1
1
0
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! For the sake of argument I am going to say that everybody in the country voted in a Presidential election. The first list you see are the States that are needed to win an election with just 270 EC votes, with population and number of EC votes each state gets. As you see, it's only 11 states in all, with a total population of 175,547,114. If a candidate only wins each state by 1 vote, then to get all 270 EC votes, they would only need 87,773,568 total votes to get all EC votes.
The second list is the rest of a 39 States, and DC. Their total population is less than the first so they get less EC votes at only 268. So, even if the ENTIRE population of each of those 39 states voted for the other person, the candidate who won the first 11 states would win the overall election. Even if they only won each state by one vote. That would put the difference in popular vote by over 100 MILLION votes country wide. This is why a winner take all rule is flawed and why the EC needs to be reworked.
1 California 37,253,956 55
2 Texas 25,145,561 38
3 New York 19,378,102 29
4 Florida 18,801,310 29
5 Illinois 12,830,632 20
6 Pennsylvania 12,702,379 20
7 Ohio 11,536,504 18
8 Michigan 9,883,640 16
9 Georgia 9,687,653 16
10 North Carolina 9,535,483 15
11 New Jersey 8,791,894 14
175,547,114 270
87,773,568 to take all 270
12 Virginia 8,001,024 13
13 Washington 6,724,540 12
14 Massachusetts 6,547,629 11
15 Indiana 6,483,802 11
16 Arizona 6,392,017 11
17 Tennessee 6,346,105 11
18 Missouri 5,988,927 10
19 Maryland 5,773,552 10
20 Wisconsin 5,686,986 10
21 Minnesota 5,303,925 10
22 Colorado 5,029,196 9
23 Alabama 4,779,736 9
24 South Carolina 4,625,364 9
25 Louisiana 4,533,372 8
26 Kentucky 4,339,367 8
27 Oregon 3,831,074 7
28 Oklahoma 3,751,351 7
29 Connecticut 3,574,097 7
30 Iowa 3,046,355 6
31 Mississippi 2,967,297 6
32 Arkansas 2,915,918 6
33 Kansas 2,853,118 6
34 Utah 2,763,885 6
35 Nevada 2,700,551 6
36 New Mexico 2,059,179 5
37 West Virginia 1,852,994 5
38 Nebraska 1,826,341 5
39 Idaho 1,567,582 4
40 Hawaii 1,360,301 4
41 Maine 1,328,361 4
42 New Hampshire 1,316,470 4
43 Rhode Island 1,052,567 4
44 Montana 989,415 3
45 Delaware 897,934 3
46 South Dakota 814,180 3
47 Alaska 710,231 3
48 North Dakota 672,591 3
49 Vermont 625,741 3
50 Washington, D. C 601,723 3
51 Wyoming 563,626 3
133,198,424 268
220,971,970 a different in popular vote by 133,198,402
Here are the references I used for my numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
http://www.ipl.org/div/stateknow/popchart.html
The second list is the rest of a 39 States, and DC. Their total population is less than the first so they get less EC votes at only 268. So, even if the ENTIRE population of each of those 39 states voted for the other person, the candidate who won the first 11 states would win the overall election. Even if they only won each state by one vote. That would put the difference in popular vote by over 100 MILLION votes country wide. This is why a winner take all rule is flawed and why the EC needs to be reworked.
1 California 37,253,956 55
2 Texas 25,145,561 38
3 New York 19,378,102 29
4 Florida 18,801,310 29
5 Illinois 12,830,632 20
6 Pennsylvania 12,702,379 20
7 Ohio 11,536,504 18
8 Michigan 9,883,640 16
9 Georgia 9,687,653 16
10 North Carolina 9,535,483 15
11 New Jersey 8,791,894 14
175,547,114 270
87,773,568 to take all 270
12 Virginia 8,001,024 13
13 Washington 6,724,540 12
14 Massachusetts 6,547,629 11
15 Indiana 6,483,802 11
16 Arizona 6,392,017 11
17 Tennessee 6,346,105 11
18 Missouri 5,988,927 10
19 Maryland 5,773,552 10
20 Wisconsin 5,686,986 10
21 Minnesota 5,303,925 10
22 Colorado 5,029,196 9
23 Alabama 4,779,736 9
24 South Carolina 4,625,364 9
25 Louisiana 4,533,372 8
26 Kentucky 4,339,367 8
27 Oregon 3,831,074 7
28 Oklahoma 3,751,351 7
29 Connecticut 3,574,097 7
30 Iowa 3,046,355 6
31 Mississippi 2,967,297 6
32 Arkansas 2,915,918 6
33 Kansas 2,853,118 6
34 Utah 2,763,885 6
35 Nevada 2,700,551 6
36 New Mexico 2,059,179 5
37 West Virginia 1,852,994 5
38 Nebraska 1,826,341 5
39 Idaho 1,567,582 4
40 Hawaii 1,360,301 4
41 Maine 1,328,361 4
42 New Hampshire 1,316,470 4
43 Rhode Island 1,052,567 4
44 Montana 989,415 3
45 Delaware 897,934 3
46 South Dakota 814,180 3
47 Alaska 710,231 3
48 North Dakota 672,591 3
49 Vermont 625,741 3
50 Washington, D. C 601,723 3
51 Wyoming 563,626 3
133,198,424 268
220,971,970 a different in popular vote by 133,198,402
Here are the references I used for my numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
http://www.ipl.org/div/stateknow/popchart.html
Posted in these groups: 
Election 2016
Election 2016
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
2
2
0
Gaming the Electoral College
Don't like the results? Change the rules!
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2016
Don't like the results? Change the rules!
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2016
Gaming the Electoral College: Alternate Allocation Methods
How the 2016 electoral college map would change if a state or states enacted one of the currently proposed alternatives to the winner take all method.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
Thank you for sharing that. It's a very interesting and educational read. Just so we are clear, I am not interested in my party winning, I have no party, I am an independent. I voted for neither Clinton or Trump instead I chose to abstain this time around. My interest lies more in making sure every vote in every state counts and not just a handful of larger states with many EC votes. Yes, there are issues with every variation, I am not implying that mine is perfect. Each system, no matter which one will have some flaws. I just think that the current system has the most flaws, and the biggest window for exploiting them.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
This could be a constructive discussion is folks would open their minds to it. Instead I see a lot of folks thinking it is just "crying" about losing the last election. For me, it is not. I have supported modifying the EC fro a long time now.
I like the idea the EC delegates be awarded based on percentage of votes for each candidate in each state. Why not?
I like the idea the EC delegates be awarded based on percentage of votes for each candidate in each state. Why not?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Geesh. My car might break down when I go to supper so I will just never go to supper again. There problem fixed.
There is an old saying - don't fix what ain't broke. That came about because many times people found the fix was worse that the perceived problem.
There is an old saying - don't fix what ain't broke. That came about because many times people found the fix was worse that the perceived problem.
(1)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Cpl Tom Surdi - Preventive maintenance is one thing. Overhaul because people are crying because it didn't work for them this times is another. Especially if the crying consists of blaming the same factors that worked for the complainers before or the crying is because of imagined wrongs.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Cpl Tom Surdi, I want to congratulate you for bringing this analysis to our attention. It is the first time I've seen a reason to consider changing the Electoral College for something other than, "Hillary won the popular vote, but didn't get to be President, so the Electoral College has to go!"
The reason for the Electoral College (EC) was to protect small states with smaller populations from the states with larger populations. The Founders didn't accurately foresee the highly polarized political environment we have today or the dominance of some states by one or two large cities. For example, "Red" Illinois is governed by "Blue" Chicago. The original Constitutional provision for the EC made more sense when state legislatures elected the Senators; hence there were at least two occasions when state government sent representatives to Washington to speak for the State as a whole.
The illustration of the 11 and 39 states shows how Presidential campaign strategy could be shaped to focus on those states only. A similar problem exists with election by popular vote only. The Candidates would only need to win the big population centers, such as the Boston to Miami corridor, to win the election. So they most likely would campaign in those areas almost exclusively. It really wouldn't matter whom the voters in Fayetteville, AR voted for as long as the Candidate won New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Houston, Dallas-Ft Worth, etc.
Proportional awarding of electoral votes is a possible solution. Each State's Secretary of State could award electors to a Presidential candidate based on their share of the popular vote in the state as counted by precinct. So a candidate winning 25% of the precincts in a state would get 25% of the electoral votes from that State rounded up to a whole number of electors.
Unfortunately, the only way I see this and several other Constitutional issues being resolved is through and Article Five Constitutional Convention.
The reason for the Electoral College (EC) was to protect small states with smaller populations from the states with larger populations. The Founders didn't accurately foresee the highly polarized political environment we have today or the dominance of some states by one or two large cities. For example, "Red" Illinois is governed by "Blue" Chicago. The original Constitutional provision for the EC made more sense when state legislatures elected the Senators; hence there were at least two occasions when state government sent representatives to Washington to speak for the State as a whole.
The illustration of the 11 and 39 states shows how Presidential campaign strategy could be shaped to focus on those states only. A similar problem exists with election by popular vote only. The Candidates would only need to win the big population centers, such as the Boston to Miami corridor, to win the election. So they most likely would campaign in those areas almost exclusively. It really wouldn't matter whom the voters in Fayetteville, AR voted for as long as the Candidate won New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Houston, Dallas-Ft Worth, etc.
Proportional awarding of electoral votes is a possible solution. Each State's Secretary of State could award electors to a Presidential candidate based on their share of the popular vote in the state as counted by precinct. So a candidate winning 25% of the precincts in a state would get 25% of the electoral votes from that State rounded up to a whole number of electors.
Unfortunately, the only way I see this and several other Constitutional issues being resolved is through and Article Five Constitutional Convention.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
Thank you for your assessment. And that was my point. Our founders didn't foresee the changes to our society, mostly in population growth per state. This gives States with a much larger population a much better chance at being the only reason a candidate wins an election. The EC may have started off as protection for smaller states, but now it does the exact opposite. But the EC still serves a purpose and should stay in place, just not as it is now.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Mathematically possible and actually possible are two very different things, though.
(1)
(0)
PFC Jim Wheeler
Cpl Tom Surdi Any time you can point to in the history of the electoral college where it was exploited in that manner?
If not, then it is merely theoretical and, based on the fact that politicians exploit every loophole they can to win, it is fair to assume it is practically impossible. Otherwise, it would almost certainly have been exploited by now.
If not, then it is merely theoretical and, based on the fact that politicians exploit every loophole they can to win, it is fair to assume it is practically impossible. Otherwise, it would almost certainly have been exploited by now.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
PFC Jim Wheeler - And people aren't supposed to be able to vote twice in a single election, but it has happened, and it was all theoretical until someone did it. Although on a much smaller than that what some would have you believe. It was theoretically impossible to hack into our secure systems.............until someone did. The point is, the system is flawed, and a flawed system can be exploited.
(0)
(0)
LCpl Shane Couch
Cpl Tom Surdi - correct, people aren't supposed to vote twice, but still do. Also undocumented aliens or unregistered voters are not supposed to vote, yet they still do. By that argument, it is not the system that is set up that has failed but the people working the system that have failed the voters. Without the proper checks and balances the system will continue to be broke.
Say you take your car to the mechanic for an issue. You know exactly what is wrong with your car but don't have the time to do the repair yourself. The mechanic decides you are wrong in your diagnosis and since he is the expert, repairs/modifies 5 other things that are linked to the initial issue. You now have to pay for the extra parts that were replaced, yet your car still has the same issue. Do you replace the car or the "expert"?
Say you take your car to the mechanic for an issue. You know exactly what is wrong with your car but don't have the time to do the repair yourself. The mechanic decides you are wrong in your diagnosis and since he is the expert, repairs/modifies 5 other things that are linked to the initial issue. You now have to pay for the extra parts that were replaced, yet your car still has the same issue. Do you replace the car or the "expert"?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Absolutely not! Your problem with it is the result. Sorry. In my lifetime, my "favorite" won half the elections for President and the other half of the time, the opposition won. Really, it's true. An even split. Now let me tell you how I handled it. I sucked it up. I certainly didn't cry about the results for more than a year...
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Cpl Tom Surdi - I didn't say you voted for Hillary. I am merely responding to your complaint about the electoral college system and it seems, by your anger, that had I assumed that you were crying over the the result, I might have been justified.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
MSgt Steve Sweeney - I specifically avoided assuming anything. You are the one doing the assuming
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
"The renewed push comes after 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton lost the election that year despite winning the popular vote, the second time it has happened since the turn of the century."
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/432061-dem-states-move-to-bypass-electoral-college?userid=235202
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/432061-dem-states-move-to-bypass-electoral-college?userid=235202
Blue states band together looking to bypass Electoral College
A plan to circumvent the Electoral College is gaining momentum amongblue states afterDemocratssuffered two crushingdefeats in presidential elections over the past two decades.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I would like to point out this little fact:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/2010_census_reapportionment.svg/400px-2010_census_reapportionment.svg.png
United States congressional apportionment is the process[1] by which seats in the United States House of Representatives are distributed among the 50 states according to the most recent constitutionally mandated decennial census. Each state is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states.[2] However, every state is constitutionally guaranteed at least one seat.
The number of voting seats in the House of Representatives is currently set at 435, where it has been since 1913—except for a temporary (1959–1962) increase to 437 after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union. The total number of state members is capped by the Reapportionment Act of 1929.[3]
Because the size of a state's total congressional delegation determines the size of its representation in the U.S. Electoral College, congressional apportionment also affects the U.S. presidential election process as well.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/2010_census_reapportionment.svg/400px-2010_census_reapportionment.svg.png
United States congressional apportionment is the process[1] by which seats in the United States House of Representatives are distributed among the 50 states according to the most recent constitutionally mandated decennial census. Each state is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states.[2] However, every state is constitutionally guaranteed at least one seat.
The number of voting seats in the House of Representatives is currently set at 435, where it has been since 1913—except for a temporary (1959–1962) increase to 437 after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union. The total number of state members is capped by the Reapportionment Act of 1929.[3]
Because the size of a state's total congressional delegation determines the size of its representation in the U.S. Electoral College, congressional apportionment also affects the U.S. presidential election process as well.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
First off, please remember we are a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. You argument holds weight for a Democracy but not for a Republic. By moving to a popular vote you are advocating for a change to our entire system of governance. Mainly saying the power is no longer with the People but rather with the Mob (as in a large group of population). It bans the Rule of Law and insists that the Rule of Man should prevail.
For a quick rundown of the differences this is an adequate site:
https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-democracy-and-republic.html
I especially liked the very succinct chart. Take a look and let me know which type of rule you would rather have.
For a quick rundown of the differences this is an adequate site:
https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-democracy-and-republic.html
I especially liked the very succinct chart. Take a look and let me know which type of rule you would rather have.
Difference Between Democracy and Republic (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences
The difference between democracy and republic is complicated. Democracy is defined as a political system which is made by/of/for the people. The republic is the representative democracy with the chief of the state known as president.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
By the way, there is no law that says that all of a states electoral votes go to the winner of the election in that state and there are states that allow the electoral votes to be split.
Will that ever happen? Probably not.
Will that ever happen? Probably not.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google