4 ms·

To quantify that "very close", in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, which is 1.5% of the voting population. I would not call that v

To quantify that "very close", in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, which is 1.5% of the voting population. I would not call that very close. It isn't a difference of some 1000 votes. It's an election of a minority leader.

newfriend 7y ago
It was an election of a majority leader. The majority of electoral votes were for Donald Trump, by a large margin. The house is elected by population, the senate by state. The electoral college is designed to be a blend of the house and senate systems.
- sachdevap 7y ago
  Well, if we're talking of why electoral college was designed to be this way, then we should read the intention of the founders. > As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” [0] Firstly, that has nothing to do with a "blend", and secondly that purpose was far from served. I rest my case. [0] https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/ https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-elector...
  - Kerrick 7y ago
    In those days I don’t think the electoral college members were bound by law to vote for the president that state-run popular votes determine are the state’s choice. Of course the purpose isn’t being served if the men and women of the college aren’t allowed to act on their own.
    - sachdevap 7y ago
      To be clear, I am not favoring the originalist interpretation. I don't think the founders of the constitution were god-sent. They were smart people, and we can put our own heads to work to create electoral systems congruent with our values. PS: I like how you said "men and women" there. If we go by the founders, women wouldn't be part of the electoral college.
    - MertsA 7y ago
      The original intent wasn't even that the president was democratically elected. In most states today the electoral college members aren't bound by law to vote for the winner of the state's general election. The original intent was that each state government sent their chosen electoral college members and then it was up to them to figure out who to vote for from that point onwards.
      - your-nanny 7y ago
        yes. state governments elected Presidents, and that is a good way to avoid populists.
  - newfriend 7y ago
    But we aren't talking about why it was designed this way, we are talking about why there are 538 electors, and why the popular vote total doesn't matter at all. The total amount of electors is a sum of the total house reps + total senate -- appears to be a blend of both systems to me. You said "It's an election of a minority leader.", but that isn't the case by any measure that actually matters, however upsetting it may be for you. Whatever case you are resting has nothing to do with how many total electors there are, and neither does Hamilton's opinion.
- greenpizza13 7y ago
  You refuse to appreciate the context of his comment. Trump is a minority leader in the context of the popular vote. That's just by definition. The reason we're not talking about electoral votes is because the discussion revolves around how things would change if we went with the popular vote. Yes, he got more electoral votes. Many would argue this is a broken system which has fucked our country for the second time in 3 presidents.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mvkel 7y ago
    Doesn't that speak more to how divided we are as a country, not some fundamental flaw in the system?
masonic 7y ago
Nite that Hew York City alone accounted for more than half of that margin.

newfriend 7y ago

It was an election of a majority leader. The majority of electoral votes were for Donald Trump, by a large margin. The house is elected by population, the senate by state. The electoral college is designed to be a blend of the house and senate systems.

sachdevap 7y ago
Well, if we're talking of why electoral college was designed to be this way, then we should read the intention of the founders. > As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” [0] Firstly, that has nothing to do with a "blend", and secondly that purpose was far from served. I rest my case. [0] https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/ https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-elector...
- Kerrick 7y ago
  In those days I don’t think the electoral college members were bound by law to vote for the president that state-run popular votes determine are the state’s choice. Of course the purpose isn’t being served if the men and women of the college aren’t allowed to act on their own.
  - sachdevap 7y ago
    To be clear, I am not favoring the originalist interpretation. I don't think the founders of the constitution were god-sent. They were smart people, and we can put our own heads to work to create electoral systems congruent with our values. PS: I like how you said "men and women" there. If we go by the founders, women wouldn't be part of the electoral college.
  - MertsA 7y ago
    The original intent wasn't even that the president was democratically elected. In most states today the electoral college members aren't bound by law to vote for the winner of the state's general election. The original intent was that each state government sent their chosen electoral college members and then it was up to them to figure out who to vote for from that point onwards.
    - your-nanny 7y ago
      yes. state governments elected Presidents, and that is a good way to avoid populists.
- newfriend 7y ago
  But we aren't talking about why it was designed this way, we are talking about why there are 538 electors, and why the popular vote total doesn't matter at all. The total amount of electors is a sum of the total house reps + total senate -- appears to be a blend of both systems to me. You said "It's an election of a minority leader.", but that isn't the case by any measure that actually matters, however upsetting it may be for you. Whatever case you are resting has nothing to do with how many total electors there are, and neither does Hamilton's opinion.
greenpizza13 7y ago
You refuse to appreciate the context of his comment. Trump is a minority leader in the context of the popular vote. That's just by definition. The reason we're not talking about electoral votes is because the discussion revolves around how things would change if we went with the popular vote. Yes, he got more electoral votes. Many would argue this is a broken system which has fucked our country for the second time in 3 presidents.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mvkel 7y ago
  Doesn't that speak more to how divided we are as a country, not some fundamental flaw in the system?

masonic 7y ago

Nite that Hew York City alone accounted for more than half of that margin.