So, why did Trump win the election?

[grampster]

The EC is about defeating factionalism as much as it is about giving low population states a reason to actually vote.

The Founders were extremely worried about factionalism.  The fact that the Democrat party has, as a matter of policy, created many factions (race, income, gender, national origin, sexual proclivities etc) and then swept them under their wing verifies the fear of the Founders.  The tyranny of the majority can be made up of unifying various factions of so called "minorities".  As a result we need the EC more now than in any time in the past.  This election points that out very well.  If the Democrat party had merely remained the party of the working middle class instead of the conglomeration of the factions they saw they needed to do to remain in power, they probably would never be able to elect another D president, ever.  Now, without the EC there would never be another R president.  The two most dangerous people to run for office, Gore and HRC were kept from power because of the genius of the Founders and the EC. Obama was an aberration, but got elected because of the factions of the D party and the "white guilt" of quite a few Rs.

[Perd Hapley]

The EC is about defeating factionalism as much as it is about giving low population states a reason to actually vote.

The Founders were extremely worried about factionalism.  The fact that the Democrat party has, as a matter of policy, created many factions (race, income, gender, national origin, sexual proclivities etc) and then swept them under their wing verifies the fear of the Founders.  The tyranny of the majority can be made up of unifying various factions of so called "minorities".  As a result we need the EC more now than in any time in the past.  This election points that out very well.  If the Democrat party had merely remained the party of the working middle class instead of the conglomeration of the factions they saw they needed to do to remain in power, they probably would never be able to elect another D president, ever.  Now, without the EC there would never be another R president.  The two most dangerous people to run for office, Gore and HRC were kept from power because of the genius of the Founders and the EC. Obama was an aberration, but got elected because of the factions of the D party and the "white guilt" of quite a few Rs.

I question your analysis. See Federalist No. 10.

[DittoHead]

every time it's contradicted the popular vote, it has kept Democrats out of office. It kept Al Gore, et al, out of office. Those are all the positive effects you could possibly need.

While I'm sure that "LOL it's bad for the libs!!1!" is enough reason for some people, I'm more interested in the non partisan principles that justify it.

Now, without the EC there would never be another R president. 

Trump lost the popular vote by less than 1%. That doesn't seem insurmountable at all. Having a president that received fewer votes than their opponent reduces their legitimacy. I can't believe everyone seems to think that conservative ideas can't win the majority of the nations support.

Out of curiosity - are there ANY other elected positions that work like president with the electoral college? We directly elect senators and congressmen and judges and mayors via popular vote right? Why not have electors for those positions too? Slice and dice and allocate electors to counties and townships - people can't be trusted to vote directly because they'll vote for the wrong thing!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Not all Asians - one of my best friends is a natural born American of Cantonese ancestry, and he's every bit as conservative as I am.

What I really find puzzling is the number of Jews who support civilian disarmament, JPFO notwithstanding.

That's what confuses me. Most of my Asians friends and family are conservative. And yet some are dems.
And the only connection I see for Jewish folks being dems is that folks in academia and those who associate tend to be dems


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

While I'm sure that "LOL it's bad for the libs!!1!" is enough reason for some people...

There is absolutely nothing funny about keeping America's oldest, largest, most effective hate group away from the presidency. We're talking about the party of Southern segregation, and of the Klan, and that proudly wears the blood of tens of million of innocent children on its hands. The party that never stops dividing Americans by race, religion, and gender, and that works tirelessly to keep less affluent Americans dependent on government, partly by convincing them that half the country hates them. This Democratic party continually invents new ways to stifle the attempts of working and middle-class Americans to better themselves and their communities. That the electoral college has occasionally denied them the executive branch is perhaps not the founders' intent, but it is a rather obvious benefit.

Out of curiosity - are there ANY other elected positions that work like president with the electoral college? We directly elect senators and congressmen and judges and mayors via popular vote right? Why not have electors for those positions too? Slice and dice and allocate electors to counties and townships - people can't be trusted to vote directly because they'll vote for the wrong thing!

Are you unaware that the Constitutional originally called for senators to be elected by the state governments, rather than by the people, themselves; and that the founders had a reason for this, as well? Are you also unaware that the presidency/vice-presidency are the only positions for which all American voters may cast a ballot? These may help you consider the matter.

[Hawkmoon]

Out of curiosity - are there ANY other elected positions that work like president with the electoral college? We directly elect senators and congressmen and judges and mayors via popular vote right? Why not have electors for those positions too? Slice and dice and allocate electors to counties and townships - people can't be trusted to vote directly because they'll vote for the wrong thing!

We elect senators by direct popular vote now, but that's not the way the Founders set it up. Originally, the House was elected directly by the people but the Senate was elected by the legislatures of the respective states. In effect, the House was supposed to represent the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the states.

{Edit} DRAT! Fistful beat me to it!

[DittoHead]

Are you unaware that the Constitutional originally called for senators to be elected by the state governments, rather than by the people, themselves; and that the founders had a reason for this, as well? Are you also unaware that the presidency/vice-presidency are the only positions for which all American voters may cast a ballot? These may help you consider the matter.

I was aware of both of those but can't say either have lead me to support the electoral college. With governors being the state level equivalent of the president - wouldn't it make sense to have gubernatorial elections decided via county level electors instead of the statewide popular vote? Why not do the same for senators or even with mayor and city districts?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Interesting read. Mike Rowe weighs in
http://tribunist.com/news/mike-rowe-finally-weighs-in-on-trumps-victory-hillarys-supporters-wont-like-this/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RoadKingLarry]

I was aware of both of those but can't say either have lead me to support the electoral college. With governors being the state level equivalent of the president - wouldn't it make sense to have gubernatorial elections decided via county level electors instead of the statewide popular vote? Why not do the same for senators or even with mayor and city districts?

Each state and municipality is free to decide how their elected leadership is chosen. There is nothing in the US Constitution that dictates such.

However, the US Constitution DOES spell out that the STATES elect the President. Again, each state is free to choose how their state decides it own process.

If we were to make the grievous mistake of doing away with the Electoral College and going with a straight popular vote for president then the East and West coast will forever more decide who is elected president with us poor ignorant rural hicks out here in flyover country having no say in the matter.
 

[DittoHead]

us poor ignorant rural hicks out here in flyover country having no say in the matter.

Same problem exists at the state level, the electoral college doesn't do anything for the republicans in CA! If it was popular vote at least a CA republican could make a difference.

Right now it's relatively close in popular vote. Like I said, Trump was within 1% on the popular vote so I don't understand why everyone thinks that would mean permanent democrat control. But at some point, if urban areas keep growing doesn't it become a problem to declare a winner that received significantly fewer votes then their opponent? Heck, lets throw in some superdelegates while we're at it. Make sure people get what's best for them instead of what they vote for.

[RoadKingLarry]

What part of the US Constitution dictates how a state conducts  it's own internal political process? (Outside of Equal Opportunity Types stuff)
Commifornia is free to conduct elections, within certain strictures, any way the electorate sees fit to tolerate.

[DittoHead]

What part of the US Constitution dictates how a state conducts  it's own internal political process? (Outside of Equal Opportunity Types stuff)
Commifornia is free to conduct elections, within certain strictures, any way the electorate sees fit to tolerate.

The states can change how they do things and I'm saying it should be changed. I don't think it will be, the powers that be have little interest in doing so, but there are other options and in my opinion they're better.

[Scout26]

Out of curiosity - are there ANY other elected positions that work like president with the electoral college? We directly elect senators and congressmen and judges and mayors via popular vote right? Why not have electors for those positions too? Slice and dice and allocate electors to counties and townships - people can't be trusted to vote directly because they'll vote for the wrong thing!

Up until Illinois (Go us !!!!) caused the creation of the 17th Amendment, Senators were chosen by their state's legislatures.  Making them a sort of Electoral College.

[Perd Hapley]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhUXSX3ZnpE


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0

Trump won 53% of white chicks voting, and got 7% more of the black vote than Romney did in 2012. Compared to Romney, he got 8 times more black support,* 8% more Latinos (white Hispanics strike again!), 11% more Asian support, and 5% more of those under 30. He got 16% higher support from those making less than $30k/year, and 6% more from those making between $30k and $50k. Romney did 4% better with Republicans, but Trump got 5% more Democrat votes. Compared to Romney, he did better across all categories of religion or non-religion, except for the Jewish vote.


*Running against Obama, Romney got but 1% of black votes.

[Scout26]

I was aware of both of those but can't say either have lead me to support the electoral college. With governors being the state level equivalent of the president - wouldn't it make sense to have gubernatorial elections decided via county level electors instead of the statewide popular vote? Why not do the same for senators or even with mayor and city districts?

Try this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

[Hawkmoon]

Interesting read. Mike Rowe weighs in
http://tribunist.com/news/mike-rowe-finally-weighs-in-on-trumps-victory-hillarys-supporters-wont-like-this/

Decent analysis, IMHO.

I think a majority of people who voted in this election did so in spite of their many misgivings about the character of both candidates. That’s why it’s very dangerous to argue that Clinton supporters condone lying under oath and obstructing justice. Just as it’s equally dangerous to suggest a Trump supporter condones gross generalizations about foreigners and women.

I disagree. Clinton supporters DID condone her lying under oath and obstructing justice, by the simple act of voting for her. Lying under oath and obstructing justice are illegal. Hillary's lying under oath and obstruction of justice pertained to direct threats to national security. Trump supporters DID condone his verbal gaffes. Verbalizing generalities about "other kinds" of people isn't illegal, and doesn't pose a direct threat to national security.

These two candidates were the choices we gave ourselves, and each came with a heaping helping of vulgarity and impropriety. Yeah, it was dirty job for sure, but the winner was NOT decided by a racist and craven nation – it was decided by millions of disgusted Americans desperate for real change. The people did not want a politician. The people wanted to be seen. Donald Trump convinced those people that he could see them. Hillary Clinton did not.

That's it, in a nutshell.

[Ron]

If you want the electoral college to be more representative then you should support a movement that splits the electors votes in your state based on geography and/or population density.

Of course that is not what the Dems want. That would have pealed off some votes in Illinois for example as Chicago pretty much guarantees all IL elector votes go to the Dem candidate. If it was more representative the rest of the state would end up with some elector votes.

If we stop importing millions of third world Democrat voters we may actually get to the point where a popular vote would always go our way.     

[Ben]

If you want the electoral college to be more representative then you should support a movement that splits the electors votes in your state based on geography and/or population density.

Of course that is not what the Dems want. That would have pealed off some votes in Illinois for example as Chicago pretty much guarantees all IL elector votes go to the Dem candidate. If it was more representative the rest of the state would end up with some elector votes.

If we stop importing millions of third world Democrat voters we may actually get to the point where a popular vote would always go our way.     

Right on.

[230RN]

See: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=53170.0

^ That's the "Hail Mary" thread.

We ought to start our own counter-petition based on this:

The EC is about defeating factionalism as much as it is about giving low population states a reason to actually vote.

The Founders were extremely worried about factionalism.  The fact that the Democrat party has, as a matter of policy, created many factions (race, income, gender, national origin, sexual proclivities etc) and then swept them under their wing verifies the fear of the Founders.  The tyranny of the majority can be made up of unifying various factions of so called "minorities".  As a result we need the EC more now than in any time in the past.  This election points that out very well.  If the Democrat party had merely remained the party of the working middle class instead of the conglomeration of the factions they saw they needed to do to remain in power, they probably would never be able to elect another D president, ever.  Now, without the EC there would never be another R president.  The two most dangerous people to run for office, Gore and HRC were kept from power because of the genius of the Founders and the EC. Obama was an aberration, but got elected because of the factions of the D party and the "white guilt" of quite a few Rs.

...and some of the other comments on that thread.

Terry

[birdman]

Same problem exists at the state level, the electoral college doesn't do anything for the republicans in CA! If it was popular vote at least a CA republican could make a difference.

Right now it's relatively close in popular vote. Like I said, Trump was within 1% on the popular vote so I don't understand why everyone thinks that would mean permanent democrat control. But at some point, if urban areas keep growing doesn't it become a problem to declare a winner that received significantly fewer votes then their opponent? Heck, lets throw in some superdelegates while we're at it. Make sure people get what's best for them instead of what they vote for.

The thing on the popular vote...if you remove LA, The Bay Area and NYC (which all were skewed extremely heavily toward HRC) , the popular vote went overwhelmingly for Trump, like a ~4 million vote margin. 

[DittoHead]

Try this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

Already watched it after someone posted it on the last page.

Trump is even with me on this!

[DittoHead]

If you want the electoral college to be more representative then you should support a movement that splits the electors votes in your state based on geography and/or population density.    

I think that would be a step in the right direction for sure.

[Scout26]

I think that would be a step in the right direction for sure.

Causing even more Gerrymandered congressional districts, to make "more" safe and non-competitive districts.   The Electoral College is a nice balance of the people being heard, and the individual states being heard.   We need more Federalism.  Not less.

[KD5NRH]

Causing even more Gerrymandered congressional districts, to make "more" safe and non-competitive districts.

Remove geography altogether; pick a series in the SS# and assign electors to ranges of numbers.  Do the same for Senators.  That ought to make campaigns entertaining.

[MechAg94]

My memory is fuzzy and I don't have time to look it up.  But the House of Representatives was not always fixed at the current number either.  I have heard occasional arguments that there should be a lot more Representatives representing fewer total people.