For me, and I may well be far enough away from JIMGA's views on Sanders, who I think has been a largely misguided but quite honorable public servant and in terms of being evil or insane is far less so than Trump, to make it possibly not even something we can rationally discuss -- but for me, this election has really changed my perspective in terms of saying 'this would happen' or 'that's how it would go'. And yes, that was a horrible sentence that any self-respecting English teacher would crucify. Grammar Nazis, have at it if you wish(I'm looking at you, Izulde, if you read this). I know it's terrible. Deal with it :P.

But seriously, my box in terms of what's possible or even fairly likely has been expanded by about a factor of a hundred. Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States. This is not true in a bad work of fiction, or a somebody's drug-induced vision, or some absurdly over-the-top Hollywood movie(I'm looking at you, Ben Affleck, for the very premise of The Accountant). I was more right than many about this election, and I was horribly wrong in the final analysis. Donald Trump is the president-elect. On that basis, what is there that really couldn't happen? Seriously. The next time I'm playing some wasteful time-sink of a computer game and I come across something that seems absurdly unrealistic, I'm going to think about that.

Donald Trump is the president-elect. There is very little that reaches a greater level of absurdity than that.

I am curious as to what Clinton supporters here think of this piece by an avowed Sanders supporter:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/opinio...ini/index.html

[excerpt]

Clearly that wasn't held up by working class voters in WI, OH, PA, etc.

I don't see how that's clear at all. Obama wasn't on the ballot.

Sure sounds like a Republican economic plan to me.

I do have to laugh when people relate Obama's approval rating to this election. This loss had everything to do with Hillary and nothing to do with Obama.

When an idiot like MBBF can point out weeks ago in this very thread exactly what was going to happen in the election, you need to rethink your logic when it comes to this election thing.

Or it wasn't about being to similar too Obama.

The large group of people in those states that switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 also suggests that the issue wasn't about being to close to Obama.

Interesting discussion......

Facebook's Fight Against Fake News Was Undercut by Fear of Conservative Backlash

It's an avowed Sanders supporter who thinks that Sanders would have won and therefore portrays anything to the right of Sanders as wrong. The 'light touch of regulation' and 'meek taxes on the wealthy' charges are somewhat ridiculous considering just how left Clinton was portrayed by those on the right.

So you have Sanderistas saying she's a Republican and you have Republicans saying she's the farthest left candidate we've ever had. I think it's fair to say that Clinton falls in the middle of those caricatures.

Put it another way, y'all know me around her. I'd say that my policies are equivalent to Clinton's policies. I basically believe the same things that she does (I may be slightly more circumspect on abortion, but aside from that I'm totally on board). I don't know anyone on this board who would consider me a Republican. But also people on this board wouldn't consider me far left (with some exceptions ;) ) either. That's where Clinton ends up on the spectrum.

They're idiots just like Colin Kaepernick. But it's worth noting that due to the electoral college, they would've had zero effect on the outcome of the election.

This is honestly one of my biggest questions about the protests....

How many voiced their opinions when it really mattered?

That's very true, but I wonder how many of them know that it's also not just president you're voting on. When it comes to local elections, those tiny numbers make a difference.

Abolishing the electoral college would boost overall voting participation rates for this reason.

Not to mention having a much greater impact on their daily lives. Stupid not to vote for local/state amendments/offices.

Sometimes I wonder if all this effort to improve voting rates is really a good thing. Most people can't articulate the policy positions of the presidential candidates, much less the local county judge.

It should require much more than living long enough and staying out of federal prison to be eligible to vote.

If the idea wasn't prone to abuse, I think people should have to pass a citizenship test every 10 years or so to be eligible to vote.

Realistically, your one vote isn't going to change any election, even if you live in a swing state, and even if went to a popular vote system. Voting is more of a duty. I think it's the fundamental duty that demonstrates that you care how your federal, state, and local government operate. There's many other things you can do that will have a more direct, positive impact, but if you don't even fulfill that first fundamental duty, I doubt your sincerity in those other things.

No no no no no.

Popular vote would/could also suppress voter turnout. The better option, and one that jibes more with the intent of the electoral college, is allocating the EC votes proportionally the way Maine and Nebraska do. They're the only holdovers at this point, but many states had some kind of proportional assignment of their EC votes in their early history.

How so? Genuinely curious.

Recent history has taught us that most presidential candidates don't articulate their own policies - they simply say how much their opponents suck.

One candidate seems like the sure winner, so those who want to vote for the other decide it's not worth the effort.

One candidate is the clear choice of the urban voter, so the badly outnumbered rural voters don't bother.

Those two are the easiest ones to see happening and I would venture there are other scenarios.

I didn't vote major party because I wanted to get a third party eligible for federal campaign funds, and I felt comfortable doing so because I knew my vote didn't matter in my state. It was going to go to the less horrible of the two major options, and wouldn't be overridden by people outside of my state, so I knew I had the option to try and broaden the overall conversation for 2020. If we're going by popular vote, I'm likely casting my vote for one of the big two options, especially if it appears that it could be close.

Not sure if this made it here yet or not.

Maine became the first state in the country Tuesday to pass ranked choice voting

I would love for the EC to allocate their votes proportionally, but that is NOT how Maine and Nebraska do it. They do it based on congressional districts. If gerrymandering was bad now, imagine how bad it would be if Presidential elections depended on it.

There are other races besides the President that are on the ballot.

And today Trump now loves the electoral college.

It's clear someone in his team just sat him down and educated him on the conservative argument for the electoral college.

I agree, which is why I called those people and Kaepernick idiots. I was just pointing out how dumb the winner take all aspect of the EC is, as it makes extra voters in states completely meaningless.

It would render votes outside a relative handful of urban centers meaningless.

The depressive effect on turnout -- barring an incredibly successful get out the vote effort across every other area, en masse -- would be enormous.

This is exactly why I don't think it would be as cut/dry as everyone else seems to think it will.

I'm not sure what the true total impact would be, but I don't think it is simple.

Anyone aware of any proposed EC modifications? Such as candidates being awarded a % of the EC votes rather than winner take all? Are there drawbacks to something like that?

Seems like it would make each vote more relevant while also keeping it as a 50 state campaign rather than the (more typical) handful of swing states.

This. I think it would likely open up way more of the map than is typical. In most campaigns 80% or more of the map can be ignored after the primaries. Suddenly the difference between 80/20 and 60/40 could swing the election. Not only would Dems have a reason to campaign in red states, but GOPers would have a reason to visit upstate NY and interior CA.

This would be an interesting compromise as it is closer to a popular vote system, but the smaller states retain their voting power per person advantage.

The one drawback is you couldn't do fractional electors for a state. So for a 3 electoral vote state, if it went 51-49, you couldn't give them each 1.5 electors. The 51% would get 2 and the 49% would get 1. So you wouldn't be able to do a true proportional system, but it would still be better than winner take all, which makes zero sense.

Short version, 'cause I'm doing like 12 things atm (11 of which are ostensibly work-related). You should be able to work out the issue from this quick fact:

Roughly 1/3rd of the U.S. population is contained in just the top 11-12 media markets ... out of 210 markets.

Without the EC, anything below market 35 or so (and that might be generous) become meaningless to candidates.

I think the theory is more that candidates will concentrate their campaigning in more populated areas, and areas that are heavily slanted in their direction. (f.e. Dems campaign in Cali/northeast corridor, Republicans campaign in Texas & the south/midwest).

I'm not sure if it would have an appreciable effect on turnout either way, but it would certainly change which states are targeted, and I think it would exacerbate the echo chambers and resentment felt by the opposing team. Proportional electors from each state seems like a much better idea, though it would have to be a large amount of states agreeing at once, otherwise if just a California passed a resolution it would benefit Republicans too much etc.

You think there's mega-urban vs the rest divide now? Oh my goodness, I'm not sure most people can grasp the extent it would rise to.

I realize that there's no shortage of folks in some of those cities content to burn their own stuff down but something like this comes to pass they'd very likely have a lot of willing help.

If you think people who live closer together deserve less rights than people who live far apart, then the Electoral College is a great system.

What I find interesting is the Supreme Court said states can't use their own EC-style system to decide elections on a statewide level (see: Baker v. Carr). So our own method of selecting a President is unconstitutional for the states to implement for selecting a Governor.

This doesn't make sense. As of now the 3 biggest states are relatively ignored, while the candidates focus on the rust belt, NH, Nevada, Florida, now North Carolina and maybe Arizona/Colorado. (Outside of an arrogant enough candidate like HRC to think she had enough of a lead Texas & Georgia were in play.) And I assume legislatures in Montana, Idaho, the Dakota's, Vermont, Alaska etc can do the math and see they have a proportionally bigger voice in the EC system than they do as a straight % of population. Popular vote might happen, but the impetus will come from those coastal elites, not as a response to them.

I mean...I'm probably out of step. But why do people actually care if a candidate comes to their state/hometown? I mean, I have a pretty good idea who a candidate is from, uh, basically having my eyes open. I mean, we're inundated by this stuff. I guess I don't see the appeal of "s/he came to our town! that shows s/he really cares about us!" Who gives a rat's ass where they campaign.

People, man. I don't get 'em.

It's not about the visits per se, it's about whether the issues of Area X will/won't be addressed.

Given the voting proclivities of many of those urban centers, I'd prefer to see those people disenfranchised entirely. They're contributing to the rapid decay & decline of the entire nation.

Like Jon said, it's the issues they focus on. Because the Rust Belt played such a big role in this election & presumably will do so in the next one, the Dems in particular are much more likely to nominate an anti-free trade candidate or have their politicians tack that way in the campaign. If Silicon Valley or the Boston tech hub were in play maybe an issue like net neutrality would have a bigger profile and force politicians to stake out a position more in-depth than "Hackers are fat and bad. Email security. CYBER!" a.k.a. I'll do whatever Comcast wants once I'm in office.

Gay marriage is another good example - >60% support it in national polls, but because it's much closer to 50/50 in toss up states like Ohio, Florida, North Carolina even liberal candidates hedge their bets instead of strongly supporting it.

This I can understand more. I was perhaps getting hung up on the "candidates will concentrate their campaigning in more populated areas" idea. Campaigning on the issues of more populated areas is a bit different, to me.

But why shouldn't the issues of more populated areas win out if there is in fact more of them overall? Here in Georgia, the less populated areas win out over more populated areas and have been for two decades now. Should we adopt some warped system to make sure that Atlanta isn't subject to the values of the rest of the state?

No, Voter Turnout Wasn’t Way Down From 2012 | FiveThirtyEight