The next U.S. President

[cbinker]

I skipped all recent posts since my Madona BJ post, but in order for us to move on, I vote to close this and all other election threads.

[Snake]

Civil discussion is a path to healing.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Snake

Looks like our Ninjette poll mirrored the election.

wrong

HRC won the popular vote.

It is a rigged system to give rural states a bigger say.

Hillary Clinton
Democratic Party
48%
59,938,290

Donald Trump
Republican Party
47%
59,704,886

[Triple Jim]

Wow, I don't mean to speak for Snake, but I think all he meant was the the poll correctly predicted the outcome, when few other sources did.

[DEFY]

^ Electoral Votes pick the winner

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by DEFY

^ Electoral Votes pick the winner

^news flash :-/

I respect the results. I do not deny who is president.

IJS

HRC did win the popular vote and if we lived in a nation were one person equaled one vote then HRC would be president.

When the constitution was written the slave states knew they could not stay slave states unless they rigged the system to favor rural states. I actually do not have a problem with that. It helps to keep the states united. I do not like it but I accept it.

[csmith12]

I also dislike the electoral college system, but it's there for a reason! And a damn good one too.



This map isn't about land area, this map is about fairness.

And to put icing on the cake;

Where is your food grown? (non imported Or all you organic chasers)
Where does your trash go?
Who mines the coal for your lights?
bla bla bla bla

If you have only thought about yourself, you have not only done yourself a disservice, but sooooo many others as well.

[choneofakind]

Heyyyyyyyy, I just responded to that picture on facebook!

from my response,

Forget about our differences for a second and remember I'm a nerd who appreciates finding errors in things.

There's one comment on this picture that I think sums it up:
"Yes, maps like this are incredibly deceptive because they make it look like TONS of people vote a certain way and it's really just lots of space with few people. Besides, while the electoral college WAS set up to protect small (lower population) states, it is clearly not working as well as it could. It was also set up with the assumption that the average person is sort of dumb and needs someone with better information and intelligence to vote for them. And on top of all of that, it does honestly skew things in favor of certain states: for example, California has 66 times as many people as Wyoming but only gets 18 times as many electoral college votes. And weirder still, each state gets at least 3 votes and the total is forced to 538, which effectively caps states like CA, TX, NY, FL. It's how our system works, but it definitely is not perfect."

Everything about this country is based upon population, not land area. Showing a map that compares area is bringing an unrelated variable into the picture to show "unfairness" between land areas. Please also remember that nearly half the population couldn't be bothered enough to vote.

The counties in blue; I'm assuming they have been labeled as "half' based upon the fact that Hilary won roughly 47% of voters and these are the counties she won. That said, because nearly half didn't vote, that means that the counties who preferred Hilary only roughly represent 1/4 of the population. So.... that means that you have half your population missing, all of which are conveniently visually "counted" in that gray area. This is artificially showing a visual 75% vs 25% extreme to make the point.

Geographical area (represented poorly here) is not the same as population breakdown. Geographical area has nothing to do with the relative worth between people. We have an electoral college to account for the differences in population density, but since a cap was added as the population grew, the current system is not what was originally put in place.

Numbers don't lie, but the interpretation and presentation of numbers do.

Biggest issue with that picture is the convenient inclusion of the half of the population that didn't vote into the gray portion. The use of an unrelated variable (area) to represent other numbers (population) makes it a poor visual representation. It doesn't matter if you own 1000000 acres and I only rent 1/2 and acre, a person is one vote. Period. The 3/5 compromise was done away with long ago!

That all said, I voted to express my opinions. So did many other people. The process is what it is, and I'll continue to respect the office of the POTUS because he/she is the POTUS and that's all there is to it!!! I'm not about to be a butt-hurt crybaby like many of my facebook friends unfortunately are being.

As for Mr Future President's list of things for the first 100 days; I'll believe it when I see it, even with a republican house and senate.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

The use of an unrelated variable (area) to represent other numbers (population) makes it a poor visual representation. It doesn't matter if you own 1000000 acres and I only rent 1/2 and acre, a person is one vote. Period. The 3/5 compromise was done away with long ago!

Agreed! You're missing a few factors though in your equation. The biggest one is time.

In 200+yrs people have become "city folk" and for generations lose touch with what happens in that gray area. In time AND vote count... the gray area can become "service" to the populous area unless there is a balance put in place. Our founding fathers knew this 200yrs ago.

And yes "worth" does play a role here. Geography matters... in fact A LOT!. If your country is the desert, you are for 100% sure put weight on votes from where you water comes from, we see that on the news today :\. Another example; Since overall the coastal areas vote differently than the rest of the geography, if they were their own countries, would they be primarily import or export for the RAW human needs?

I do have common sense on my side though, if nobody/very few people live in the gray areas, then there is no problem but that is not quite the case here is it?

[Snake]

Originally Posted by csmith12

I also dislike the electoral college system, but it's there for a reason! And a damn good one too.



This map isn't about land area, this map is about fairness.

And to put icing on the cake;

Where is your food grown? (non imported Or all you organic chasers)
Where does your trash go?
Who mines the coal for your lights?
bla bla bla bla

If you have only thought about yourself, you have not only done yourself a disservice, but sooooo many others as well.

So did the entire blue area vote republican?

[Alex]

I don't discount the differences in priorities between many folks living in different geographies. It would be unusual if there weren't regional preferences. What is harder for me to understand is how those same differences have been exploited in such a way for people to vote against their own self-interest, even accounting for those priorities. It's always OK to disagree, it's certainly OK to be annoyed if one doesn't feel included, it's OK to push for self-interested change/improvement/better opportunities. That's how it's supposed to work.

It's just the end result of that change in this case is almost certainly going to be a sad realization for those same groups of people, even if every key priority happens exactly as wished for by our new president. Put aside any of the moral, cultural, personality, style, or any other attribute we might like or dislike. Focusing only on economic opportunity, we have helped to vote in someone with strong anti-union tendencies, anti-worker tendencies, anti-trade tendencies, anti-federal support for well, anything, and backwards economic policies. The economic/tax policies, even if implemented exactly as hoped for, will be far more beneficial to groups that in general do not support our president elect. If status quo isn't great for the disaffected voter, and it certainly might not be; in all likelihood it's now going to get worse for them, not better.

Hindsight is 20/20, and life wouldn't be very interesting if we all knew exactly what was going to happen tomorrow, the day after that, and the year past then. But history also repeats itself, and it will be interesting to come back to this thread a few years from now to see how these hopes translated into positive or negative results for our country and its people.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Snake

So did the entire blue area vote republican?

No - it's just a population chart. It's not the typical blue=democratic red=republican chart that is common during election season. I believe it's just showing population density, and colored the most populous counties blue until it reached half the country's total population. It is striking to see how many of us are clustered in or around cities throughout the country.

[Snake]

Amazing to see that even in Alaska there is a large population area.

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by csmith12

In 200+yrs people have become "city folk" and for generations lose touch with what happens in that gray area. In time AND vote count... the gray area can become "service" to the populous area unless there is a balance put in place. Our founding fathers knew this 200yrs ago.

I know what you're getting at, but at the end of the day, we vote based upon population. Municipalities are defined by their population. Electoral votes are are awarded by relative populations. Land area isn't anywhere in those considerations.

The map is a poor way to communicate this data because it includes different metrics than the referenced data is measuring. The eyes are great at comparing "bigger" and "smaller", but they're not good at comparing weighted differences. If one is comparing numbers of people and not wanting to introduce other variables, may I suggest a bar graph?? Maybe we'd see more if we had a bar graph comparing, "Votes for Trump", "Votes for Hillary", Votes for 3rd Party Candidates", "People Who Didn't Vote", and "Losers Who Voted for Harambe". Sorry, my bias against protest votes is showing, but seriously, people voted for a dead Gorilla??? Please pardon my lack of empathy... Anyhow, to get back on topic, a bar graph would show the numbers of votes without showing visual stimulation that would lead to incorrect interpretation of the data. All we're comparing is number of votes for each candidate, not the social implications of population density and land area.

Originally Posted by csmith12

And yes "worth" does play a role here. Geography matters... in fact A LOT!. If your country is the desert, you are for 100% sure put weight on votes from where you water comes from, we see that on the news today :\. Another example; Since overall the coastal areas vote differently than the rest of the geography, if they were their own countries, would they be primarily import or export for the RAW human needs?

I get where you're going with this, but as far as who "owes" whom the most, therefore changing the weight of each person's vote... no. That's adding another variable into the equation, which is occupation. Using your logic, I should get more weight to my vote than anyone else, because I work in a refinery, and the entire modern world is dependent upon oil, including farmers, who grow our means of existence. See how warped that is???

Originally Posted by csmith12

I do have common sense on my side though, if nobody/very few people live in the gray areas, then there is no problem but that is not quite the case here is it?

But it is the case here, relatively speaking. Look at how many people live in Los Angeles and New York City. Compared to those, the middle of the country might as well be empty. From some quick googling, there's 8.4+ million people in new york city, but only 1.9 million in the entire state of Nebraska.




Anyhow. Backing up a bit and going big picture, no matter which candidate won this one, there's about half of the voters who are going to be unhappy. Any way you look at it, this is a compromise where there's still half the voting population who is going home upset. From that perspective, I'd rather see a blowout election with a 90/10 split than a close election with a 49/51 split. The really sad part is nearly half the population who are eligible to vote DIDN'T.

[SLOWn60]

There's many more than half the voting population unhappy with the results either way: voter turnout was low. Many who did not cast their ballot did so because of dissatisfaction with the choices available.

[csmith12]

Sorry Chone, I am doing a super terrible job of explaining myself.

1st off, our vote is not 100% based on population, every state (geography) gets 3 votes no matter what. This sets an even playing field over all despite population. Past that, people move around freely and from there sets the remaining votes. This can lead to localized tendencies that need to be balanced. Don't mistake a democracy for a republic, in a true democracy, the majority will always be favored by numbers. Since we are not a democracy, but a republic, the electoral colleges helps fight this mob rule flaw, but it's still not perfect. Going further, you should take note that the college is "mostly" free to vote as they see fit as nothing in the constitution requires them to vote any other way. This is both good and bad at the same time but I believe on purpose for it does add another possible layer of separation between populous areas and rural if it needs to be addressed.

Also, I am not trying to interject occupation into the equation, but instead resources. Yes... humans are a resource, a labor force, a military force and so on. The authors of the constitution were very wise beyond the years of many that breath today 200+yrs later. They understood this and that is why the near 9m people in NYC will never totally lord over the almost 2mil in Nebraska.

[InvisiBill]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

The counties in blue; I'm assuming they have been labeled as "half' based upon the fact that Hilary won roughly 47% of voters and these are the counties she won. That said, because nearly half didn't vote, that means that the counties who preferred Hilary only roughly represent 1/4 of the population. So.... that means that you have half your population missing, all of which are conveniently visually "counted" in that gray area. This is artificially showing a visual 75% vs 25% extreme to make the point.

Geographical area (represented poorly here) is not the same as population breakdown. Geographical area has nothing to do with the relative worth between people. We have an electoral college to account for the differences in population density, but since a cap was added as the population grew, the current system is not what was originally put in place.

You're confusing things. This map is simply showing the highest population areas, totaling half of population. It has nothing to do with how many people voted or who they voted for.

The debate over this topic is exactly the same one that gave us a bicameral Congress. The House is based on population, with each state having a number of reps based on population, and the Senate gives each state an equal number of senators. There are arguments for and against each.

Should the people in a handful of huge cities (blue) be able to dictate what happens to the entire country (gray) simply because they make up 50% of the population? NYC has almost as many people as all of Ohio, so do you like the thought of them (plus some LAers) being able to outvote your entire state on something pertaining directly to OH? Ideally, I'd like to think that everyone realizes that different regions are very different in behavior, providing different things for the country. However, it's very easy to assume everyone else's situation is more similar to yours than it actually is. Public transit is great and all, but I have to drive 25 miles just to get to it. Traffic here means my 10 mile commute takes 15 minutes instead of 12, whereas the joke about LA's freeway is that it's the 405 because you move 4 or 5mph. I don't think citizens of NYC and LA are the best people to be deciding things for me out here in the sticks, where I'm more likely to run into a tractor on the road than a foreign car. At the same time, I realize that I'm not the best person to say what happens in Manhattan.

Michigan even has the same problem internally. A lot of people in isolated, rural areas of the UP are unhappy that Detroit has so much power over them simply due to the number of people there. Many states seem to have similar disconnects of varying intensity between the masses of people in urban centers and the rest of the people spread out over all the rural areas.

On the other hand, should each state in the union have an equal say? Should the half a million people living in the nothingness of Wyoming have just as much say as the 4 million people in LA and the other 34 million in all of California?




Redrawing the state lines to create regions of equal population would mostly address this, but you'd still have some internal urban vs. rural disconnect. I doubt most people would go for a drastic change like this though. And you'd have to keep adjusting state lines in the future to compensate for changes in population density too.


It's a complicated issue. I think a lot of it comes from the huge disparity in population densities. If it was all fairly close and the relative weight of votes in each state varied only a little, I don't think we'd see nearly as much commotion about this. Sure, any time there's something like the electoral college making the people's vote indirect, there's the possibility of the popular vote and the electoral vote not matching. But I think it would be a lot more tolerable if you won the EC by 1 or 2 while losing the popular vote by a fraction of a percent, compared to the current situation where Trump lost the popular vote by 0.3% but wins the EC by 13.8%. It would be a lot more like a technicality of an imperfect system compared to the system seemingly not being in line with the will of the people.

Along those lines, check out the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. A number of states have agreed to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the overall popular vote, taking effect once the number of participating states hits 270 EC votes, thus guaranteeing that the member states would be a sufficient majority to make their votes control the electoral. Individual states dividing up their electoral votes based on the state's popular vote (rather than all-or-nothing first-past-the-post rewards) would have the same sort of effect, but rounding errors would be a bigger factor. A low-pop state with only 3 electoral votes where the popular vote was split 51/49 would result in a 2/1 split of EC votes. Individual states choosing to do this are also reducing their own power compared to other states (hence the NPVIC taking effect after "everyone else does it too"), since the winner no longer gets all the votes, only in proportion to what fraction of the popular vote they got.

There are also some unconventional ideas that could shake things up. One that just came to mind that I haven't heard before (but I'm sure I can't be the first person to think of it) would be to have the state's EC votes based on total population (of registered voters?) rather than just on those who actually voted. Half the people in MI didn't vote? Ok, 8 of our 16 EC votes abstain, and there are only 8 left to be allocated to election winners. Different voting systems (ranking the choices, allowing "backup" picks, etc.) also help to eliminate the two-party, all-or-nothing status quo we've got. There are a lot of possibilities of things we could do which could definitely improve the situation, but we need to be careful to consider all the consequences, good and bad, of a new system.

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by Alex

No - it's just a population chart. It's not the typical blue=democratic red=republican chart that is common during election season. I believe it's just showing population density, and colored the most populous counties blue until it reached half the country's total population. It is striking to see how many of us are clustered in or around cities throughout the country.

Yep, looking at that map, i can point out our major metropolitan areas. its most likely a map created from the census.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by csmith12

Sorry Chone, I am doing a super terrible job of explaining myself.

1st off, our vote is not 100% based on population, every state (geography) gets 3 votes no matter what. This sets an even playing field over all despite population. Past that, people move around freely and from there sets the remaining votes. This can lead to localized tendencies that need to be balanced. Don't mistake a democracy for a republic, in a true democracy, the majority will always be favored by numbers. Since we are not a democracy, but a republic, the electoral colleges helps fight this mob rule flaw, but it's still not perfect. Going further, you should take note that the college is "mostly" free to vote as they see fit as nothing in the constitution requires them to vote any other way. This is both good and bad at the same time but I believe on purpose for it does add another possible layer of separation between populous areas and rural if it needs to be addressed.

Also, I am not trying to interject occupation into the equation, but instead resources. Yes... humans are a resource, a labor force, a military force and so on. The authors of the constitution were very wise beyond the years of many that breath today 200+yrs later. They understood this and that is why the near 9m people in NYC will never totally lord over the almost 2mil in Nebraska.

I've a question about this as an outsider.

Do the electoral college all vote the same way within a state or can a state with 3 votes split their vote 2:1?

[Triple Jim]

Most states vote them all together. I saw a couple exceptions. I think Maine is one.

Edit: You got me interested so I read a little:

http://www.270towin.com/content/spli...e-and-nebraska

[allanoue]

The constitution does not say how they can vote but state laws do.

[JohnnyBravo]

That's what happens when everyone is voting anti-establishment an the establishment thinks it can win... Never take a knife to a gun fight.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

I've a question about this as an outsider.

Do the electoral college all vote the same way within a state or can a state with 3 votes split their vote 2:1?

Originally Posted by allanoue

The constitution does not say how they can vote but state laws do.

Yes the vote can be spit or be some other percentage within a given state. And from my research, only found 16 states that have laws on the books that require their electorates to vote in a manner that is directed. And out of the 16, for a few, the consequences for breaking that law are laughable to say the least.

Here is the main problem with the electoral college and how America in general perceives it. People don't understand freedom anymore. Everyone is so entrenched in their own way that they don't stop to think about how the minority can become slaves to the majority. For the select few that are endowed with the responsibility of being an electorate, they have a selfless job responsibility to not only the people they represent, but to preserve a system that has been working for over 200 years.

Like I said, electors are not bound by the constitution to vote a specific way. I believe this was done on purpose to ensure that any specific elector representing 10m people is free to NOT enslave (by manor of resource or service) a minority even if the populous majority vote in favor of it.

The US way of life is bound together by many checks, balances and failsafes. Although, many... mostly "overthinkers" are so hard set on predetermined outcomes, that they forget the very freedom they enjoy is meant to be employed in a way allowing ALL people to do the right thing together. There will be mistakes along the way, but the core is solid.

Freedom is a really tough pill to swallow when you take it every day for your entire life. - csmith

[CC Cowboy]

I've been gone for a few days. Who won the election? Is everyone happy with the results?

[Triple Jim]

I don't pay much attention to these things, but everyone seems happy.

[Snake]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

I've been gone for a few days. Who won the election? Is everyone happy with the results?

Originally Posted by Triple Jim

I don't pay much attention to these things, but everyone seems happy.

Not everyone is happy. This is the third day of protests.

[Triple Jim]

I guess you missed the humor of both posts.

[JohnnyBravo]

Albert is on a spree of unhelpful voting

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

I've a question about this as an outsider.

Do the electoral college all vote the same way within a state or can a state with 3 votes split their vote 2:1?

its possible for them to change the vote, but could have dire consequences especially with the type of turmoil going on now.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by cbinker

its possible for them to change the vote, but could have dire consequences especially with the type of turmoil going on now.

I would tend to agree, it's not in the best interest of anyone and adds fuel to the fire.

I apologize for adding the population map to the thread. It fueled a debate that didn't need to be, but hopefully someone learned something new. I know I did. For example, the map per vote by county doesn't look much different over the past 16yrs. It's still pockets of blue in a sea of red.

But our world hasn't ended either way...

[Snake]

Originally Posted by JohnnyBravo

Albert is on a spree of unhelpful voting

Who is Albert?

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Snake

Who is Albert?

I think they are referring to Prince Albert, he's still in the can.

[Snake]

^^^^^^ LMAO.

[InvisiBill]

Originally Posted by csmith12

Here is the main problem with the electoral college and how America in general perceives it. People don't understand freedom anymore. Everyone is so entrenched in their own way that they don't stop to think about how the minority can become slaves to the majority. For the select few that are endowed with the responsibility of being an electorate, they have a selfless job responsibility to not only the people they represent, but to preserve a system that has been working for over 200 years.

While a lot of the people screaming about EC change right now are simply upset Hillary supporters, there are things that indicate maybe we need to take a look at it. There have been five instances of the popular winner not winning the election - 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.

• 1824 was just after the Democratic-Republican Party split, leading to having four candidates. Nobody managed to get a majority of the EC votes, so the House voted from the top three candidates, per the 12th Amendment. Even though Jackson won more popular (41.36%-30.92%) and electoral (99-84) votes, the House voted for Adams (41% to 33%).
• In 1876, there were 20 unresolved electoral votes in four states after the election, with both parties declaring their candidate the winner in three of those states. The Compromise of 1877 gave Hayes the votes needed to win, while Tilden won the popular vote by 3%. There was a lot of drama around this election, with violence, intimidation, and deception during the voting. In a truly fair election, it's likely Hayes would've won 189-180 (though it's impossible to say for sure).
• 1888 was similar to this year. Cleveland won the popular vote by 0.83%, but Harrison won the EC 233-168. There were a number of states where the popular vote was within 1%. Cleveland actually lost his home state of NY; if he had gotten it, he would've won 204-197. This cycle saw the nationwide push to switch from preprinted party ballots to secret ballots, after publication of a letter regarding the buying of votes (a small amount that never actually impacted elections) that made Harrison look like he was buying votes.
• In 2000, the EC votes were nearly evenly split between Bush and Gore, and FL's 25 votes became the mathematically deciding factor. Through the night, projections flip-flopped back and forth based on exit polls and the partial vote counts. The final results were close enough to trigger a mandatory machine recount. Gore requested hand recounts in four counties; one failed to meet the deadline for the recount, and another vacated their recount and resubmitted the original numbers, resulting in Bush winning FL by 537 votes. Gore contested the results and the FL Supreme Court ordered a recount of 70,000 votes rejected by machines. The US Supreme Court stepped in and halted the action, saying that a recount of votes "of questionable legality does [...] threaten irreparable harm each manual recount produces a degradation of the ballots." Gore won the popular vote by 0.51%, but Bush won 271-266 with FL's votes. And we all learned about hanging chads.
• In 2004, we almost ran into this again. If Kerry had gotten 60,000 more votes in OH, he would've won 271-266, despite Bush winning the popular vote by 2.36% (2.9 million votes).
• The 2016 votes are still being counted, but currently Clinton is leading the popular vote by 0.5%, while Trump has won the EC 306-232.

The fact that we've had the popular vote not match the EC vote in 2.5 of the last 5 elections, compared to 3 other times in the entire history of the country (all in the 1800s, and 2 of those being very unusual circumstances), may be an indicator that there's a problem we need to address. The big issue is that people only seem to care about reform when they don't get the result they want. How much have you heard from Trump about the "rigged system" since November 9, compared to how much he said about it before the election? If we truly want to get the best system possible, we have to work toward it whether or not the current system happened to swing our way this time. But a lot of people feel that if they give up any advantage they have, the other side will simply take it and not reciprocate, essentially worsening your own situation. Instead, we get the opposite - power grabs whenever possible and vilification of the other side.

[csmith12]

The first step to fixing anything is to identify the problem, so far... that hasn't been done and "my" candidate didn't win is NOT the problem.

I am referred to as one of them "uneducated white men" despite holding multiple degrees, family members in NASA and a nobel prize winner. Funny just because I live in rural KY, predeterminations are made without even knowing someone. I dunno man, by geography... it's above my pay grade to help try to figure out a system that will service everyone equally.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by csmith12

The first step to fixing anything is to identify the problem, so far... that hasn't been done and "my" candidate didn't win is NOT the problem.

I am referred to as one of them "uneducated white men" despite holding multiple degrees, family members in NASA and a nobel prize winner. Funny just because I live in rural KY, predeterminations are made without even knowing someone. I dunno man, by geography... it's above my pay grade to help try to figure out a system that will service everyone equally.

Are you saying you represent the typical *rural* resident?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Are you saying you represent the typical ural resident?

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by csmith12

The first step to fixing anything is to identify the problem, so far... that hasn't been done and "my" candidate didn't win is NOT the problem.

I am referred to as one of them "uneducated white men" despite holding multiple degrees, family members in NASA and a nobel prize winner. Funny just because I live in rural KY, predeterminations are made without even knowing someone. I dunno man, by geography... it's above my pay grade to help try to figure out a system that will service everyone equally.

Are your degrees in Centigrade or Farrenheit? What does NASA stand for in KY? Also, about that NoBell prize, didn't Obama win that just for being the first semi-black president?

[JohnnyBravo]

Originally Posted by Snake

Who is Albert?

Al lanoue... Down votes all my things

[Snake]

Originally Posted by JohnnyBravo

Al lanoue... Down votes all my things

Well that's not very nice!