So when Trump wins the popular vote on election day, but then Biden wins ...

That is, quite honestly more reflective of how I'd like to see elections, where each state gets one vote, as opposed to several electoral votes. You are still making comments as if I am claiming that winning the popular vote in any way affects the mechanics as they currently are. There is no claim of such, at least not by me. I have only claimed that the popular vote exists, and that it's not always reflected in the state popular votes, or the electoral votes.

 

We could speculate about where candidates might want to put their money and what positions would they be wise to take. Trump said nixed drilling for oil off Florida.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population​

Republicans don't want to lose Texas (#2), don't dare lose Florida (#3) that's more in play than Texas, and may end up having to concede Pennsylvania (#5). They're going to lose California (#1) and New York (#4).

Republicans will try to win a bunch of small states.

On and on.

 

Why would states pass laws that attempt to force electors to vote for the candidate they said they would when they participate in the Electoral College? The electors are pledged to a candidate.

 

They vote on behalf of the State and the vote is recorded as the State, how many times does this have to be explained to you, the State legislature could select them without vote of the people they allow one as a privilege and courtesy it is not required. Civics 101.

 

The system the founding fathers came up with to balance the representation of the states was and remains BRILLIANT. There is no need to change especially because Hillary Clinton lost. I only know of two states where the popular vote winner does not actually win the election they just allocate according to the percent of the vote. I say winner take the candidate must win the State and the State votes for the candidate. It forces them to pay attention to smaller states and put together more in a collition than just concentrate on the heavily populated areas and states.

It works as planned let's leave it alone.

But it doesn't we all do not vote in the same election under the same circumstances and campaigns are not run based on a national popular vote. I for one did not vote for Trump last time because we have the Electoral College and he was going to win my state anyway. Had it been close I would have voted for him, had it been a national popular vote I would have voted for him. Voting patterns would be entirely different. Conflating 51 unique and separate election totals into a single national popular vote is political and statistical folly. We are NOT a Democracy and the founding fathers went to lengths to make sure we would not be one and in fact had to guaranty in the Constitution we would not be one. We are a federal republic of States and the founding fathers intended for the States not the People to elect the President.

 

What does that have to do with anything? Yes States want their electors to cast the State votes for the candidate the State wants to win.

 

Sounds similar to my plan. Each county uses popular vote to determine a winner and send one vote to the state. Each state then determines a winner and send one vote for the final selection. In the event of a tie, count the number of total votes from the previous level.

I understand that this is your opinion, but nothing beyond that unless you have something to back it up. I am not making any call to turn us into a pure democracy. A pure democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. I prefer rule of law. And noting that we have this particular statistic and that someone wins the popular vote in no way calls for any change to the current system. You are the one that seems to be conflating my pointing out the factual existence of the popular vote with changing the system. As is there has only been 5 times in our history when the winner of the popular vote was not the winner of the EC, and once where there was no candidate that got the majority of the EC and had to be elected by the House.

Oh and as for your guarantee in the Constitution, the EC can be gotten rid of as easily as the prohibition against income tax was. All it takes in an amendment. And before you say that is unlikely, how many people do you think were saying that before the Income Tax became constitutional?

 

She did indeed have a majority of citizen votes, but she did not have a majority of electors. How and why it is significant and whether it is more or less significant than other facts will be up to individuals. I find it significant in that more people wanted Hillary as president, but the right combination of elector based votes (even giving the 7 faithless who did not vote for either and the one Trump elector who resigned, to Clinton, would not have made a difference in the result) allowed Trump to take the EC. It's significant because it shows that the balance the founders intended where the election of the president is not a country wide popularity vote actually works.

Popular vote is also significant because several states have, or are attempting to have, laws that require the electors to vote for whoever wins the national popular vote. I find this to be wrong and disenfranchising. 100% of a state could vote for Candidate A, but if Candidate B wins the national popular vote, then all those votes have been invalidated. I'd be alright if the law said that all the state electors had to vote according to the results of the state popular vote, but such is not the case.

 

You would do well to study up before holding forth:

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court decided (in 2020) that States can enact requirements on how electors vote. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged. However, several electors were disqualified and replaced, and others fined, in 2016 for failing to vote as pledged.

It is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

During the general election your vote helps determine your State’s electors. When you vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren’t actually voting for President. You are telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to appoint their electors. The winning candidate’s State political party selects the individuals who will be electors.​

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#restrictions

 

As an add on, there is no Constitutional right to vote either, as upheld by SCOTUS in 2000. The 15th (race), 19th (gender), and 26th (age 18+) amendments only spell out what cannot be criteria in who is allowed to vote. States could, constitutionally, limit voting to land owners, or to the employed, or some other criteria. Not that they would, but it would be constitutional.

For reference, in 2016 there were 11 faithless electors, 4 of whom were replaced.

​

 

Thus, my question:
Is the fact she had more votes than Trump more or less significant than the fact she did not have a majority?
Why/why not?
See, more people did NOT want her as President than wanted her.

 

Nothing you posted refutes the fact that there is no national popular vote, you have never voted in a national election and that the STATES elect the President not the People...............give it up.

 

It is allocated by Congressional districts the Federal Government is not concerned with counties, again the founding fathers conceived and put in place a brilliant which does not need to be changed at all.

It's not an opinion it is political and statistical fact. If we elected Presidents by a national popular vote the campaigning would be entirely different and voting patterns would be entirely different. That is FACT. Conflating 51 totally unique and separate state elections and then claiming that that is the same result had we had those national campaigns, no primaries just one big campaign for a few select states, and then one national vote is folly. Trivia at best and nothing more. There is only one way to win the Presidency and that is by winning the combination of states which gives you a win in the EC. Adding up the results of the 51 elections to get there does NOT tell you what a national popular vote would have produced.

Ahhh that is not easy, first you have to get a supermajority of Congress to pass it then of a super-majority of the States to pass it (or start with a Constitutional convention to do it which still requires a super-majority of the States). Ain't gonna in the States even if you could get Congress to pass it.

 

And I imagine it would quickly head to the SCOTUS where a originalist/textual court would say YEP it's up to the state and as long as you do not violate the VRA criteria and a state can define who can vote while a progressive liberal court would create "rights" to vote. But as you said, ain't gonna happen.

 

That is literally false. More people wanted her as president. Hence why she had the most votes in the country. But those votes did not translate into EC electors. She had the majority of people, but not the majority of electors. And that can be significant if enough states make laws giving their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote of the country. That aside the number is significant in showing how the EC works such that the popular vote does not directly affect the Electors.

 

You're off on another topic.

There is a national vote of electors.

Electors choose the President, not states.

 

Hillary Clinton "won" 48.2% of the popular vote..
This means 51.8% of voters -- a majority -- did not want her as President.

^^^^
This is literally true

^^^^
That is literally false

Thus, my question:
Is the fact she had more votes than Trump more or less significant than the fact she did not have a majority?
Why/why not?

 

Opinion, noted. The other part, I never said anything against as far as what is. I don't know why you insist on making statements that are not related to what I actually said.

Since whether something is folly or not is a subjective view, it cannot be fact. Do feel free to provide any supposed facts though. I won't hold my breath

Then back it up. Provide the evidence that supports that supposed fact.

I have yet to make this claim. You are the one who keeps trying to insist that I am.

Where did anyone ever say anything about no primaries? Why are you making things up?

Again you are making up what I've said. At no point have I claimed that the popular vote is the way to win the presidency of the US. I have explicitly stated that winning the popular vote in no way guarantees winning the office. It is the most common result, but it is no guarantee.

Might well be soon, if the National Popular vote initiative goes through. So far, states with a total of 196 electoral votes have passed the bill, which uses the national popular vote to allocate their electoral. Another 88 electoral votes worth of states have had their version of the bill pass one of their houses. That will be well over the 270 majority needed to win the EC. Thus the national popular vote will be how the President is elected. Still, at no point have I ever claim that is what is happening currently. I have only claimed that the popular vote is a real thing, and it is not used (yet) in determine who wins the office. Everything else is you trying to put words into my mouth.

Never made any claim as to how easy it would be. But I have no doubt that your argument has been made about so many amendments. I wonder how many thought the states would never pass Prohibition or later to repeal it?

 

This will fail constitutional muster as a clear and plain violation of Article 1 Sec 10:3
These states, in entering this compact, conspire to render irrelevant the electoral votes of those remaining, and therefore violate the clause under current jurisprudence.

Absent this, as soon as CA and NY are forced to give their electors to a Republican, it will collapse.

 

OK I see how you are using your wording there, and I concede to it. But then using that same logic Trump received only 46.09% of the popular vote, meaning that 53.91% of the voters, a majority did not want him as president. Either way you look at it, Hillary won the popular vote.

19 times in our history, the winner of the office did not have 50%+1 of the votes in the country? 4 of those times, the winner of the office lost the popular vote. The popular vote is not the current mechanic by which the office is won. I have made no claims of such. Significance of popular vote to EC vote will be up to individuals for now. However, if 74 more electoral votes worth of states pass their National Popular Vote bill in their second house (of which there is a total potential of 88 electoral votes), then the national popular vote will be highly significant.

 

I personally am against the bills as they stand. It makes it such that 100% of a state could vote one way, and the EC votes would be the opposite if that is the national popular vote. Regardless, the popular vote still factually exists, and is not a mechanic (yet) in the election of the POTUS. Nothing you have said thus far has changed that.

So all that other stuff, where I asked you to back up your claim that it was fact, you are just going to ignore? Not that you could back it up as fact.

 

None of this addresses my question:
Is the fact she had more votes than Trump more or less significant than the fact she did not have a majority?
Why/why not?

 

And nothing in your response addresses what I said.
I'll simply take that as agreement.

I have no idea what you;re talking about. Feel free cite/copy/paste.