A timely email ...

[Thumper]

... but a day or two late.

I got into an argument ... errr, I mean DISCUSSION with a guy who was standing in line at an estate sale Friday morning. I guess I started it in a way because I noticed he had a Hillary bumper sticker on his car. I made a wise-crack and asked him why he wasn't embarrassed to be still driving around with that thing on his car. (BTW, I know the guy pretty well as he's a regular, so we weren't really strangers) Well, the "discussion" turned to a popular vote vs. Electoral College type of argument. Granted, a few elections back, I was also confused about WHY we need the Electoral College as it just didn't seem right to me that a candidate could get more of the popular vote, but still lose the election. That's when I studied up a bit and pretty much learned that it "feels" wrong in a way, but is actually a good system.

Well, I just received an email from my old motorcycle racing partner in California and I wish I'd had it with me on Friday as it says what I wanted to say, but didn't really know how to say it convincingly. Granted, I haven't had time to check the accuracy of these email statements (other than the total counties won .. and it is correct), so it's possible there is a bit of "fudging" ... but overall it appears to be pretty accurate. The main point is, I think it's a pretty good explanation of the way the system works, why it's needed and it's importance.


Importance of Electoral College


This, without a doubt, describes exactly what the importance of the Electoral College is all about.........and why it is needed.


There are 3,141 counties in the United States .
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State .
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approximately 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump.
(Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond )

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

[Big Muddy]

Stole it----copied it----passed it on to my qauzillion friends----some of whom are clueless !!! ;)

[airbud7]

Great Post Thumper!....will pass it along also....

[airbud7]

http://heatst.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/mpa2uvyx7hlcchicbg0cw_5sn2kdbp9ndmamlfa5ena.jpg?qu ality=80&strip=info

[Nandy]

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

Actually, that is not the reason you have an electoral college. The reason you have an electoral college is due to the founder fathers not trusting the common folk to make the right decision on voting giving the members of the electoral vote the power to make the "right" decision for their constituents... I think the electoral vote is an antiquated system that has no bearing in today's America (as much as I like the outcome by it this time around) and the popular vote should be the actual deciding factor.

[Thumper]

I totally agreed with your line of thinking up until the Bush/Gore election year, but I have to respectfully disagree now. (plus I'm not really positive of what you just said) ;)

Years ago, I knew about the Electoral College, but for the life of me, could not understand WHY we had it. To me ... voting on ANYTHING meant the winner was the one whom the most people voted for. Duh! Once I studied up on it, I pretty much "saw the light" and gained a greater understanding of the reason for it's existence. What I liked about the email above is, it took this modern day election and put everything in perspective in laymen's terms. If I don't really THINK about it, it just doesn't "feel" right ... but when I dissect it and view it with an open mind, I understand the need for it.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Nandy is correct.

And you moght want to check your source on the popular vote claim. Brietbart put that bullshit out and it is not true.

BKb

[airbud7]

No^...Thumper's friend is right the electoral college is to keep 1 state from overriding the election from the rest of the country......

ie: California and New York can fuck and have all the kids they want...They still only get there electoral votes.

[Nandy]

Years ago, I knew about the Electoral College, but for the life of me, could not understand WHY we had it.

Back in the 1800 yes, when the country was at it's beginning, with large population differences and wild ideas, Yes... it made sense. Back in that time there were no national press that will reach everyone so farmer john in the fringes of the wild west didnt get all the news of what one candidate would support and would not be up to date on what were the situations that affected the nation. Therefore the "educated" members of the electoral college will weight farmer john decision and either vote as determined by the constituents or vote for what he believed was correct.

You could have a single state with the majority of the population, let say texas had 51% of the population, anyone from texas that ran for president will win because all texans will be in the believe that a texan president will benefit them, so as long as they had the majority of the population there every president will be from there, more people will move to the state which will give them more power in future elections. More over, that texan candidate had some "radical" ideas as of(since he has ties to mexico), lets open the borders and annex mexico to texas, again, texans voting for their candidate and very likely to win and open the border and annex with mexico. The electoral vote process is supposed to stop that by the members of it making the decision that regardless the majority wants that candidate and his platform it is not what is best for the country and would vote that candidate down.

Quite simple, the politicians still wanted to remain in some control of the outcome of the elections, regardless of whatever the people wanted... That, in part, is why the USA will never be a democracy and it is a republic... But lets not get into that one....

What in the hell!!! im talking politics now??!!!!

[Thumper]

Nandy, either I'm missing something, or your Texas scenario just demonstrated exactly why we DO need the Electoral College. :stupid:

[BarryBobPosthole]

To be perfectly honest I've never seen anybody publish a list of factual pros and cons for the modern electoral college. I've heard Democrat claims of gerrymandering by Republicans but nobody has ever really shown any facts to prove it. Counter that with, measuring votes per square mile for each candidate is meaningless because of the extremes at each end of the population density.
Every close presidential election, both sides make baseless claims, we go forward and do nothing, and we argue about in barber shops and on line.

End of story.

BKb

[Nandy]

Nandy, either I'm missing something, or your Texas scenario just demonstrated exactly why we DO need the Electoral College. :stupid:

Yes you are missing it, because nowadays no state will have 51% of the population and we have modern means of communication that even farmer john can easily follow the presidential candidates we dont need a group of people with the power to change the decision of the voting populace.

However, amending the constitution to change or eliminate the electoral college is not going to happen...

[Thumper]

Nandy, the main population centers boil down to a few major cities these days. IMHO, the Electoral College is the fairest "compromise" available, but like any compromise, it's not the perfect answer.

[Captain]

8244

[airbud7]

There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives, the 100 Senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in the Twenty-third Amendment. Each state chooses electors amounting to the combined total of its Senators and Representatives.

[Nandy]

I wrote a long reply but is all in fail... If you want to know why we have an electoral college do read the info from a reliable source. im out.

[Captain]

82458246

[airbud7]

True stuff Cappy^

[Arty]

Nandy, the main population centers boil down to a few major cities these days. IMHO, the Electoral College is the fairest "compromise" available, but like any compromise, it's not the perfect answer.

Then what is the perfect answer? Having 15-20 cities/counties chose our president is certainly not ANY answer, much less the best answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LJ3]

You're all FOS. We have the Electoral College because we are a REPUBLIC. 51% of the people should not be able to ride roughshod over 49% of the country.

Pretty sure, anyways.

[BarryBobPosthole]

The only reason the deplorables who pass this shit around pass it around is to claim a mandate in an election where there is no clear mandate. There is a clear winner, but the majority of the people are not behind the winner. So for the term of this president, what is at stake in this argument is the ability to say its the will of the American people when its not. Its the outcome of an election.

BKB

[LJ3]

I can get widdat!

[BarryBobPosthole]

Its my liberal rationalization and I'll cry if I want to.
BKB

[Captain]

Choo-choo!!!!

[airbud7]

"There are 3,141 counties in the United States Trump won 3,084 of them Clinton won 57."

The Bitch lost..... nuff said.

[Captain]

Bingo

[Thumper]

Nandy;


I wrote a long reply but is all in fail... If you want to know why we have an electoral college do read the info from a reliable source. im out.

Relax Mr. Q ... it ain't no argument, just a bit of an education. As I said, I studied up on the EC pretty heavily back in 2000 because, although I learned about it in school, I couldn't say I really understood it. After spending a bit of time studying "reliable sources", I came away with the understanding that the EC is a compromise of sorts. As with all compromises, neither side of the argument is a "winner" ... but in the end, it's a fair solution IMHO.

[Thumper]

Then what is the perfect answer?

As far as I know, there IS no perfect answer. That's why I said the Electoral College is a compromise. Compromises are not perfect, but they come about as close as one can get.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I was listening to NPR on the way out here (had to reinforce my liberalness before being among these deplorables) and heard an interview with Chuck Hagel. He said something that made perfect sense to me that explains much of the angst we have in the country today. He was talking about Middle East policy and he said that there was literally no policy decision involving the middle east that didn't have a downside. And the downside is emphasized and ballyhooed by the opposition while the ones for it downplay the downside to the point it becomes intentionally misleading. And often we don't do anything searching for the perfect solution.

What he said is true of this topic too.

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

From what I understand of the history behind it and regardless of whether you like the outcome, the electoral college works exactly as it was intended. As such, I wouldn't change a thing.

[BarryBobPosthole]

It seems to have worked as intended in the vast majority of presidential elections. Are there any more besides 2000 and 2016 where the vote and EC disagreed? Seems like it works about as well as any other process we could come up with.

BKB

[Thumper]

From the net: (looks like it needs to be updated to 5)

Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?

A: It has happened four times.

The 2000 election was the most recent when the candidate who received the greatest number of electoral votes, and thus won the presidency, didn’t win the popular vote. But this scenario has played out in our nation’s history before.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

[Thumper]

I just noticed something interesting. I appears every time a President won the Electoral College, but lost the popular vote ... the Democrat was the losing candidate. ;)

[airbud7]

Democrats used to be the conservative party and Republicans used to be the progressive party

Sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.

[BarryBobPosthole]

That's deplorable!
BKB