Everyone in here is repeating the same stuff someone else said

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk  

Here's a strange idea: In an election cycle dominated by populism, nominating a career politician with record low trustworthy numbers might have been a bad? decision? Maybe?

GG Trump wins. Happy to be surprised at this outcome  

Just wondering...why is it that one candidate wins the popular vote but doesn't actually win the election because of the "electoral college"? Why is that a thing? Why is it that the actual citizen's votes mean next to nothing and the votes of some guys that "represent" a state is what actually matters? It's doesn't make sense to me.  

Posted by Coco

Just wondering...why is it that one candidate wins the popular vote but doesn't actually win the election because of the "electoral college"? Why is that a thing? Why is it that the actual citizen's votes mean next to nothing and the votes of some guys that "represent" a state is what actually matters? It's doesn't make sense to me.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ele...s_Popular_Vote  

 

because if the electoral college didn't exist every election would be decided by a few heavily populated states like New York, Texas, Florida, Michigan, California. Elections would not be reflective of the entire countries interests, just the really big states.  

Posted by Bryan*

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ele...s_Popular_Vote

Yeah I know what the difference is, I'm saying I don't get why that's a thing. Why is it that the votes people of the country don't matter and instead what actually matters are a couple people from each state. It makes so sense and quite frankly seems incredibly stupid to me that it even exists lol.  

Posted by Coco

Just wondering...why is it that one candidate wins the popular vote but doesn't actually win the election because of the "electoral college"? Why is that a thing? Why is it that the actual citizen's votes mean next to nothing and the votes of some guys that "represent" a state is what actually matters? It's doesn't make sense to me.

It was created when they made the Constitution. The creators wanted educated people to have the ultimate vote, especially because back then, there was a much wider gap and many people weren't educated.

Most states are also winner-take-all. That means you can win 51% of the state, but it acts as if 100% of the state's population voted for you. To add even more bull **** on to the electoral college, no one is required to vote the way their state votes. It's occured 3 times in America's history that a candidate has won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. It's bull **** but no one's willing to change it. If you're a republican and live in california, your vote literally gets counted for the democratic candidate. Same goes for democrats in a state like Texas.m  

Posted by Coco

Yeah I know what the difference is, I'm saying I don't get why that's a thing. Why is it that the votes people of the country don't matter and instead what actually matters are a couple people from each state. It makes so sense and quite frankly seems incredibly stupid to me that it even exists lol.

They say it's to avoid voter fraud. Maybe these will help:

•https://www.google.com/amp/www.teleg...?client=safari

•https://www.google.com/amp/dailysign...?client=safari

•http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the...toral-college/  

Posted by David

because if the electoral college didn't exist every election would be decided by a few heavily populated states like New York, Texas, Florida, Michigan, California. Elections would not be reflective of the entire countries interests, just the really big states.

That's not true at all. In fact, elections currently aren't reflective of the entire country because states like Rhode Island and many ither small states are guarunteed 3 votes, even though their population % should only give them 1 electoral vote. That means bigger states have to give up some of their electoral votes. Ohio, California, New York, and Florida actually have fewer electoral votes than they should based on population. The biggest 10 cities in America only make up about 9% of the population in the country. You can't win an election by getting that. However, you can win a state by winning the big cities. And that is how the electoral college rigs elections.  

That's my entire point, though. It levels the playing field so that small states aren't completely shut out of the process of the election. Giving small states a little more sway while not letting huge states completely dominate the polls by numbers alone = more reflective of the entire countries interest.  

Posted by David

That's my entire point, though. It levels the playing field so that small states aren't completely shut out of the process of the election. Giving small states a little more sway while not letting huge states completely dominate the polls by numbers alone = more reflective of the entire countries interest.

Why is it by states, though? Get rid of the electoral college and states don't matter at all. People matter. You say the electoral college is good because it gives states more equal representation, but without the electoral college, there isn't any state representation. That's like trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. It just makes things worse.  

Posted by David

That's my entire point, though. It levels the playing field so that small states aren't completely shut out of the process of the election. Giving small states a little more sway while not letting huge states completely dominate the polls by numbers alone = more reflective of the entire countries interest.

But why do the states even matter? Why can't it be as simple as everyone in the country voting and whoever gets the most votes wins?  

im very interested to see what immigration reform Trump actually enacts. I'm in a border state, so this will certainly effect me. I pray we don't built the wall, since that won't help anyone(most undocumented immigrants are people overstaying their visas). However I do hope for change, perhaps just not as drastic as the wall.

Earlier discussed in this thread was the fact that the Clinton campaign payed Youtubers. Add MinutePhysics to the list.  

We're the united states of America. "The united people of America" has a nicer idealistic ring to it, but that's just not the way it works. Highly populated areas have their own specific interests while less populated areas (like in the midwest) have their own interests. It's just not fair if a candidate wins the big cities and simply just caters to them, it gives them absolutely no incentive to improve upon the rest of the country that is less populated (but still very vast). Not to mention the electoral college actually gives minorities a larger voice in elections, because what if every election was decided by white people alone?

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/topics/el...ing-minorities