NDL Forum

dakshdar wrote:

shel311 wrote:

GeorgesGoons wrote:

shel311 wrote:

dakshdar wrote:Just remember, the people don't elect the president directly either. The presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationwide is not automatically the president, it always comes down to the electoral college.

Also doesn't make sense to me.

Without the electoral college the middle of the country has absolutely zero say in who becomes president, most Americans either live on the east/west coasts.

Can you elaborate on this, what does that mean?

If you did away with the electoral college, the middle of the country's delegates wouldn't really change, right?

Electoral college votes are somewhat set by ratios from the 2010 census. They're not perfect, but essentially each state has the number of votes relative to the total of its population relative to the total for the country. It is about 2.5 votes per million people in the census.

I'm not sure how this helps the middle of the country, like George stated, because all but 2 states are winner-take-all when it comes to the electoral college.

The number of electoral college votes in each state is the sum of its U.S. senators and its U.S. representatives. Both of those are tied to it's population.

Each state receives representation in the House in proportion to the size of its population but is entitled to at least one representative. There are currently 435 representatives, a number fixed by law since 1911. The most populous state, California, currently has 53 representatives.

The reason the middle states would have no voice is because they don't have the population the Northeast and West coasts have, thus not having as many electoral college votes. So if you did away with the electoral college then you are pretty much determining the winner of any election by the way the Northeast and West Coast votes. If you add up Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, Iowa, North/South Dakota, you still wouldn't even come close to what California has in population. The electoral college levels the playing field a little, although just those states alone only add up to 26 electoral college votes compared to California's 55. But without those electoral votes to help the south, in their traditional Republican voting trends, the middle states have zero say on who is elected.

And I didn't say that the middle states should count more, I said that they wouldn't have a voice.

If the number of electoral votes for each state is tied to population (essentially), then doesn't each state have a voice proportional to its population, meaning the middle America states have the exact amount of voice they have because of their population (and the same voice they'd have without the electoral college)?

dakshdar wrote:If the number of electoral votes for each state is tied to population (essentially), then doesn't each state have a voice proportional to its population, meaning the middle America states have the exact amount of voice they have because of their population (and the same voice they'd have without the electoral college)?

I see your logic. It's been a long day here of nothingness

GeorgesGoons wrote:

dakshdar wrote:If the number of electoral votes for each state is tied to population (essentially), then doesn't each state have a voice proportional to its population, meaning the middle America states have the exact amount of voice they have because of their population (and the same voice they'd have without the electoral college)?

I see your logic. It's been a long day here of nothingness

I think you are very slightly right in that there is a tiny shift in balance with the college, but I don't think it tends to favor middle America as much as it favors swing states that don't vote the same party 80% of the time.

dakshdar wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:

dakshdar wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:

Oddly enough, the whole thing could be resolved if delegates were redistributed after a party leaves the race.

I don't see how this is even possible unless, in the process of voting, people have to rank all ballot options in order. Which would make way too much sense.

2 options...
1.) Rank all of the entries, including the option to abstain at a certain point.
2.) Eliminate those votes for withdrawn nominees and redistribute based on revised percents.

Redistributing based on revised percentages places an assumption on how people would have voted with a reduced candidate field. I think that's an unfair or unreasonable assumption to put in place. The ranking works better (IMO).

Or... it puts the responsibility on the voters to make their vote count. If you choose to vote for Jeb Bush in an election where he's outclassed, then you take the risk of your vote being nullified.

dakshdar wrote:

shel311 wrote:

dakshdar wrote: It is only an issue because he's a divisive candidate that doesn't appear to be capable of winning enough votes from his own party to win in November, which is only learned through this process. So the party needs the process to pick their candidate.

So we replace him with a Cruz or someone else who the American people(Republicans) spoke up and said they wanted less tham Trump...someone less capable of winning said votes? Just doesn't make sense to me.

I mean, at its core, any person you replace him with is a person who had less votes and was less capable than Trump of winning enough votes.

It depends how people would have voted if they were only given the choice of Cruz vs Trump. In an extreme case, what if everyone that voted Rubio and Kasich the last 2 months would vote Cruz instead. He'd be a runaway winner over Trump. Again, the large number of options is hurting the GOP.

This is the exact spin that the Cruz campaign and other republicans are running with. Sure 40% voted for Trump, but 60% voted against him. It's dumb logic and blatantly assumes every vote for someone else doesn't have Trump as their #2. Cruz is actually the 1 that holds the real hand here. If somehow he dropped out, I'd guess that at least half of his supporters would immediately go to Trump, if not 70%+. Those 2 really aren't that far apart on many things.

people can barely figure out why they are voting for one guy.

if you put 5 guys on a ballot and make people rank you're going to see alot of:

1,2,3,4,5
2,1,3,4,5
3,1,2,4,5
4,1,2,3,5
5,1,2,3,4

meaning they'll just make their pick then 1,2,3,4 down the order the rest of the way. this used to happen all the time back in the day which is why candidates would change their last names to put a small A in front of it. in my town growing up we had 2 guys running (ones name was early in the abc and the other was Russo), that guy put an aRusso in front of it and won the election

from my experience listening to politics, people hitch their wagons on one person and one persons policies and neglect to even listen to the others beyond the major talking points.

DRiccio21 wrote:people can barely figure out why they are voting for one guy.

if you put 5 guys on a ballot and make people rank you're going to see alot of:

1,2,3,4,5
2,1,3,4,5
3,1,2,4,5
4,1,2,3,5
5,1,2,3,4

meaning they'll just make their pick then 1,2,3,4 down the order the rest of the way. this used to happen all the time back in the day which is why candidates would change their last names to put a small A in front of it. in my town growing up we had 2 guys running (ones name was early in the abc and the other was Russo), that guy put an aRusso in front of it and won the election

from my experience listening to politics, people hitch their wagons on one person and one persons policies and neglect to even listen to the others beyond the major talking points.

Unfortunately you're right on all points.

ReignOnU wrote:

DRiccio21 wrote:people can barely figure out why they are voting for one guy.

if you put 5 guys on a ballot and make people rank you're going to see alot of:

1,2,3,4,5
2,1,3,4,5
3,1,2,4,5
4,1,2,3,5
5,1,2,3,4

meaning they'll just make their pick then 1,2,3,4 down the order the rest of the way. this used to happen all the time back in the day which is why candidates would change their last names to put a small A in front of it. in my town growing up we had 2 guys running (ones name was early in the abc and the other was Russo), that guy put an aRusso in front of it and won the election

from my experience listening to politics, people hitch their wagons on one person and one persons policies and neglect to even listen to the others beyond the major talking points.

Unfortunately you're right on all points.

Completely agree

ReignOnU wrote:

dakshdar wrote:

shel311 wrote:

dakshdar wrote: It is only an issue because he's a divisive candidate that doesn't appear to be capable of winning enough votes from his own party to win in November, which is only learned through this process. So the party needs the process to pick their candidate.

So we replace him with a Cruz or someone else who the American people(Republicans) spoke up and said they wanted less tham Trump...someone less capable of winning said votes? Just doesn't make sense to me.

I mean, at its core, any person you replace him with is a person who had less votes and was less capable than Trump of winning enough votes.

It depends how people would have voted if they were only given the choice of Cruz vs Trump. In an extreme case, what if everyone that voted Rubio and Kasich the last 2 months would vote Cruz instead. He'd be a runaway winner over Trump. Again, the large number of options is hurting the GOP.

This is the exact spin that the Cruz campaign and other republicans are running with. Sure 40% voted for Trump, but 60% voted against him. It's dumb logic and blatantly assumes every vote for someone else doesn't have Trump as their #2. Cruz is actually the 1 that holds the real hand here. If somehow he dropped out, I'd guess that at least half of his supporters would immediately go to Trump, if not 70%+. Those 2 really aren't that far apart on many things.

I was using an extreme example.

But, at least in one article from earlier this year (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-trump-l ... e-cruz-top), Cruz was the second choice for more people that had decided to voted for someone else. That lends itself to a likely situation where if people weren't voting for Rubio, Carson, Bush, etc, Cruz would be leading Trump right now. And this was back when people were still considering Bush or Christie (even if they never seemed like real candidates). The trickle-down effect is that in an overpopulated field, Trump is winning, but he hardly seems like the candidate that the majority of Republicans want -- it is just that they majority of Republicans can't get behind any one candidate.

With Rubio dropping, at least one exit poll showed that among NC, OH, and MO voters, 60% of Rubio voters would switch to Cruz, 15% to Trump, and the rest would abstain. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/exit-poll-re ... porters-go

Sure, polls are odd and can't be relied upon, but not too much looks good for Trump if Kasich drops as well (where the same trend toward Cruz is expected but at a lower % rate).

And Kasich has no shot at all of reaching the required delegate count, so staying in now is only to keep his name in the limelight.

At least 3 articles on Yahoo's feed discussing the what-ifs of the unbound delegates now. We're just way ahead of the news!

Something that completely blows my mind still after seeing an estimate that over $250million have already been spent on candidates that have either dropped out or suspended their campaigns.

Making the figure upwards of near $750-$900million on candidates still in the race spent on political campaigning so far with more to come.

Is that even remotely true and if so good lord how expensive are those signs and phone call takers!?!!

I have long been in favor of a modified electoral college. It would be more representative of the individual vote. The formula is simple:

1) Most electorate votes for each state is tied to the district for the US Representatives. Whichever candidate wins said district, gets said electoral vote. The reason for this is simple--in a state like NY where the majority of your population lives in one area (NYC), if the rest of the state votes for Candidate B vs NYC voting for Candidate A, and candidate A only wins 51-49, the current system rewards Candidate A with all the electoral college votes. under the modified electoral college, the districts would be split between the candidates that won them, meaning it represents the state more.

2) The other two electorate votes are for the two Senate spots. These are currently given to the winner of the state. Under the modified electoral college, these would be split among the candidates if either candidate wins more than 33% of the districts in that state. If one candidate wins 67% or more of the districts, he/she would then take both Senate electoral college votes.

it is very interesting to read all of everyone's opinions on here! Jason you make me proud! even packsy and nick! just to name a few! i'am now 60 years old! lolol and i've never seen a more toxic person than trump! i must say thou you guy's in here give me hope! almost all of you see thru the lies and BS!
Trump may seem very strong right now,but he will fail. The American people will never support a nut case like trump! when i used to run for office in my union i learned a truth about Elections. it's called 30/40/30. in every election 30% will always support you. 30% will be against you(no matter what you do). 40% couldn't give a flying fuck one way or the other! to win you got to keep your 30% and get as much as you can of that 40% . Trump already has lost that 40%. No one wants a Bullying vindictive bigot with his hands on the nuclear codes! Trump tries to say he's for the working man,yet he says wages in the USA are to high? Good wishes to all here! Beefy

Personally, I'd rather have someone who couldn't handle a small operation in Benghazi handle the largest military in the world.

For Corey.

Very interesting but long read about how Sanders is sort of winning if you count votes that were cast during the election and not the votes cast well before campaigning started (and how Super Delegates are messed up as they're not necessarily following their intended role).

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/sanders- ... 28076.html

Great read. Great, frustrating read.

dakshdar wrote:For Corey.

Very interesting but long read about how Sanders is sort of winning if you count votes that were cast during the election and not the votes cast well before campaigning started (and how Super Delegates are messed up as they're not necessarily following their intended role).

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/sanders- ... 28076.html

I was going to post a similar article the other day. These votes that are cast before the primaries or caucuses should be counted last.

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:Personally, I'd rather have someone who couldn't handle a small operation in Benghazi handle the largest military in the world.

Did you miss a word here?

I doubt you meant that you WOULD want someone who couldn't keep 20 or so Americans safe running the military.

At least I hope that is what you meant.