and I didn't say smaller states. Smaller populations per state.

NY, Cal., could easily rule the day, along with Philly, Chicago and Boston.

The huge population of those few states would render alllllll the other states meaningless,

and dominated forever, with the cities' interests much different that the sparsely populated states.

Saying "all votes count the same", is meaningless when "giant population centers are the only interests

that matter in the electoral process".

It's like tyranny by giant cities. All those other states don't matter. That is the danger of the idea of

a popular vote rule.

@calfoxwc said:

Because your Dailer Caller argues that moving to a popular vote would cause smaller states' vote to be "counted for nothing".

Popular vote determination would count all votes the same.

I still have to get into the Electoral College thread... but too late tonite...

I mean if simple majorities ruled and everything was based off of a simple majority of the vote our country would be much different today.

@calfoxwc said:

wrong.

if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote

be counted for nothing?

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/07/why-the-founders-created-the-electoral-college/

I know there's a new electoral college thread, but...

Wrong question, cal. The correct one is why should the smallest states' citizens' votes count disproportionately more than the largest's?

Your reference is very selective in its citations of Hamilton's intent and ignores his actions when he saw the Electoral College being bastardized, but one thing it does do is say your position is incorrect:

The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers.

But as much as I love it when your own references support the opposite of your posts, I'll get into that in the new thread... so there's no reason for you to tell me how I'm wrong here.

@bbedward said:

Even though they've been saying the Democrats have a ridiculous advantage with the electoral map due to shifting demographics.

Without the electoral college honestly California might as well be the only state that votes for the president - I'm up for reform but there has to be some kind of system to represent the rest of America too (like the electoral college)

Unlike 2000 though, Trump won the electoral college in a landslide.

Ditto on the "see you in the other thread", bb... including some information you apparently may lack for a change.

if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations

would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote

be counted for nothing?

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/07/why-the-founders-created-the-electoral-college/

@hoorta said:

Well why should a vote in a big city essentially count for less?

It is also funny that the founding fathers created the electoral college to basically prevent this exact type of thing from happening.

@hoorta said:

Granted- but it's not the first time someone has won the popular vote, and lost the election. I'm sure the crybabies are going to push for getting rid of the electoral college after this one.

Even though they've been saying the Democrats have a ridiculous advantage with the electoral map due to shifting demographics.

Without the electoral college honestly California might as well be the only state that votes for the president - I'm up for reform but there has to be some kind of system to represent the rest of America too (like the electoral college)

Unlike 2000 though, Trump won the electoral college in a landslide.

@mld-woody said:

Granted- but it's not the first time someone has won the popular vote, and lost the election. I'm sure the crybabies are going to push for getting rid of the electoral college after this one.

I'd be in favor of breaking up California's 55 votes. Hillary won Cali and NY- those 2 states put you 31% on your way to 270.

@bbedward said:

Well she won the popular vote, and there were a lot of very tight states. It doesn't take a ton of votes to swing a ton of electoral college votes, in the grand scheme of things.

@mld-woody said:

Ha- they didn't do enough polling in Hicksville USA, Farmer City, Illinois, or Mount Olive, North Carolina. & don't forget without that real America, you'd need your own victory garden out back, as well as a few chickens to survive.

I was jumping back and forth between Fox and the Communist News Network, and it was almost comical (at least if you were pulling for Trump). It was like- how can this be happening? As state after state went red. They had all but given HRC the presidency as a done deal last week. Waited for 30-60 minutes to call a state for Trump after every other news outlet had. Around what was it 2:30 or so? She's not giving up- there's still a chance. Then- oh, HRC just called Trump to concede- our bad.

@axe said:

I know people that predicted 330 electoral votes for Hillary

LA Times predicted 350+ yesterday morning, but they said Ohio might be close

@mld-woody said:

Scary dark people......

And they still call it gambling.

WSS

I think all it proves is that for all their bragging and puffery They Don't Know Jack Schitt about polling data.

WSS

There was one in 538's, national poll, data base that "got it right". The final Marist poll, an "A" rated poll put HRC up by one in their raw data, but their adjusted number was Trump +1.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/

A click on the embedded Marist link takes you to the article associated with the poll's release. It opens with:

A majority of voters believe Hillary Clinton has done something illegal, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll days before the presidential election.

A total of 83 percent of likely voters believe that Clinton did something wrong – 51 percent saying she did something illegal and 32 percent saying she something unethical but not illegal. Just 14 percent said she’s done nothing wrong.

By comparison, 79 percent think Donald Trump did something wrong, though not nearly as many think he did something illegal. Just 26 percent think he’s done something illegal, while 53 percent think he’s dome something unethical but not illegal. Just 17 percent think he’s done nothing wrong.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article112635048.html

I'm sure the election will be dissected 20 ways to Sunday over the coming weeks, but at a glance this could be as close to a rationale I've heard.

The late Comey letter impact? I'll leave that for others to parse... but if you dig into Marist's preceding Sept. poll (see page 14) "Soft Dems" were far more favorable towards HRC than Soft Repubs were toward Trump.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article103597232.ece/BINARY/The%20full%20McClatchy-Marist%20poll

@mld-woody said:

This seems like an anomaly. if anything, a chance to rework the formula

Though many will take it as validation of their anti science / anti academic beliefs.

"they say Clinton would win, why should I believe them about the climate?"

As I was partly paying attention to the news coverage today on MSNBC I heard a black woman panelis bemoan the fact that and this is almost a direct quote, as journalists I feel we didn't do enough. As journalist? Please.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

It doesn't matter Woody . Seems to me the consensus of every pore had Donald Trump losing by 4.

The last few days Democrats have been on MSNBC taking an early Victory lap.

WSS

This seems like an anomaly. if anything, a chance to rework the formula

Though many will take it as validation of their anti science / anti academic beliefs.

"they say Clinton would win, why should I believe them about the climate?"

NC was separated by 177,000 votes out of 4.5mm. Georgia 130,000 out of 4mm. Those are close, competitive results which is my definition of toss up.

Ohio was widely predicted for Trump albeit not by the margin he rolled up.