Gerrymandering and the Winner-Takes-All Rule of the EC Have To Go

The Republican party learned from the best

 

There is the tell. ‘The wrong candidate’. Still sufferering fron Hillary’s constitutional loss.

 

The EC surreptitiously manipulates the compilation of total personal-voted since the EC-vote and Total Popular Vote are very different animals. They are both highly different voter counts.

In fact, so different that if the geological-map of the US looks like we all know it (according to size dimensions), the popular-vote map if displayed properly would look something like this:

...

 

That would be true if we were a democracy

 

We are not a democracy, rather a republic. State Legislatures decide how to allocate EC votes, and it would be completely legal to allocate them based on a coin flip. Unpopular probably, but legal.

As for gerrymandering the only thing it affects is the HoR, and plays no role whatsoever in Presidential election.

Seems a lot of folks around here need a Civics refresher course.

 

Trump took Michigan by 13000 votes, obviously recount territory and heavily impacted by the extra candidates.
Hillary took New Hampshire by 3000 votes, obviously recount territory and decided by the extra candidates.
Trump took Wisconsin by 28000 votes, also worthy of examination and impacted by the extra candidates.
Thanks to winner-take-all Electoral College Trump gets 26 and Hillary 4, when both deserve 15.
Trump took Pennsylvania by 73000 votes. That might be a fraudproof distance but he gets 20 more EVs instead of 10 each.
At this point it looks like Hillary was cheated, but remember that state would have also been a tie in both Obama wins. Once again the extra voters, though the numbers were few, made the difference.
Moving up the list we have Trump by 120000 in Florida. You can't recount Dade County because Hillary won there also. Again the extra candidates made the difference. That's Trump 85, Hillary 4 when it should be 45-44.
Hillary won by 43000 in Minnesota, we think, a cheap 10 for her in the state that's gone Democrat longest. Once again the extra candidates swung the outcome in a state that's had it with the 2-party system.
Hillary won by 51000 in Colorado, another state Democrats take too casually as theirs. That could be considered for reexamination. Johnson should have done much better.
Please note, going this way, neither has approached 50% yet.
Hillary took Maine by 20000. They split their EVs but why 3-1 instead of 2-2 I can't imagine. Once again Johnson made the difference.
Trump may pursue his lawsuit in Nevada where Hillary appears to have another 26000 vote win (far below 50% thanks to Johnson.
That's 8 states tied so far. Both candidates got 4 of them though.
Apparently Trump used Obama's method. Try hardest where the reward is greatest. Hillary's method was don't try.
Apparently Hillary might have plucked one EV out of Nebraska but fell 9000 votes short in the only district that wasn't a massacre. Trump got 60% statewide.
Trump won North Carolina by 167000 despite Hillary's big early lead. Maybe if they divided their 15 votes by district she might have a few of the 15. Once again Johnson held both under 50%.
They took a long time giving Trump to Arizona despite a 96000 vote win. He did fall below 50% again but won by over 3% and I never thought she could win there.
Thank to Kaine Hillary took Virginia by 189000, but still under 50%.
That makes 13 states with a spread under 5% and all candidates below half.
With Georgia at last we see Trump over 50% for the first time, gaining all 16 EVs. It was 51-44. Johnson would have earned a vote there and in a few of those other states, possibly throwing the decision to the House of Representatives.
Hillary took New Mexico by 64000. That's a comfortable 8% there but only 48-40 in Johnson's state.
All-important Ohio gave Trump a 400000 vote win and 52%. What did Romney do wrong to lose that state?
Trump won by 148000 in Iowa, over 50% in a state Obama took twice.
Trump took Texas by 800000, 52% to 43%. That's standard despite the Hispanics. Can it be that someone noticed the biggest victims of illegal immigration are legal immigrants?
That's the last state where the margin was less than 10%.
Though Hillary took 7 of those 17 states, you'll notice she didn't come close to 50% yet.
Next we have Oregon, a decisive Hillary win if 198000, but still under 50% (49-39).
Hillary won Delaware by 50000. That's 11%. If they had waited as long as they should have to project her the winner she never would have had that fake lead some networks were so ecstatic about.
That's her first 50% state, a whopping 53% in a state they take for granted.
She took her beloved Connecticutt by 186000, a shade over 12%. Shouldn't a winner be over 50% in at least half the states she wins. That's 53-41 also. Shouldn't the loser be under 40% in winner-take-all contests?
Hillary was also behind when she was awarded New Jersey. It was 400000, also slightly over 12%.
Hillary took Rhode Island by 61000 votes. Trump took everything inland, more square miles even here. It was 53-39 so my vote for Gary Johnson kept Trump under 40% at least. Maybe we're not so dumb.
Trump took South Carolina by 297000 votes, an ironic 54-40. Please note he has yet to reach 55% in this. There's no bragging and this brings us out of the contested states category.
Alaska has never gone Democrat. Trump took it by 37000 and they waited a day to make that a projected win. It was 52%-37.
Hillary took Illinois by 800000, including the fraud. That's 55-38.
Hillary took Washington state by 279000. That's 55%. to 38 in a state that favored Bernie overwhelmingly.
In the remaining swing state, Trump won Missouri by 500000 votes. That should have been a tie. Here at last he cracked 56%
Mississippi also gave Trump a 19% victory, 216000 in the 6 EV state.
Trump also won by 19% in Utah. However in that state the totals were 46-27% He won by only 153000 votes over Hillary. She edged Evan McMillan for second place by only 15000. This could have been a legitimate 4-way race.
Trump won Louisiana by 398000, a shade under 20%.
Trump took Pence's Indiana by 500000, a shade under 20% in a swing state. Maybe the swing stopped swinging there.
Hillary's remaining percentages in defeat tell the biggest story: 21, 26. 34, 31, 28, 27, 35, 32, 36, 27, 33 and 34

 

Wakey, wakey! You are playing-with-words.

There is no fundamental difference except the machination that your propose above.

Go look up the definition of the two words "democracy" and "republic". They are perfectly compatible.

Of course. And so what? I never said otherwise.

Is that all you got in your intellectual quiver ... ?

Wow! Something to agree upon!

First of all studies have shown that Civics Courses are a minority subject in the US. See a forthright review of the subject here: A Look at Civics Education in the United States
From which:

And likely what they teach is still the BS you swallowed about the Gerrymandering and the Electoral College. That neither do any ill to the popular-vote, which the ONLY kind of vote that should be applied to elect officials.

Which is why I call them "Replicants". Because they have no intellectual capacity to see the harm done to a real republican-democracy in America and that attitude is with intent. That is, they want above all to keep upper-income taxation as low as possible in order to aggrandize their already tremendously unfair fortunes ...

PS: Just like Rome before its collapse ... when it was so rotten internally it could not even defend itself from the Germanic horde that ended its Empire.

 

It is a democracy, one rotted to the core by Gerrymandering and the Electoral College.

Which is why, after WW2, when rebuilding from the devastation, Europe decided not to implement either in building their democracies ...

 

The EC is the only thing that keeps the USA together, it's not that complicated

 

You think obviously that it is right-and-proper that a state rips up the popular vote of "losers" (at only the state level) and allows some states highly irregular by-state voting in terms of numbers of votes to present to Congress.

When five presidents over two-centuries who won the popular-vote are NOT SWORN IN TO OFFICE the consequence should be legally defined as voting-fraud ...

PS: Each European nation within the European Union does not have an Electoral College manipulating the popular-vote, and it is still "together".

 

Ever look on a map, the state of Texas is almost as big as Europe by itself .

 

ROFL what is a "normal country" and the federal government of the United States is not a Democracy and the Constitution guaranties to the States it will not become one.

 

There has never been a national popular vote in the United States in anything.

 

And so ... ?

 

European countries are counties in Texas, each state has it's own government, each state has it's own military, we are 50 states United.

 

I don't like them, & I understand the basic ideas of each. I understand that the parties in power use the results of every census to alter the boundaries of their state's voting districts, to benefit their own party in elections for the next decade. Most states experience continual change during every decade. Those changes aren't reflected in the fixed voting district boundaries, until the next census, which is a source of unfairness for the voters of that state. Whenever boundaries are drawn anew, they are designed to empower the party in charge of drawing them, rather than honor the voice of the voters in the state. Democracy takes a back seat to manipulative actions by the ruling political party to guarantee their continued empowerment. Getting rid of Gerrymandered districts would strengthen the voice of democracy in every state, & make that state much more responsive to gradual change during any given decade.

I am not sure whether Gerrymandered districts affect the outcome of the popular vote for Presidents within a state. If someone could enlighten me on this, it would be appreciated.

 

When gerrymandered districts are redrawn, the minority party can refute it and take it to court. What's the problem?

 

The problem is that in the last case taken to the Supreme Court over Gerrymandering, the court refused to rule, saying it didn't have the authority to determine how an autonomous state drew its internal boundaries governing voting. So, the SCOTUS is of no help here. Any solutions will have to come thru the Congress.

 

.

The acreage number of any state has no consequence whatsoever in the determination of national laws.

Nada, zilch, nixt, tipota, rien, nothing.

(Except of course in Texas.)

 

Of course it does, look at Europe all people values is not the same..people from Germany has different values from Italy

People from Denmark has different values as in France.


It's the same with the USA, from California compared to Michigan, comparing Massachusetts to Iowa they have different personalities

 

Gerrymandered state voting-districts affect voting-rights allowing preferential vote-counting to a single party on both the state and Federal elections level. But not to the presidency, which is manipulated by another device called the Electoral College - where the Majority-Vote-Rule exists. This rule stipulates that ALL THE STATE'S EC-VOTES* GO TO ONLY THE MAJORITY WINNER OF THE VOTE. Which means the loser of the actual total popular-vote in the nation count could actually win the election in the Electoral College.

Which is tantamount in a final Total Vote Count for the presidency, that those who voted for the majority-winner of the popular vote still lost the Electoral Council winner. Which happened in the last election to Hillary Clinton - and has happened five times in history. (And twice in recent history, with George Bush and Donald Trump.)

It is definitely a "bad habit" in a country that is super-proud of its freedoms, but allows political-parties to actually manipulate in many ways electoral outcomes ...

*EC-votes in any state are determined by voting-rules that the state creates. They can be and are often manipulated to give one party or the other preferential treatment.

 

Wait I thought people wanted equal rights? So by your logic shouldn't we get rid of the Senate also?

After all it's unfair to have the Senate represent state rights.

 

They do have parity-equal rights. All states vote ONLY two Senators. That's equality. Thus smaller states have more equitable "representation" than they have in the HofR.

Of course, the HofR has a different system of voting where Gerrymandering often happens.

 

True. And for over 250 years, we've worked together to resolve our differences in a peaceful, constructive way. But now, Trump brings in his blitzkrieg personality, which makes way for no one, & spreads his win by any means, & winner take all approach, across the nation. The result, we are the most divided as a nation & as a people we've been since the Civil War. And, that's not healthy for any nation. We need to re-learn how to get along & work together in spite of our differences. Our survival as a nation depends on it.

 

Who said get back of the bus, Mr Obama or Mr Trump?

I also agree this tit for tat must stop ever since the Clarence Thomas hearings