2
2
0
Why the Electoral College matters. BLUF- Mr. Trump won a plurality of counties 2,626 to 487 over HRC. We can either have representation across our country or allow densely populated coastal areas to control all of our actions and decisions.
trump-clinton-counties-won
Posted from snopes.com
Voting
Elections
Constitution
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
We do not have national elections. We have state and local elections. Those who want to get rid of the Electoral College want all votes to count regardless of state totals. HRC got 2.568 million more votes than Pres. Trump in California. These "excess" votes would have equaled the difference in AK, ID, MT, WY, UT, AZ, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, IA, WS, MI, NC, and SC.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I understand the rational of the EC. However, I believe all EC votes should be as the percentage is split.
(2)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
You mean by not compiling all the state's Electoral Votes together?
NOTE: The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes.
So what you would like to see is as the two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule?
If that were so then the states that voted for Candidate Clinton (such as California) would have gotten fewer Electoral Votes. California had roughly 30% of it's Electoral Districts where President Trump won the district over the DNC's candidate.
In the state that awarded the vote to president Trump - only the percentage averaged about 11 percent.
This puts President Trumps total of 304 up to 340 electoral votes.
Candidate Clinton's total of 227 would be down to 191.
I got my information from each state reported information on their electoral votes.
LINK: https://ballotpedia.org/Splits_between_the_Electoral_College_and_popular_vote
NOTE: The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes.
So what you would like to see is as the two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule?
If that were so then the states that voted for Candidate Clinton (such as California) would have gotten fewer Electoral Votes. California had roughly 30% of it's Electoral Districts where President Trump won the district over the DNC's candidate.
In the state that awarded the vote to president Trump - only the percentage averaged about 11 percent.
This puts President Trumps total of 304 up to 340 electoral votes.
Candidate Clinton's total of 227 would be down to 191.
I got my information from each state reported information on their electoral votes.
LINK: https://ballotpedia.org/Splits_between_the_Electoral_College_and_popular_vote
Splits between the Electoral College and popular vote - Ballotpedia
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
(0)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
SFC Ralph E Kelley - That is still what I would like to see. No "winner take all" but the number based on percentages of the vote.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
MSG Stan Hutchison - You mean by not compiling all the state's Electoral Votes together?
NOTE: The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes.
So what you would like to see is as the two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule?
If that were so then the states that voted for Candidate Clinton (such as California) would have gotten her fewer Electoral Votes. California had roughly 30% of it's Electoral Districts where President Trump won the district over the DNC's candidate.
In the state that awarded the vote to president Trump-only, the percentage averaged about 11 percent.
This puts President Trumps total of 304 up to 340 electoral votes.
Candidate Clinton's total of 227 would be down to 191.
I got my information from each state's reported information on their electoral votes.
LINK: https://ballotpedia.org/Splits_between_the_Electoral_College_and_popular_vote
NOTE: The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes.
So what you would like to see is as the two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule?
If that were so then the states that voted for Candidate Clinton (such as California) would have gotten her fewer Electoral Votes. California had roughly 30% of it's Electoral Districts where President Trump won the district over the DNC's candidate.
In the state that awarded the vote to president Trump-only, the percentage averaged about 11 percent.
This puts President Trumps total of 304 up to 340 electoral votes.
Candidate Clinton's total of 227 would be down to 191.
I got my information from each state's reported information on their electoral votes.
LINK: https://ballotpedia.org/Splits_between_the_Electoral_College_and_popular_vote
Splits between the Electoral College and popular vote - Ballotpedia
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
(1)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
SPC (Join to see) - What I can't stand is people wanting to change a system that has worked for 200+ years because they want to cry about how their candidate didn't win.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
Has it worked? If you win a state by 51% then you get 100% of the votes. That doesn’t seem like it is working to me. A simple change would also mean that we wouldn’t have to hear about Florida anymore.
Has it worked? If you win a state by 51% then you get 100% of the votes. That doesn’t seem like it is working to me. A simple change would also mean that we wouldn’t have to hear about Florida anymore.
(0)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
SPC (Join to see) -
It has for 200+ years - Their crying because they lost this time when they themselves have benefited in the same manner during past elections - It's just sour grapes.
It has for 200+ years - Their crying because they lost this time when they themselves have benefited in the same manner during past elections - It's just sour grapes.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
Don’t care who is whining or who it is good for. I care that 51% for anyone means 100% of the vote. It makes no sense.
Don’t care who is whining or who it is good for. I care that 51% for anyone means 100% of the vote. It makes no sense.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google