I finally understood why we had the EC after the 2000 election, and it shows even more so in this one. Just take a look at a red/blue map. It's especially fun when they show it by county. When they were showing the Florida map by county and there were like 5 blue dots and the rest of it red, but the vote is close, you start understanding the deep divide and why there needs to be some balance. Plus it does help give some weight to the small states.

However, I also don't agree that Hillary "won" the popular vote. It's at 47.89% to 47.16%. When she hits 50.000000001%, then she's "won" the popular vote. A majority of the people that actually got off their butts to vote voted for someone other than her, just like a majority voted for someone other than Trump.

You cannot set up an EC system on a state level. That was tried and struck down by SCOTUS in Baker v. Carr.

I've never understood this. I get that it looks so cool on a map. Look at all that red with just those tiny bits of blue! But why should people be punished because more of them move to one area? 10 million people live in one city and 10 million people live spread out across different boundaries and people really think the latter should win out simply because they live further apart.


Under that criteria, Trump didn't win UT, MI, WI, PA, FL, AZ, or NC.

We'll see if Vox corrects it, but as for now I think I'll trust the guy whose job it is rather than a random guy on the internet. Secondly, the 2nd question is actually a long used well known question in finding out attitudes on sexism (really, google the term - it's used in a number of studies). As he said, it was one of a well established battery of questions used to measure sexism.

I also will note that apparently no one except Jon has a problem with the racism or economic questions that were pulled. So we good with those questions being used in the avoiding bias concern?

Don't overstate it, I didn't pay much attention to the economic question one way or the other.

Anybody that allows themselves to be associated with a garbage publication like Vox is subject to question for everything they do, including looking out the window & reporting back with an accurate take on the weather.

The sexism one was simply the most comically obvious.

I'm aware of that. It wasn't a serious proposal.

When did Vox become AIDS patient zero?

Your point? You realize even if they counted only those electoral votes where the winner got more than 50%, Trump is still ahead 213-182.

My "job" is research, specifically in the field of education. I've been published. I've presented at conferences. I've worked on multiple studies during my PhD program. I'm currently awaiting IRB approval for my dissertation proposal. This is what I do. My research methodology professor literally wrote the book on it. She just gave 6 presentations at a major educational research conference.

The second question, when using it by itself, is a loaded question that requires the researcher to imply a motivation on the respondent without clarifying questions to discern true motivation. The page he links to as the source of the question actually says the following:

Would it be explicitly sexist if someone answered yes to the same question about men? What about people who don't view using sexuality as a bad thing? It's a poorly structured survey that doesn't glean nearly enough detailed information to be valuable.

I was responding to gstelmack's definition of won. Under his definition, then nobody won 270 electoral votes. I'm in favor of electoral reforms like Maine's ranked choice initiative to settle the issue for situations when nobody gets 50%.

But Dutch, states aren't selecting the president are... the people in them are. It's not like each state has equal representation and Trump won 30 to 20. To better explain my point, take Alaska and Maryland as examples. Alaska had a total of 266,763 voters and represents 3 EC votes which averages out to about 1 EC vote per 88,912 voters...Maryland has 2,662,634 voters and has 10 EC votes which equals out to 266,263 voters per EC vote. That's about a 3 to 1 ratio in favor of Alaska. Other states she have similar issues and it slants in both directions. Why should the voice of the collective group of voters in one state out way the collective group in another simply because of the size of the state ? Is there any state that selects its governor based on anything other that popular vote ? Just curious.

States are electing the president.

No state does this, because it's unconstitutional per Baker v. Carr and Reynold v. Sims. It violates the One Person, One Vote principle.

Is there more to the question? From how I'm reading it, I don't see the word sexuality. Is it implied, am I missing more context? If it is implied then I think readers assuming it relates sexuality does suggest... something.

No, the electoral college does. They cast the votes generally based on the popular vote of that members of that state. Sure a EC vote can ignore the will of the people but how often does that happen and has it ever changed the results of an election.

But I do get what you are saying, I just wasn't being literal in my case with Dutch.

Maybe there just needs to be a fine tuning of the EC and popular vote is not the answer. They whole concept just seems to penalize the larger states and surpress voting in a manor that doesn't happen at the state level.

You're right that I don't believe sexuality is specifically mentioned.

That said, isn't it by far the most likely method of control a woman would use on a man? It's also the only method that is primarily related to gender differences, which is what this question focuses on.

It's from a sexism inventory test. The chart rates it as being about sexism.

Ah ha. That makes sense.

The ambiguity of the question is yet another reason why it's a horrible survey.

Agreed.

I'm fully aware of how the EC works and how it's weighted.

The point being, when the union was formed, can you guess why none of the other original 13 states were really very enthused to join Pennsylvania and New York in a popular vote election? And this wasn't a race issue or an immigration issue. This was just purely about overwhelming numbers in those two states.

But New York and Pennsylvania needed all 13 for a common defense against the elements of this world we live in. The population alone wasn't what was important. So...New York and Pennsylvania essentially ceded some of it's overwhelming numbers with the EC compromise that ensured that the smaller states would have some level of influence and not just be tied to the bumper of New York's population locomotive.

While the sheer numbers of people lived in New York and Pennsylvania, the other 11 states did provide value far beyond just sheer number of people. Do you agree with that? They provided geography which was important for defense, agriculture, industry, mining and limited the powers of the British, the French, the Spanish and even the native Americans from picking them off one by one and ultimately surrounding New York.

The same, for different reasons, exists today. Tell Oregon and Alaska and Mississippi and Texas they are irrelevant in the election of our President.

Let me ask you. If the EC Compromise is removed from the Constitution...Would you be willing to allow the 50 United States to individually hold a referendum to stay or secede from the Union? The Democrats don't like those pesky, racist, sexist, xenophobic, deplorable small states anyway. Would "The United Peoples of America" willfully let them leave or is there some value they provide beyond population that would make you oppose (even forcefully) their departure?

Interesting dilemma.

I would be in favor of letting states secede from the union if the EC goes. I do not want to be represented by California or New York. Which is what will happen. People in those states do not hold the same values as I do.

Shoot, I would be in favor of California seceding from the USA right now.

Am I missing something with this whole NYC and LA will pick the president thing? Don't get me wrong the EC whiners have said nothing until November 8 so it's clearly sour grapes but outside of this election the popular vote usually lines up with the EC. People really think there will be more turnout that isn't happening now?

My only thought is the West Coast will have more impact because once the results start coming in it will influence the vote one way or the other. (I apologize if this point has been made 1000 times I admit casually browsing this thread as neither candidate was appealing to me at all) But don't understand all the anger.

This comment puts a philosophical question up for me: should the office of the President be chosen by 50 different voices of 50 different states, reflecting their culture and values, or a single amalgamated "American" voice?

I've never lived in a particularly small state, so perhaps the state-to-state differences that I perceive aren't as pronounced everywhere, but in the three states in the southeastern U.S. where I've lived, there are very much distinctive cultures, norms, and even accents. (Heck, I've lived in the South all my life, and I had trouble even *understanding* people with heavy Lowcountry accents when I moved to the Charleston area.)

Anyway, it does seem like a relevant question to the discussion at hand.

Who will your state leech money from if they leave?

It very much was a slavery issue.

This is really the argument for a lot of people. I shouldn't have to accept what other people vote for.

I think Missouri runs a balanced budget, possibly a surplus. Obviously there are the federal funds that they hijack you into taking but Missouri is probably a bad example for this. Don't get me wrong I don't support leaving but I also don't think Missouri is one of the problem states.

Missouri gets a $1.36 for every $1 they pay in.

The bullshit is really, really high in this thread. Someone claiming Clinton didn't "win" the popular vote at all because she didn't reach 50%? This isn't Louisiana. Win means who got the most? Clinton did. But she lost the electoral college.

"States elect the president". No they don't, electors elect the president. Read a fucking book sometime.

I want California to secede because "People in those states do not hold the same values as I do." No shit. Thank you for that stunning insight. That whining is high up the list of what I've heard in this election.

"People really think there will be more turnout that isn't happening now?" if we go to a straight national popular vote. Again, I will say that I am not that into changing our electoral system one way or another, but YES there is evidence that would support that in a highly contested election that people in swing states turnout quite a bit more than in other states.

2016g - United States Elections Project

Look at the states that hit 65%+... almost all swing states. That's definitely a generalization without looking at any other local factors that could've driven turnout, but there is definitely data to suggest that a straight popular vote would increase turnout in states that are currently considered "foregone conclusions" in the electoral college system.

Sure it *did*.

Right now we agree that both sides have a voice. As stated, a pure population vote would have given the Democrats 4 more victories. I don't see that get better for a long time, certainly not in my lifetime. So there is some comfort on the part of small states that the United States still have enough of a voice to change the outcome every once in a while (4 out of 45 times). It's not asking a whole lot.

How many times has a single elector not followed the will of the people in their state as far as the election goes. :popcorn:

I'll do the work for you. No more than 1 elector in any single election after 1912. The large numbers that occasionally happened before that were often related to candidates dying before electoral college votes were officially cast.

"Men seek to gain power by getting control over women." - would you not have harsh words for a woman who said this? And for folks who don't view sexuality as a bad thing (basically the people who did the survey in the first place), to claim that women, as a group, are looking to gain power by getting control over men is a long established sexist trope (and a prime accepted view of the 'negging' community; and fears of being 'trapped' by a woman).

I respect your research background, but I think your biases are getting in the way of a quite clearly sexist statement.

I don't need "the work done for me". What difference does that make? Your statement was incorrect.

Not sure what old banned poster or alt you are, but your hammering away in this thread is quite amusing, yet frustrating in that your statements of "fact" are largely incorrect.

Some men are that way. Some women have experienced that kind of situation. They're not sexist for saying so.

And yet half a dozen people here have already poked holes in a single question that doesn't have an implicitly sexist connotation. As I pointed out, the issue isn't even the use of the question, it's the use of ONLY this question. The battery of questions itself explicitly say that using one question doesn't tell you anything, yet this well funded researcher did it anyways. It's inexcusable for him to do such lazy work.

I somewhat understand what you are saying, but I'm literally stunned that anyone considers that statement not to be sexist.

Small states have always had a voice, generally one larger than their population would merit otherwise. Your argument is that some states should get special rights.

Are we now at a place where there's an argument as to whether compromises were ever made that allowed slavery to continue?

Treason.

Also, it's OK to live in the same country as people with different values than you. Hell, it's OK to have people with different values living in your town. It might even be good for you.

Seems fairly even. My guess is the 36% difference is accounted for via bureaucracy at some point.

I vote in favor of the EC. It's done it's job this long. It's a better system than people give it credit for. The results don't always bear out the way we'd like them too, but that's no reason to go and create a system that for sure, will not last 200+ years.

They always have. I agree! That's on purpose. It was done to form the Union. A Union that likely wouldn't exist today without it. You're argument is akin to saying the upper class citizen shouldn't pay more in taxes than a lower class citizen. We have these compromises to make it work.

No it isn't. The Senate is where the states get their equal voice.

Really feel like you are just in such a good mood you are trolling with nonsense at this point.

I'm not trolling. I'm advocating for keeping the Union as it is.

Nope. I've made numerous posts against the electoral college. We even once had a thread dedicated to this topic.

The people who keep talking about this compromise... You do realize that the EC today isn't even close to what it was when that compromise was made?

Just to show how it could be wrong in either direction, Kerry could've won 120,000 more votes in Ohio. He loses the popular vote by 2.9 million voters, but wins the election largely because of the urban voters in Cleveland and Cincy stole the election from the rural voters throughout the nation.