What if the Electors Change their Vote on Monday? Could Hillary Reach 270?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by RAM PhD, Dec 17, 2016.

Loading...
  1. Life Long Learning

    Life Long Learning Active Member

    It helps when the Dems put up a Urban Elite who hated the second amendment and many other things small States stand for.
     
  2. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    You campaign almost exclusively in swing states.
     
  3. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Right, because if anyone is going to stand up to those dastardly urban elites, it's a billionaire property developer from New York City who appoints a Goldman Sachs partner as his Treasury Secretary?

    Even now you don't get it that you've been played? Very sad.
     
  4. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    1. First, target the the winner-takes-all electoral states because that's a mathematical no-brainer. The loss of too many of those states will doom a candidate in the electoral system.

    2. Second: Do a per capita ratio analysis to determine which of the remaining states have the most electoral votes per capita - and then determine (from ascending to descending) which of those states will be most mathematically logical to target.

    3. Third: Factor in difficult-to-measure qualitative political factors that can potentially outweigh the quantitative math. The DNC erred with this by going to the extreme by using faulty voodoo qualitative analytics (that lost touch with reality). Here is an example of relying on a faulty qualitative analytic: "Grandpa was a democrat and I was born a democrat and I'll die a democrat, regardless of the facts that are presented to me."
     
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    That's but one reason why the framers of the Constitution were beyond brilliant; they looked towards the future, and saw cities like Boston, New York, and Philadelphia growing by leaps and bounds.

    The Constitution is a work of art; it's only been amended 17 times beyond the Bill of Rights, one of which (18th-Prohibition) was repealed. That is a testament to how well it has translated over the years.
     
  6. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Sorry, they were smart guys, but you're making it sound like something right out of National Treasure. I don't suppose you have a citation here?

    That's a testament to how difficult it is to change it. And it's been changed for the worse, e.g., Prohibition.
     
  7. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member


    When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe.

    Letter to James Madison (20 December 1787), The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (19 Vols., 1905) edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, Vol. VI, p. 392.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
     
  8. Davewill

    Davewill Member

    Sigh... The Constitution isn't some sort of holy Scripture one believes in. It is a political document. Some parts I like a lot others I don't. The electoral college is one part I don't like. Just as we decided to directly elect senators, we should directly elect the president.

    BTW, the EC could easily screw a Republican. Picture an election with a more moderate R candidate who loses by narrow margins in CA, NY and FL, but wins big in rural States.. Boom, we get a Democratic president with a minority of the votes.

    The problem I have with the house is mostly that we have kept the number of members static while the population has increased massively. This has swung the pendulum too far towards the smaller states. Not a complaint with the system, but how we haven't kept it up to date.
     
  9. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member Staff Member

    So Hillary is an urban elite? What do you call that billionaire real estate developer from NYC? Wouldn't that be an example of an urban elite?
     
  10. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member Staff Member

    All states are winner takes all in the electoral college.
     
  11. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

    You have to scroll down for the table. The number of electors has gone from 81 to 538. California went from 4 electors in 1956 to 55 today.
     
  12. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member


    Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote.

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html
     
  13. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Nebraska and Maine do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes.
     
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Okay, ten points for Decimon.
     
  15. Davewill

    Davewill Member

    You didn't read my post properly, I was referring to the number of house members not the EC.
     
  16. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member


    Yes, I misread it.

    OT, in the email of this post it says "horse members." I was going to reply that I've called them worse but here it says "house members." And it doesn't look like you edited the post.
     
  17. Life Long Learning

    Life Long Learning Active Member

    It is sad the Nation picked a Billionaire over a criminal......it was the sad sign of the 2016 elections. Ugly and uglier!

     
  18. Life Long Learning

    Life Long Learning Active Member

    Maine has an Independent streak and Independent governor. Many States do not think at all.

     
  19. jhp

    jhp Member

    There were only three presidents, Wilson, Coolidge and Truman that had less than a million net worth in the 20th century.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2016
  20. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    See decimon's post above, plus it's mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

    Yes, and that was rectified several years later. The Constitution should be difficult to amend, it's the highest law of the land, but when the American people make a mistake, they usually correct it in due time.
     

Share This Page