5 ms·

Politicians know the electoral college decides the election. If the candidates had been campaigning for the popular vote, presumably Trump would campaign harder

Politicians know the electoral college decides the election. If the candidates had been campaigning for the popular vote, presumably Trump would campaign harder for more votes in large states like California and New York.

_fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
Possible. But so would've Clinton.
- webXL 10y ago
  Clinton couldn't gain as much support because she already has most of the likely voters, and a lot of Republicans think, why bother, she's a lock for the electoral votes.
  - _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
    Whatever, with no data to back up your claim this is just hot air. Maybe she would've gotten more support from people that now decided to vote third party or didn't bother to vote at all. You can basically rationalize every outcome outcome if you don't have to rely on data.
mch82 10y ago
It's about the people, not the politicians. The fact that campaign strategy matters more than campaign platform is a huge weakness in the current system.
- ng12 10y ago
  It's like that by design. Representative democracy is intended to limit the ability of the majority to shoehorn the minority -- in this case the coastal population centers vs. the rest of the country.
  - benchaney 10y ago
    >Representative democracy is intended to limit the ability of the majority to shoehorn the minority That is a benefit of certain aspects of our political system, but not the electoral college. The electoral college only serves to introduce bizarre volatility into the elections.
    - pc86 10y ago
      This is a nice sound bite (kind of), but doesn't bear out the actual facts. The EC was designed specifically to ensure that States (in the big-S, Constitutional meaning) decide the President, not the people.
      - benchaney 10y ago
        That's true, but doesn't really contradict what I said.
        pc86 10y ago
        It directly contradicts the last line of your statement. The EC does not exist "to introduce bizarre volatility"
        benchaney 10y ago
        Allowing states to control the elections is a mean not an end. Given that the vote of states are determined by a popular vote within the state, the only end that is accomplished by the EC is introducing volatility.
  - mmanfrin 10y ago
    No it's not, it's like that as an artifact of what it used to be (that the President was elected by electors, not by the people).
    - ng12 10y ago

_fizz_buzz_ 10y ago

Possible. But so would've Clinton.

webXL 10y ago
Clinton couldn't gain as much support because she already has most of the likely voters, and a lot of Republicans think, why bother, she's a lock for the electoral votes.
- _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
  Whatever, with no data to back up your claim this is just hot air. Maybe she would've gotten more support from people that now decided to vote third party or didn't bother to vote at all. You can basically rationalize every outcome outcome if you don't have to rely on data.

mch82 10y ago

It's about the people, not the politicians. The fact that campaign strategy matters more than campaign platform is a huge weakness in the current system.

ng12 10y ago
It's like that by design. Representative democracy is intended to limit the ability of the majority to shoehorn the minority -- in this case the coastal population centers vs. the rest of the country.
- benchaney 10y ago
  >Representative democracy is intended to limit the ability of the majority to shoehorn the minority That is a benefit of certain aspects of our political system, but not the electoral college. The electoral college only serves to introduce bizarre volatility into the elections.
  - pc86 10y ago
    This is a nice sound bite (kind of), but doesn't bear out the actual facts. The EC was designed specifically to ensure that States (in the big-S, Constitutional meaning) decide the President, not the people.
    - benchaney 10y ago
      That's true, but doesn't really contradict what I said.
      - pc86 10y ago
        It directly contradicts the last line of your statement. The EC does not exist "to introduce bizarre volatility"
        benchaney 10y ago
        Allowing states to control the elections is a mean not an end. Given that the vote of states are determined by a popular vote within the state, the only end that is accomplished by the EC is introducing volatility.
- mmanfrin 10y ago
  No it's not, it's like that as an artifact of what it used to be (that the President was elected by electors, not by the people).
  - ng12 10y ago