Election fairness

Post Reply New Topic

Right I was going to say it's not how long people have been saying the EC should be done away with, but how much mileage the subject has gotten lately.

Add to that the amount of desperation exhibited in trying to get electors to change their minds and cheat. The left have not given themselves a particularly good reputation in all of this.

And next we will get to see how much disruption they will attempt to cause on inauguration day, furthering the perception of them as an irrational angry mob.

Whenever I've wanted to learn something that has to do with math, I've always put it in extremely small numbers----and then, work-out from there. The following example helped me to understand why the Electoral College, is needed----maybe, it will help someone else.....

Let's say we only had 10 states in our country. Nine of them had exactly 100 people, each----and, the last one had exactly 1,000 people. Now, let's say that the EC gives each state 1 vote, for each 100 people----so, the state with 1,000 people would get 10 votes. It would then take 11 states to beat that one state (otherwise, that one state would be deciding every election)----but, we don't have 11 states to beat that one, we only have 9. If, then, each state was given 2 votes, each, for their 2 senators, then each state would have 3 votes----and, the state with 1,000 people would have 12----and, NOW, it would only take 5 states to beat that one state (and thus, being fair, because it's giving the less-populated states, a voice).

Also, if our example country was a Democracy (instead of what we are, a Republic)----and thus, the individual people decided the presidency----then, again, that 1 state could decide the presidency, ALONE, because that one state has more people, than all the other 9 states, put together.

Now, obviously, there's all kinds of holes to be found in this example, because we have more states / people, and not every state is a winner-takes-all state, and my example is making it so every person in each small-population state is voting for the same candidate----and, AGAINST the largest-populated state----but, like I said, the math started there, for me, in helping me to understand the EC; so, I thought it might help someone else.

Exactly. Every single one of those 3 million extra votes Hillary got, could have all been cast in extremely blue and heavily populated California. Which means 1 state out of 49 would have been the decider.

Firstly, having a president is stupid and inherently unrepresentative. You can't elect a President that is 50% Republican 50% Democrat (let alone representing other parties). Get rid of it and give their powers to Congress.

Secondly, it's "fair" because it is known about in advance, but it's unrepresentative and a bad system.

The popular vote means that every state and every vote counts. The electoral college means that only a few states count. A president could theoretically get elected by appealing to 50% of people in the 10 largest states. The other 50%? The other 40 states? You can ignore them. In reality, with the system as it is, both parties ignore "safe" states of either shade and focus on about 10 "swing" states. The other 40 states, once again, get ignored.

Under the popular vote, Republicans have a reason to visit California and Democrats have a reason to visit Texas. Both parties have reasons to visit Wyoming and DC.

Meh too confusing. It should be left up to a personal contest between the two. Perhaps something Hunger Games style.

Neither candidate got what they wanted.
HRC didn't become president.
Trump really would have wanted to win the popular vote but lose the actual election, so he could lead via tweets without having to do all the other stuff that comes with the presidency.

I actually don't mind the electoral college. What I think is unfair is that felons are denied the right to vote in several states