[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[CKS]

That's why I think each state should have an equal number of Electoral votes.

So if I live in rural Minnesota, right on the North Dakota border, my vote would count for 1/7 as much as my neighbor who lives across the state line? Somehow this doesn't seem very fair. It will completely wipe out the votes of people who live in rural areas of states with big cities.

 

[JohannaK]

A North Dakotan's vote already counts for four Californians, what else do you want?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sure, but Congress doesnt elect the president, which is the context in which we are having this argument. As it is now, rural communities don't have that much of a say in presidential elections and would have zero say if we did away with the Electoral College. That's why I think each state should have an equal number of Electoral votes.

Said rep from the small/sparsely populated state at the Constitutional Convention in 1787... To which the gentleman from the big/high population state said "It's not fair that your puny state should get the same amount of votes as my state, when we have far more people... Your state doesn't deserve as much say, because you don't have as many people"...

Then they spent hours, days, weeks saying the same thing over and over and over, just rewording it each time, until finally they decided that populous staes would have to give up a little voting power, so that small states don't get steamrolled. And they called it "The Senate" and assigned those senators electors in the electoral college, so a state like Wyoming is guaranteed 3 votes in the electoral college... 1 for their House rep and 2 for their 2 Senators. Everyone thought it sucked, but they had to move on to the slavery discussion, so that is what they went with. What you're suggesting is kinda like acting like that whole conversation (ie the Constitutional Convention) never happened and introduce a "new" idea... essentially that we just go with a Senate and get rid of the house for the purposes of electoral votes. Why would that be any more acceptable in 2016 than it was in 1787? That's what I'm saying. I can think of stuff that made sense to them in 1787 that wouldn't make sense now, but there are reasons, things that were different then than they are now.

I don't see you giving any new reasons why we should just give the States their Senatorial (whether its 2, or 200, or 2,000 its the same principle) equal votes and skip their house votes. Your just giving the same reasons they gave at the Constitutional convention that were discussed and compromised over. That's my point in bringing up 1787.

 

[Arwon]

If I had my way, I would simplify the system greatly. Every state would get the exact same number of electoral votes and I would do away with the winner-take-all system. That way each state is just as important to the candidates as any other.

That's absurd, your states just aren't as important as each other, at all. Half are just flat made-up rectangles with no good reason for being separate from each other. Not only are there superfluous Carolinas and Dakotas, Vermont and New Hampshire get to be separate states.

 

[Archbob]

Sure, if you only count the biggest urban centers then it's only 20% of our population. If you count every place that's considered an "urban center" then that percentage jumps up to 80.7%. Just take a few seconds to Google "percentage of Americans that live in cities". Getting rid of the Electoral College would essentially take away the political voice of almost 20% of our population.

EDIT: That's not to say the Electoral College doesn't need reform though. If I had my way, I would simplify the system greatly. Every state would get the exact same number of electoral votes and I would do away with the winner-take-all system. That way each state is just as important to the candidates as any other. I would also add run-off elections to account for third-party candidates getting enough votes to prevent one of the major candidates from getting a true majority of the electoral votes.

For example: Let's say each state had 100 electoral votes (just to keep numbers easy to work with). That would make 5,000 total electoral votes for the entire country and the first candidate to hit 2,501 would be the winner. And if candidate A gets 60% of the vote and candidate B gets gets 40% of the vote in, say, Kentucky, then candidate A gets 60 electoral votes from Kentucky and candidate B gets 40 electoral votes from Kentucky. That way, each state has an equal say in the election, regardless of population, so no one can legitimately complain about being marginalized.

Your system makes no sense at all because you could win the election with 30 percent of the vote then by winning s bunch of states that no one lives in. At least in direct elections, you have to win at least fifty percent to win an election. I think the system works if the winner gets more votes than the other guy.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Your system makes no sense at all because you could win the election with 30 percent of the vote then by winning s bunch of states that no one lives in. At least in direct elections, you have to win at least fifty percent to win an election. I think the system works if the winner gets more votes than the other guy.

Yeah, the solution proposed in the edit would effectively disenfranchise way more people than the current EC system already does.

Also, you can never stop people from complaining about being marginalized. Whites still make up the majority of this country and hold the vast majority of political and economic leadership roles and yet Trump's entire strategy is based on playing on their fears of being marginalized.

 

[Zelig]

Your system makes no sense at all because you could win the election with 30 percent of the vote then by winning s bunch of states that no one lives in. At least in direct elections, you have to win at least fifty percent to win an election. I think the system works if the winner gets more votes than the other guy.

Or Montana could just split itself up into 50 different states.

 

[JohannaK]

The solution is clear: reorganise all the states until they have the same population, and give them the same number of Senators and Representatives. Problem solved.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The solution is clear: reorganise all the states until they have the same population, and give them the same number of Senators and Representatives. Problem solved.

For the matter, that's precisely what was done for the city of Paris in 1860: it's been divided in 20 arrondissements with the very same population.

But 150 years later, it turned out the 1st arrondissement decreased in population to reach only 15,000 inhabitants, whereas the 15th arrondissement has grown to reach 250,000 inhabitants! That's just about 17 times more...

 

[JohannaK]

Imagine if the US had stayed 13 colonies but had redrawn them as it expanded.

 

[christos200]

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/clint...carolina-nevada-colorado-michigan-new-mexico/

The battlegrounds remain a tight race. Showing the shifting nature of the race, RealClearPolitics has now removed Georgia from the battleground poll list (Trump leads) and has added New Mexico, where Clinton leads, but it’s tighter.

Battleground states where the race is a virtual tie (a candidate leads by 3% or less) (8): Florida, Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa.

Battleground states Trump leads (1): Arizona

Battleground states Clinton leads (5): Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Maine, New Mexico

Clinton leads Florida by an average of 1%, but that’s down slightly from the day before. Polling out of Florida has consistently shown the race to be deadlocked in this must-win state.

Trump leads in Ohio, but, at 2.8%, the lead is in the margin of error for most polls. He’s led in all polls out of Ohio since the James Comey letter to Congress, though – 1, 5 and 5.

Pennsylvania would be a critically important pick up for Trump. Clinton currently leads an average of 2.4% in the state.

Trump leads an average 1.6%, which is a big gain in the past week. However, the race is still in the margin of error for most polls.

Similar to New Hampshire, Trump now leads an average 1.5% in North Carolina, which is considered by most to be a must-win state for him.

Clinton leads an average 2.9% in Colorado, which is a state that would help Trump dramatically if he could pick it up.

Trump leads in Nevada by an average 2%, but that’s in the margin of error, and local news analysis of early voting trends has found they are favorable for Clinton.

Trump leads Iowa by an average of 3%. Recent polls have looked good for him out of Iowa.

I am not American, but if I were I would prefer Trump. Both candidates are viewed unfavorably and are certainly not the best of their party. Trump is not articulate enough and he makes gaffes constantly. He also has some idiotic policies (like the wall). However, Trump will cut taxes while Clinton will raise them, Trump will not push for government regulation of economy while Clinton will push for more regulation, Trump will repeal Obamacare while Clinton will not. As such, small-government conservatives and libertarians who dislike Trump should hold their nose and vote for him.

As the polls above show, Trump has a chance to win, even though it is slim compared to that of Clinton. Still, even though Clinton is the most likely candidate to win, I would bet my money on a Trump surprise.

 

[Archbob]

Comey says the news e-mails prove nothing and that Clinton is all clear. Might give Clinton a bump in the final days. Did anyone believe Anthony Weiner's Dick picks were really going to change the investigation's opinion?

 

[Arwon]

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/clint...carolina-nevada-colorado-michigan-new-mexico/







I am not American, but if I were I would prefer Trump. Both candidates are viewed unfavorably and are certainly not the best of their party. Trump is not articulate enough and he makes gaffes constantly. He also has some idiotic policies (like the wall). However, Trump will cut taxes while Clinton will raise them, Trump will not push for government regulation of economy while Clinton will push for more regulation, Trump will repeal Obamacare while Clinton will not. As such, small-government conservatives and libertarians who dislike Trump should hold their nose and vote for him.

As the polls above show, Trump has a chance to win, even though it is slim compared to that of Clinton. Still, even though Clinton is the most likely candidate to win, I would bet my money on a Trump surprise.

Yeah Trump is all about the "small government" hey

 

[Kyriakos]

Comey says the news e-mails prove nothing and that Clinton is all clear. Might give Clinton a bump in the final days. Did anyone believe Anthony Weiner's Dick picks were really going to change the investigation's opinion?

Oh, so why did he announce restarting the investigation? What sort of farce is he into anyway?

Btw, source? (cause it sounds ridiculous for an FBI head to be that irresponsible twice in the space of a few days)

Btw, didn't he say they had to review 650 THOUSAND emails? Cause i doubt they did that in 5 days.

 

[christos200]

Yeah Trump is all about the "small government" hey

He is not as small government as many conservatives and libertarians would want (that's why I said that he is not a good candidate), but he is more small government than Clinton.

 

[Arwon]

I guess massive racist protectionism, registering tracking and/or banning an entire religion, suppressing the free press and promising the largest population transfer in the world in half a century are just hallmarks of a laissez faire mindset.

 

[El_Machinae]

Naw, he's more. You don't do 'small government' when you propose an outright ban on a religion. You don't do 'small government' when you campaign on mass deportations. He's a man who doesn't understand the limit to a President's power, and he has no inclination to teach them. His deficit-funded trickle down policy, combined with using trade barriers to induce inflation, is not a small government thing.

 

[Archbob]

Oh, so why did he announce restarting the investigation? What sort of farce is he into anyway?

Btw, source? (cause it sounds ridiculous for an FBI head to be that irresponsible twice in the space of a few days)

Btw, didn't he say they had to review 650 THOUSAND emails? Cause i doubt they did that in 5 days.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/polit...ss-fbi-has-not-changed-conclusions/index.html


I figured after they found the first 5000 or so to be dick picks, they just assumed that they all were.

 

[Arakhor]

So, his being allegedly small-government-friendly than Clinton outweighs all his other terrible qualities?

 

[Camikaze]

Do you count as 'small government' if you're promising the largest fiscal expansion in history?