes are under-represented in the Electoral College on a population basis compared to several other states. And so are Texas and New York.

For Californians to be as well representated as Wyoming residence then California would have roughly 30 more electoral votes. And 30 more representatives in the House of Representatives.

Conservatives have a disproportionate effect on our national political system. And as their states go bankrupt, lose jobs, and lose populationthey are becoming radicalized rather than conservative.

And this despite the fact that several get almost twice as much money back from the federal government as they send in.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mb
Jimminy christmas I'm getting sick of that asshole. Can he make it through one fucking day without crowing how great he is.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
California citizens despite their large number of electoral votes are under-represented in the Electoral College on a population basis compared to several other states. And so are Texas and New York.

For Californians to be as well representated as Wyoming residence then California would have roughly 30 more electoral votes. And 30 more representatives in the House of Representatives.

Conservatives have a disproportionate effect on our national political system. And as their states go bankrupt, lose jobs, and lose populationthey are becoming radicalized rather than conservative.

And this despite the fact that several get almost twice as much money back from the federal government as they send in.


Yup. It's all a sham. Red staters crow about personal responsibility, but blue states keep their lights turned on because their terrible Republican policies keep them in ruin.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is there any policy that allows us to redo the election?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mb
Every day I ration myself to ONE Trump WTF before I move on and hope the electorate runs Trump and his looney-tune cohorts out of town in 2018 & 2020. The problem is I usually reach my maximum daily allowance of bat-shit by lunchtime.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dickie Crickets
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Artaxerxes wrote:
I just now listened to Donald Trump explain that the Electoral College makes it very difficult for the Democrats to lose presidential elections, and it makes it very difficult for the Republicans to win presidential elections.


He is an astoundingly dumb man.


While he is an incredibly dense and unread dolt, he is also a compulsive, degenerate liar. This is an example of the latter, not the former. Well, it's probably a mix, as is all things Trump, but MORE the latter in this particular instance. Got to make his win seem more impressive, so Big Donnie feels important!

Ryan or McConnell needs to get in his fucking ear, though. The Electoral College is essential for the far right to maintain their destructive minority rule over the United States and keep the cash flowing into the plutocracy. The last thing they need is their mob of apes to start flinging their dung at something they depend on to bend the game in their favor.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's not just the Electoral College. It's also the reapportionment Act of 1929. In fact I would say the reapportionment Act of 1929 has a much larger effect in distorting the outcome of the Electoral College. It is the leading reason (edit:why electoral college is out of balance with) the popular vote.

The reapportionment Act of 1929 has led to gross under-representation and misrepresentation of our citizens. It's something that democrats should adjust when they get back into power. The small states will be protected in the Senate regardless. And that means the Supreme Court increasingly will not represent the population of the country as well.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
MikePustilnik wrote:
Twice in recent history (2000 and 2016) the Democrats had more popular votes than the Republicans but lost the election. Therefore, it is clear to me that the electoral college favors the Republicans. For now.


When speaking about the Electoral college, the overall popular vote is inconsequential, meaning they are not in the same equation.


What do you think is the most salient alternative to the EC?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
MikePustilnik wrote:
Twice in recent history (2000 and 2016) the Democrats had more popular votes than the Republicans but lost the election. Therefore, it is clear to me that the electoral college favors the Republicans. For now.


When speaking about the Electoral college, the overall popular vote is inconsequential, meaning they are not in the same equation.


What do you think is the most salient alternative to the EC?


I actually don't object to the popular vote, being the deciding factor. Total the 50 states, and one with most votes is the winner. This eliminates any bias based on populations of the state. As an example, California currently is staunchly Democratic (and has been in Pres. elections since 1992), and has a huge number of electoral votes guaranteed to go Dem each election. Counting each vote however, would, in some part, negate that guaranteed advantage. Yes, the Dem would likely still win the California popular vote, but the Republican votes would count toward the national total. Lets' face it, and I don't mean to be facetious here, but if you are a Republican in California, your vote is a wasted vote, or at minimum, an unheard one, in the electoral college system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
rinelk wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
MikePustilnik wrote:
Twice in recent history (2000 and 2016) the Democrats had more popular votes than the Republicans but lost the election. Therefore, it is clear to me that the electoral college favors the Republicans. For now.


When speaking about the Electoral college, the overall popular vote is inconsequential, meaning they are not in the same equation.


What do you think is the most salient alternative to the EC?


I actually don't object to the popular vote, being the deciding factor. Total the 50 states, and one with most votes is the winner. This eliminates any bias based on populations of the state. As an example, California currently is staunchly Democratic (and has been in Pres. elections since 1992), and has a huge number of electoral votes guaranteed to go Dem each election. Counting each vote however, would, in some part, negate that guaranteed advantage. Yes, the Dem would likely still win the California popular vote, but the Republican votes would count toward the national total. Lets' face it, and I don't mean to be facetious here, but if you are a Republican in California, your vote is a wasted vote, or at minimum, an unheard one, in the electoral college system.


Your thinking on this issue strikes me as deeply confused. The point of my question was that the salient alternative to the EC is a straight popular vote. So, if you want to know what the EC does, you look at the difference between the electoral vote and the popular vote. You were suggesting that was an inappropriate comparison, which I thought silly.

But now you've claimed that a Republican vote in California goes unheard. That's not the problem, the problem (if you buy into this basic reasoning, which I do, but some disagree) is that EVERY vote goes unheard in every safe state. I also think it's worse than that--the EC doesn't give Californians massive power, it does just the opposite (though indirectly and potentially avoidably). By incentivizing states to adopt a winner-take-all rather than proportional allocation of electors, we basically have a system in which the margin in each state tells you how badly that state's voters get screwed. California's voters get very, very screwed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
rinelk wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
MikePustilnik wrote:
Twice in recent history (2000 and 2016) the Democrats had more popular votes than the Republicans but lost the election. Therefore, it is clear to me that the electoral college favors the Republicans. For now.


When speaking about the Electoral college, the overall popular vote is inconsequential, meaning they are not in the same equation.


What do you think is the most salient alternative to the EC?


I actually don't object to the popular vote, being the deciding factor. Total the 50 states, and one with most votes is the winner. This eliminates any bias based on populations of the state. As an example, California currently is staunchly Democratic (and has been in Pres. elections since 1992), and has a huge number of electoral votes guaranteed to go Dem each election. Counting each vote however, would, in some part, negate that guaranteed advantage. Yes, the Dem would likely still win the California popular vote, but the Republican votes would count toward the national total. Lets' face it, and I don't mean to be facetious here, but if you are a Republican in California, your vote is a wasted vote, or at minimum, an unheard one, in the electoral college system.


Your thinking on this issue strikes me as deeply confused. The point of my question was that the salient alternative to the EC is a straight popular vote. So, if you want to know what the EC does, you look at the difference between the electoral vote and the popular vote. You were suggesting that was an inappropriate comparison, which I thought silly.

But now you've claimed that a Republican vote in California goes unheard. That's not the problem, the problem (if you buy into this basic reasoning, which I do, but some disagree) is that EVERY vote goes unheard in every safe state. I also think it's worse than that--the EC doesn't give Californians massive power, it does just the opposite (though indirectly and potentially avoidably). By incentivizing states to adopt a winner-take-all rather than proportional allocation of electors, we basically have a system in which the margin in each state tells you how badly that state's voters get screwed. California's voters get very, very screwed.


I am not confused at all. My statement originally simply attempted to imply that you either want the electoral college system, or the popular vote system, yes, the majority winner of the popular vote in each state, wins the electoral college votes. But my comment (and my reply to the other gent) indicates that the TOTAL popular vote has no relation to the electoral college outcome. Yes, the total popular vote is tallied (Clinton won it in the last election), but that did not make her President. Hence the TOTAL popular vote is inconsequential to the Electoral College, and the current method whereby we select a President.

I concur with you in that every vote goes unheard in every safe state. Hence my comment about preferring a popular vote system. One vote, counted, and heard.
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
When speaking about the Electoral college, the overall popular vote is inconsequential, meaning they are not in the same equation.


except that the electoral college is, ostensibly, a mechanism of resolving a democratic vote, and given that there is a clear trend wherein Democrats have to earn a higher percentage of the popular vote in order to win the electoral college it is frankly sort of stupid to suggest that the system "favours them" because Democratic safe states comprise about 35% of the electoral college to the GOP safe states' 33% when the swing states overall tend to trend slightly Republican in the first place
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
When speaking about the Electoral college, the overall popular vote is inconsequential, meaning they are not in the same equation.


except that the electoral college is, ostensibly, a mechanism of resolving a democratic vote, and given that there is a clear trend wherein Democrats have to earn a higher percentage of the popular vote in order to win the electoral college it is frankly sort of stupid to suggest that the system "favours them" because Democratic safe states comprise about 35% of the electoral college to the GOP safe states' 33% when the swing states overall tend to trend slightly Republican in the first place


I am not sure what you mean by this;

"the electoral college is, ostensibly, a mechanism of resolving a democratic vote, and given that there is a clear trend wherein Democrats have to earn a higher percentage of the popular vote in order to win the electoral college"

It's just not true. If you count the "safe" states only, the Democrats start out with an intrinsic lead over the Republicans currently. They start from a better position, and need fewer overall electoral votes to clinch the election than do the Republicans. This to me, is one flaw of the electoral college system.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-2016-race-an-elec...

http://www.fairvote.org/new_study_reaffirms_democratic_advan...


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
rinelk wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
rinelk wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
MikePustilnik wrote:
Twice in recent history (2000 and 2016) the Democrats had more popular votes than the Republicans but lost the election. Therefore, it is clear to me that the electoral college favors the Republicans. For now.


When speaking about the Electoral college, the overall popular vote is inconsequential, meaning they are not in the same equation.


What do you think is the most salient alternative to the EC?


I actually don't object to the popular vote, being the deciding factor. Total the 50 states, and one with most votes is the winner. This eliminates any bias based on populations of the state. As an example, California currently is staunchly Democratic (and has been in Pres. elections since 1992), and has a huge number of electoral votes guaranteed to go Dem each election. Counting each vote however, would, in some part, negate that guaranteed advantage. Yes, the Dem would likely still win the California popular vote, but the Republican votes would count toward the national total. Lets' face it, and I don't mean to be facetious here, but if you are a Republican in California, your vote is a wasted vote, or at minimum, an unheard one, in the electoral college system.


Your thinking on this issue strikes me as deeply confused. The point of my question was that the salient alternative to the EC is a straight popular vote. So, if you want to know what the EC does, you look at the difference between the electoral vote and the popular vote. You were suggesting that was an inappropriate comparison, which I thought silly.

But now you've claimed that a Republican vote in California goes unheard. That's not the problem, the problem (if you buy into this basic reasoning, which I do, but some disagree) is that EVERY vote goes unheard in every safe state. I also think it's worse than that--the EC doesn't give Californians massive power, it does just the opposite (though indirectly and potentially avoidably). By incentivizing states to adopt a winner-take-all rather than proportional allocation of electors, we basically have a system in which the margin in each state tells you how badly that state's voters get screwed. California's voters get very, very screwed.


I am not confused at all. My statement originally simply attempted to imply that you either want the electoral college system, or the popular vote system, yes, the majority winner of the popular vote in each state, wins the electoral college votes. But my comment (and my reply to the other gent) indicates that the TOTAL popular vote has no relation to the electoral college outcome. Yes, the total popular vote is tallied (Clinton won it in the last election), but that did not make her President. Hence the TOTAL popular vote is inconsequential to the Electoral College, and the current method whereby we select a President.

I concur with you in that every vote goes unheard in every safe state. Hence my comment about preferring a popular vote system. One vote, counted, and heard.


Okay, but the other gent was comparing the EC to its most salient alternative, the national popular vote, as a way of determining who benefits from the EC. You seem to be pointing out that the Democrats have such a commanding popularity advantage that they are more likely to win on a generic ballot in the EC system. That's true, but it doesn't mean the EC benefits them. They'd have an even stronger lead in the popular vote.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:


It's just not true. If you count the "safe" states only, the Democrats start out with an intrinsic lead over the Republicans currently. They start from a better position, and need fewer overall electoral votes to clinch the election than do the Republicans. This to me, is one flaw of the electoral college system.


That explains how twice in the past five elections, Democrats could win the popular vote and lose the EC vote...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:


It's just not true. If you count the "safe" states only, the Democrats start out with an intrinsic lead over the Republicans currently. They start from a better position, and need fewer overall electoral votes to clinch the election than do the Republicans. This to me, is one flaw of the electoral college system.


That explains how twice in the past five elections, Democrats could win the popular vote and lose the EC vote...


Hence the knock on Hillary by some. She won the popular vote, but failed to win the popular vote in some swing states that really mattered, hence losing the battle in the electoral college, and thus the election.

Wisconsin, Florida, and Pennsylvania in 2016 went for Trump, yet they were all three blue in 2012, and 2008. She, in my opinion, got a bit cocky, and forgot about them, perhaps putting them in the win column prematurely.

She did not visit Wisconsin once after its primary, and lets face it, she doesn't have to visit any "safe" state either. Usually, if or when a candidate goes to a "safe" state, it's usually a high dollar per plate affair, where fundraising is more the agenda, than speaking to middle class constituents. I can pretty much say that from experience. And in my opinion, this is another knock against the electoral college system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.