Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Election fairness

Page 1 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Is it fair if the Electoral college chooses a candidate who did not win the popular vote?
Yes 50%  50%  [ 12 ]
No 33%  33%  [ 8 ]
It depends 17%  17%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 24

feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

15 Jan 2017, 8:08 pm

Twice in my life the winner of the popular vote did not become the president.

I know how the system works and I am not asking specifically about this election.



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

15 Jan 2017, 8:26 pm

If you want please explain why or why not.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

15 Jan 2017, 8:36 pm

How is not fair? Hillary made the fatal mistake of buying the media narrative that the election was a foregone conclusion and thought she could go for a blowout by targeting states like Arizona, Texas, and Georgia while she ignored Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. If the popular vote was all that mattered then a candidate could just run up the score in just a couple states and the campaign would of been very different. The US was founded as a federal democratic republic, this is how the system is supposed to work. It ensures broad geographic support, without the EC then there is zero reason for the middle of this country not to secede immediately.



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

15 Jan 2017, 9:13 pm

Jacoby wrote:
How is not fair? Hillary made the fatal mistake of buying the media narrative that the election was a foregone conclusion and thought she could go for a blowout by targeting states like Arizona, Texas, and Georgia while she ignored Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. If the popular vote was all that mattered then a candidate could just run up the score in just a couple states and the campaign would of been very different. The US was founded as a federal democratic republic, this is how the system is supposed to work. It ensures broad geographic support, without the EC then there is zero reason for the middle of this country not to secede immediately.


Please read the OP and answer that question.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

15 Jan 2017, 9:40 pm

EC forces presidential candidates to appeal to multiple constituencies, not just the ones who will deliver absolute largest number of votes, and so helps avoid tyranny of the majority. It's also known about by all parties entering the race, so it's not like anyone is getting sandbagged when the popular vote and EC don't line up.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

15 Jan 2017, 10:03 pm

Dox47 wrote:
EC forces presidential candidates to appeal to multiple constituencies, not just the ones who will deliver absolute largest number of votes, and so helps avoid tyranny of the majority. It's also known about by all parties entering the race, so it's not like anyone is getting sandbagged when the popular vote and EC don't line up.


So you are OK with the tyranny of the minority as long as it forces candidates to pay attention to a part if the population within a specific geographic boundary?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

15 Jan 2017, 10:57 pm

I believe it's fair, considering how many voters a single state can have. The 3 million extra votes Clinton had in the popular vote could have all come out of California (just as a hypothetical example). So that would mean California alone would have decided who the next president was.



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

15 Jan 2017, 11:02 pm

I believe your premise is mistaken. In each of the 50 states, the members of the Electoral College did choose the candidate that won the popular vote, just like they always do.


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

15 Jan 2017, 11:44 pm

feral botanist wrote:
So you are OK with the tyranny of the minority as long as it forces candidates to pay attention to a part if the population within a specific geographic boundary?


I'm more comfortable with the evil of forcing the majority to pay attention to the concerns of the minority than I am with the evil of simply letting the majority run roughshod.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

16 Jan 2017, 12:27 am

EzraS wrote:
I believe it's fair, considering how many voters a single state can have. The 3 million extra votes Clinton had in the popular vote could have all come out of California (just as a hypothetical example). So that would mean California alone would have decided who the next president was.



No, it would have been CA plus all the other voters.



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

16 Jan 2017, 12:34 am

Darmok wrote:
I believe your premise is mistaken. In each of the 50 states, the members of the Electoral College did choose the candidate that won the popular vote, just like they always do.



Well, this correct, kind of, but it destroys the premise of "one person, one vote", it says that states votes are important not the peoples votes.

Of the entire population of these UNITED STATES, should the minority states be able to select the president against the popular vote?

Remember this could turn against you in four years. Would rarther have an advantage now, or fairness long term?



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

16 Jan 2017, 12:36 am

Dox47 wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
So you are OK with the tyranny of the minority as long as it forces candidates to pay attention to a part if the population within a specific geographic boundary?


I'm more comfortable with the evil of forcing the majority to pay attention to the concerns of the minority than I am with the evil of simply letting the majority run roughshod.


So you do not believe in democracy?



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

16 Jan 2017, 12:42 am

Remember, the question here is fairness.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

16 Jan 2017, 12:44 am

feral botanist wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I believe it's fair, considering how many voters a single state can have. The 3 million extra votes Clinton had in the popular vote could have all come out of California (just as a hypothetical example). So that would mean California alone would have decided who the next president was.



No, it would have been CA plus all the other voters.


It would mean a single state of over 38 million could put a candidate over the top by an extra 3 million votes, which represents less than 10% of its population. That's why the Electoral College was established, to prevent a single state with a huge population from having a monopoly on the popular vote.



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

16 Jan 2017, 12:48 am

feral botanist wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
So you are OK with the tyranny of the minority as long as it forces candidates to pay attention to a part if the population within a specific geographic boundary?


I'm more comfortable with the evil of forcing the majority to pay attention to the concerns of the minority than I am with the evil of simply letting the majority run roughshod.


So you do not believe in democracy?



Sorry, I should have written more.

To provide an analogy of what you are saying.

You are on a school board. There are 5 men and 4 women on the board.

The women should select the chairperson to ensure that their concerns are addressed.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

16 Jan 2017, 12:54 am

feral botanist wrote:
So you do not believe in democracy?


Not direct democracy, no. Fortunately, we live in a constitutional democracy, so there are certain limits on mob rule.

I'm not interested in fighting over the framing btw, so you can stop wasting your time.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez