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.

Why do I get the feeling that people support the EC college mostly out of tradition?

Imagine if we lived in a country where popular vote decided the presidency and it has always been that way. Now imagine if someone proposed an EC system. What kind of support would it get? Maybe five or ten percent of the people would support it?

Yeah I know this is just gut feeling but I thought I'd just throw it out there.

Of course you are. That's why you're a conservative. It's definition.

It all eventually equals 1 to 1, so Missouri is getting way more than what they pay in, and that has nothing to do with bureaucracy.

This I respect, though I also disagree. At least you acknowledge that the EC over represents small states rather than arguing that it's the only way for rural areas to get equal representation.

So the money is paid to the IRS, accounted for by the IRS, some project is determined in DC, the money is allocated back to Missouri by politicians and that costs $0.00? Didn't realize the federal government was that efficient! I may have to rethink my smaller government stance.

As I said initially I am not in favor of Missouri seceding and actually appreciate some of the services provided for and products provided for by the federal government. I just said Rainmaker should have picked a better state than Missouri for the "You really think you can live without their money?" big government argument.

It's not that there's no inefficiency, it's that the inefficiency is spread equally to all fifty states, thereby removing it as a factor when determining input and output.

Unless you want to argue that the federal government is so efficient in allocating money to CA that it actually reduces the costs of projects.

Illinois only gets back $0.88 for every $1 paid in.

Man, I'm gonna have to stew on this math logic for a long time.

Government spent $1.20 for every $1 received. So if your state is over that $1.20 figure, it's leeching off other states.

tarcone might be fine with getting rid of California and New York, but his state is going to need to find somewhere else to leech money from.

So you guys think federal government should have the same spending/income ratio with every state?

Dola, I just don't get the point when those ratios are brought up. If we're not arguing that they should be changed, is the point just to mock poor people and let them know their political opinion isn't as valid? It's just an odd take coming from liberals.

And it overly simplifies something that's really complex. Take a negative ratio radio state like South Dakota. Why are they such "leeches" as measured by these ratios?

As for what they put in, I'm sure they put in much less tax money than other states because there's fewer people, because they have a much smaller average household income, and because there's generally less business activity.

And why do they get more money? They have more poor people so they're getting more poor-people individual benefits, and maybe education funding. Maybe they have more national parks and military bases and veterans per capita, as most western states probably do? What other kinds of things are they getting? If there's federal spending that's split proportionally among the states, obviously that will hurt a state like South Dakota more in these ratios because they're not generating as much income tax revenue as New York. But I'm making assumptions, I can't find a lot of methodology on the liberal blogs that are yelling at them for being poor.

And obviously there's individual South Dakotans with middle class and higher jobs who are paying a higher proportion of income taxes in the state than other residents, and New England and California also have plenty of individual "leeches" who don't pay much in taxes but get benefits.

I don't think that's the point at all. It's the whole, go ahead and #CalExit, because we have different values or we don't need you or whatever. The truth is the states need one another. For lots of reasons--not just sharing tax revenue. It's not 1790 anymore.

Yeah. It was specifically related to the contention that CA can leave and MO would be fine.

Now, politically I think a back bencher Dem should push for a bill requiring an equal input/output for each state. It's a terrible idea and would never pass, but it would be useful to put a bunch of GOPers on the spot, particularly if it was joined with a tax cut of all the "savings".

I'm sure California is one of the states that generates tons of federal tax income, so those ratio comparisons would seem to be an argument that they should secede.

But I see the ratio thing argued all time, including here lots over the years. I think just to mock poor people in red states. (And googling to find the info, and to try to find the methodology, that's clearly the primary reason these ratios are tabulated in the first place, people here are usually just more polite and subtle)

No. When I've used it it's to point out the hypocrisy of the red staters that complain about blue states leeching off the government. The big blue states pay for a lot of what is consumed all across the nation.

Because there's more wealthy people in those states. That's how taxing works.

Yes, but red state folks like tarcone don't seem to get that. Telling big blue states to leave would make life demonstrably worse for states like MO. That's all that's being said.

No. Just that if some of the states that don't meet his "values" leave, his state would have to start pulling it's own weight.

It depends on what their values are. I'm sure plenty of conservatives in Missouri would be fine with taking several steps back economically to take several steps forward with other things they care about more. And fiscal conservatives would probably argue that their economy and government wouldn't look exactly the same as an independent country as they do now as a state, when they're not burdened by federal regulations.

But more than that, I just it's just odd to brag about how the rich do more for the country. I mean, they do, at least financially, but that's true of individual rich people too, and you'd never use this same rhetoric to favorably compare them to poor people. In fact, more often, the rhetoric in the far left is how rich individuals are actually what's wrong with the country.

Nobody is seriously proposing this happen!

But just for the record I would oppose a plan to remove all the rich people from the country.

It's not bragging about anything, it's being realistic about the country. I'd say the same about Texas or New York. They're incredibly important both economically and strategically. The loss of any of those major states would be a huge hit to the prosperity and security of the country.

I just don't understand how people can be so flippant about removing states like that. Especially at the huge loss it would have to so many all because they can't seem to handle two total strangers being allowed to get a marriage certificate at the local courthouse.

I knew we had had this very same discussion several times - he's one example that had nothing to do with secession.

The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 - Page 400 - Front Office Football Central

You even pitched that same legislation requiring equal input/output for each state. Edit: But I don't get how that would be the "gotcha" you think it would. I don't think a politician from South Dakota would have trouble admitting that yes, their state generates less income tax revenue for the federal government than New York does. I think we all realize that. That doesn't invalidate their opinion about how the federal government should spend money, and on what. And if that South Dakotan is as conservative as some politicians near me are, they would be perfectly happy to take in less federal spending in exchange for less federal control.

The "welfare state" thing is a liberal go-to, and it's just so odd to me. Yes, rich people contribute more tax income than poor people.

In the discussion I just linked to, you were bragging that Illinois was the reason Idaho was doing OK state-budget wise at the time. And that ratio was also the reason Illinois was struggling. It had nothing to do with policy decisions made at either state level, it had nothing to do with different political philosophies about how much states should spend v. take in, it had nothing to do with the ethics of people in government, it was all about this ratio of federal spending, and the rural poor state owed everything to the rich states. You have been big on this welfare state ratio thing for a long time.

Edit: My point here is that the welfare state thing is not only about secession. This is a tool that's pulled out in all kinds of contexts when a person in a poor conservative state expresses an opinion that isn't popular, or that somehow annoys a liberal in a more wealthy state.

Im sure a state would survive if they seceded. Missouri and Oklahoma are the size of Germany in square miles. MO has a GDP similar to Finland. And a population equal to Paraguay.

I dont see how Missouri wouldnt survive.

And we have the Busch family and ties to Wal-Mart family money. Plenty of really rich people in MO

I think federal spending should be more balanced. That really has nothing to do with what I was saying to tarcone though. His state would be hurt (well all states would be hurt) by a state like California leaving this country. Unless you have a real good reason for wanting them to leave, I think it's an irresponsible statement.

I think ultimately the EC will eventually be abolished. Probably the US Senate will go with it, as Harlan's argument in Reynolds v. Sims has no reasonable rebuttal: some Senators represent a lot more people than others.

I think these kinds of checks and balances in the system were, and are, a good thing. Competing interests mitigate the inherent instability and dangerously reactionary nature of a purely 'will of the majority' kind of system. We've already gotten rid of some of those things, and I think the rest will follow.

The point was made about the EC merely being tradition. For some it is. For others like myself, a pure democracy is not necessarily a good thing. The people always need to have recourse naturally, but having them as the only voice is hazardous.

No, it pretty much was a race issue. The South had an entire class of people who were ineligible for citizenship, let alone voting, but they wanted their human property to buttress their electoral power.

A straight popular vote doesn't accomplish that, since slaves couldn't vote.

Compromising on how population was to be counted, and then weighting the vote in each state based on that population, on the other hand, gave the South more electoral influence than it would have had otherwise; five of the first ten Presidents were from Virginia, and 7 of the first 11 were from either Virginia or Tennessee.

The desire to protect slavery was a hugely significant issue when the Constitution was drafted. You'll notice that there was a cooldown on the ability of Congress to ban the slave trade - they weren't allowed to touch the importation of slaves for 20 years after the Constitution was drafted, and it remained a major driving force in American politics for almost a century afterward.

Even the question of admitting states to the Union was, ultimately, about slavery - because Southern states didn't want to see a shift in the balance of power which might enable Northern states to end the practice.

Did population matter? Certainly! Why did it matter? Slaves and slavery. The Three Fifths Compromise and the Electoral College weren't intended to protect vague "interests" of small states. They were designed to protect one very specific interest of about a dozen agrarian states.

I think it's more important now than ever before. We're becoming a society of mob rule, where any view that doesn't immediately acquiesce with the majority is branded as some kind of evil, and the EC helps to protect against that.

The EC conversation has been talked about for years, it's not just about this election or us democrats whining. I am a democrat and voted for Clinton. But even still, I fully accept the results of the election. However, even if it went the other way I would still feel the same about the EC. Hell, Newt and Trump were both on the record against the EC until now. So were they whining then too ?

The Gore/Bush race started the dialog and with that race the closeness of the EC vote to me made it more palatable for Gore to lose. However, this race wasn't even close from a EC perspective. You have to question its use. Just because it has worked for 200 years doesn't mean it's the best system for now. Over times, things do change and we should evolve with them.

Which runs right back to the question of "what are we"?

A union of states reply means that the numbers represented by Senators does not matter, and would seem to be indicative of the framers intent.

Any other answer & the very basis for the Union no longer exists.

Exactly. It's all the "government is horrible, get out of my pockets, tear it down!" yelling from these states. You're benefiting here - so stop complaining!

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING,is worth what those blue states have inflicted upon a once-great nation.

I know. Las Vegas in particular. I know you hate that place. :)

1861-1865 wasn't meant to last forever!

Thank goodness the Republicans ended that war. The Democrats sure mucked it up.
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

People in red states are allowed to have opinions about how their government operates. And a lot of them pay plenty of taxes. And a lot of the "benefits" that those states get, beyond individual federal government benefits for poor people - are things like major interstate highways, nuclear waste storage, national parks and other land management - things we all ultimately benefit from. Hell, 60+% of my state is federally-owned and managed land, and that's not unusual in the western "leech" states.

But it's the "things we all ultimately benefit from" that is often missed. That's what government's for, but if it doesn't obviously personally benefit some people (or sometimes even when it does) they don't want to pay for it.

And I'm sure some of that stuff their elected officials lobbied for.

/waves to ghost of Senator Byrd

The more conservative people in my state want to convert a lot of those things that we all ultimately benefit from and replace them with things that will benefit the state. They want the feds to turn over a lot of that land to the state and counties so they can sell the timber and mining rights, and for other economic development. If that happened, the feds would manage less land, and would spend less money managing that land. And more individuals in the state would have jobs, receive fewer government benefits, and pay more in taxes. That would all make this state look a little better in those income/outcome lists. I sure as hell don't want that to happen though, conservation is more important to me than the state and local economies. And I imagine most liberals outside Idaho would also prefer that the fed keep that land in the west, and manage it responsibility. That means we all have a pro-leech opinion on that. And yet it's also something that's thrown at us if we have an opinion about how government should run, (or for more general poor-shaming purposes.) And proximity to those federal lands is really the main "extra benefit" I personally get from being in a leech state, if you're comparing me to someone with a similar salary in wealthy blue state. I love that about living there, but it really doesn't benefit me economically, and it might even hurt me a little.

Point is, most of those "government is horrible, get out of my pockets, tear it down!" people would be very happy if feds spend less money in their states, if it meant less federal control (the more conservative politicians are often opposed to accepting federal money for various reasons). It would suck for the environment, it would suck for a lot of poor people, but at least there would be lots of liberal smug.

I won't question any of that (and I don't want to see that land sold either), but Idaho (or the Dakotas) typically isn't the state I think of where this phenomenon is concerned. There just isn't the population base. I think of MS, AL, LA, etc. I know it's probably been linked here a million times, but: Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers? - The Atlantic

Abolishing the EC doesn't make us a pure democracy in the same way that state governments aren't pure democracies. There are still checks and balances. And I'm fine with keeping the Senate as is.

The articles on policy were written. Readers on the left weren't engaging with them. - Quartz

I wonder if this is anything more than evidence that Hillary wasn't even drumming up interest in policy from voters on the left.

Of course. One thing at a time.

ILLEGITIMATE!