As someone from Kansas I really see the need to keep the electoral system as it is. You just cant have a situation where every state sets its own voting laws (ex. California which allows illegals to vote) and have a national election. There has to be a check and balance system.
Oops, wrong answer. [QI KLAXON]
Well, lots of fake news around, no wonder we are in this state of affairs…
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
The founders of the US constitution were very dubious about unrestricted democracy, and deliberately created the electoral college as a buffer.
Here’s Hamilton’s explanation in 1788 of why the system of electors was decided on:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
The same guys who believed in slavery also believed in the electoral college, which is why they came up with the electoral college. The north would have won everytime because of more eligible voters, since slaves in the south couldn’t vote & were only considered 3/5 a person.
Regardless of what you think of the electoral college, it’s currently causing much further divide in America than would be present without it.
Obviously the Trump supporters think it’s better, Hillary supporters don’t think so.
Hillary supporters should spend more time quietly reflecting on their mass transit issues so they can get to the supermarket to buy their food, cheerfully produced for them by Trump supporters.
As of today, Clinton is up more than 1.5 million votes over Trump.
Which means that Hillary has still lost the general election, and will not be the next POTUS.
Pew Research puts the population of illegal aliens* in California (as of 2014) at about 2.35 million and 11.1 million nationwide. Cite[sup]**[/sup]
Illegal aliens are but one subset of the larger group of non-citizens (which includes lawful permanent residents and those in current visa status). A recent study published in the journal Electoral Studies examined the issue of non-citizens voting. A 2008 representative poll of non-citizens reported that 11.3% of non-citizens admitted that " they voted, had their vote verified, or both." Cite
If illegal alien voting is in line with the broader non-citizen voting then there would have been about 11.3% * 2.35 million[sup]***[/sup] = 265,550 illegal aliens voting in California and about 11.3% *11.1 million = 1,254,300 illegal aliens voting nationwide.
Not all votes from illegal aliens can be assumed to be for the Democratic candidate. Some might even vote for the Republican, with a few casting votes for third party candidates. The same study cited above noted the percentage break in favor of Democrats varied according to which political race was in question with roughly 66% of non-citizens who claimed they voted saying they voted for the Democratic candidate in the race for US House of Representatives and 81% saying they voted for the Democratic candidate for president.[sup]****[/sup]
Again, roughly approximating, suppose a 70/30 split favoring the Democratic candidate for president in the 2016 race in voting by illegal aliens. (Again, rough numbers. Given Trump’s stance on immigration perhaps the break would be higher, though Clinton did piss off certain immigrant populations such as Haitians.) Using that and the above numbers then we could estimate 265,550 * 70% = 185,885 votes for Clinton and 265,550 * 30% = 79,665 votes for Trump in California from illegal aliens. And nationwide 1,254,300 * 70% = 878,010 votes for Clinton and 1,254,300 * 30% = 376,290 votes for Trump. That makes for a net gain of 185,885 - 79,665 = 106,220 votes for Clinton in California and 878,010 - 106,220 = 501,720 votes for Clinton nationwide from illegal alien voting. Not enough to account for Clinton’s popular vote lead in California or nationwide
Applying the same rough calculations shows that the illegal alien vote wouldn’t have tipped one more state to Trump, not even the close Clinton victories in New Hampshire or Minnesota.
TLDR; A bunch of math shows the illegal alien vote does not entirely account for Clinton’s popular vote lead.
*I’m using the term illegal aliens since that is what the OP used. Substitute your preferred term of art if you wish.
** The same study noted that the illegal alien vote in 2008 may have made the difference in the election for US Senator from Minnesota, giving the Democrats the crucial 60th vote to implement the PPACA.
*** There may have been more or fewer illegal aliens living in California and nationwide at the time of the 2016 election than Pew’s 2014 figures, but I’m going with what numbers I have. The math is an approximation.
**** The study was referencing the 2008 political race. For the purpose of this analysis I am discounting any third party votes by illegal aliens.
A few commented some variation that the candidates would have run a different campaign if it was a popular vote race. True enough, I suppose.
But one point I have rarely seen is that the voters would perhaps have voted differently if it was a popular vote race. Voters in states that were not considered swing states may have felt more free to vote third party in the current EC system than they would in a strict popular vote system. And turnout might be different if voters feel that there is no need to vote since their favored candidate is a foregone conclusion to win their states under the EC system.
Though it may not hold true in each instance, the third party candidates collectively garnered 5.2% of the vote in reliably Democratic California and 6% in reliably Republican Kansas, but only 3.2% in closely fought Pennsylvania.
You mean, like this guy?
20 years from now dems will still be talking about this as “the Election Hillary lost.”
Trump will be a footnote in history. Hopefully.
The stain will still be there. Regrettably.
Which is rather the point of this thread.
So you were just stating the obvious in post #66. As was I in post #67.
I was thinking more along the lines of the participants in this thread who, to varying degrees, seemed to touch on the idea that the candidates would have run their campaigns differently in a straight up popular vote contest.
Indeed, you are right, people are saying that. Must be something to it, if people are saying it.
Well if the numbers are so close, why havent the democrats demanded a recount?
The latest numbers I saw were Clinton ahead by around 1.3 million votes out of around 123.7 million votes cast. Thats about 1.05 % and that number is so low as to be within the range of error.
Well I checked out that article and while it says the story is fake, it actually says the idea that illegals are automatically given the right to vote is false. However I think thats basically just changing the question.
The question on Snopes said “California passed a law to allow undocumented immigrants to vote.” Which is false. Ok, I get that.
However the article never says they cannot either. It goes on to say " The DMV gives the eligible voter a chance to opt out if they prefer not to register. If the person does not opt out, the DMV electronically transfers their voter registration information to the Secretary of State’s office, rather than making election officials enter data by hand from paper registration forms…"
So what if the person doesnt opt out but instead, agrees to register? What then? There is still no stopping them from voting except the fear of getting caught. Which we KNOW in democratically controlled California with its sanctuary cities and its massive illegal population is NOT going to happen.
So reread Snopes yourself and see that they cleverly show one part of the story is false, while still not saying the concept is true or not.
Now that there is some spectacular rhetorical gymnastics. Were you, by any chance, educated by Jesuits?
Looking at the close races in which the Democrat holds the lead, it appears the North Carolina governor’s race is close enough that the illegal alien vote might account for the margin of victory (again, using the math in my prior post).
Roughly 350,000 illegal aliens residing in North Carolina, per Pew Foundation numbers.
Roughly 11.3% of illegal aliens admit to voting.
That makes 39,550 votes by illegal aliens.
With a 70/30 split favoring Democrats that makes for 27,685 (D) - 11,865 (R) = a net + 15,820 for Cooper, the Democrat.
News reports show Cooper with a lead of 4,772 votes[sup]*[/sup]. Take away the 15,820 net gain from illegal aliens voting and the Republican McCrory would be the winner.
- Using CNN’s numbers. There may be more current numbers.