The Clinton Archipelago

Below more interesting data on california. How many republican/conservative voters stayed home because their vote was meaningless? We will never know

Republicans in the state had nobody to vote for in November.

There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California's congressional districts.

At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats.

Plus, since Republicans knew Clinton was going to win the state — and its entire 55 electoral votes — casting a ballot for Trump was virtually meaningless, since no matter what her margin of victory, Clinton was getting all 55 votes.

We'll put you in the "Affirmative Action" camp that says votes in flyover country count more than those from population centers.

I'm happy living in the "Democracy" camp that says votes are counted by individual people - not geographical regions....and I live in flyover country.

Trump kicked the shit out of Hillary in Slope County, ND (population 750.....area 1215 SQ Miles).
Hillary did much better in Nassau County, NY (population 1,300,000....area 1173 SQ miles).

So the tie goes to......TRUMP ! Hooray, democracy!

_____Slope County, ND___________________________


_____Nassau County, NY__________________________


Democracy is overrated. The United States of America is a Republic.

"The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).



From Origins of the Electoral College :
*******quote****
One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.*

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.
****endquote****
boldface added - DD

* The Founding Fathers were looking at a Republic comprising 13 States. The Electoral College was devised intentionally to reduce the possibility of one or a few large States (e.g.Virginia) dominating the small States (e.g. Rhode Island) were it a pure democratic election.
In 2016 it worked precisely as designed..

Umm..no, I disagree.I don't think they should count more but they should have a say. I think peoples voices should be heard from all over the country ,not just NYC, LA, and CHI. Their needs and perspectives are and can be completely different than the farmers in the midwest or the people working a factory in Sioux city or the miners in Appalachia or....the list goes on. Do you honestly think all those people should have no say? Shouldn't an election be decided on the diversity of the nation, not just city dwellers? I thought you guys were all about diversity, everyone has an equal say.

What happens if the views of only heavily populated cities control the presidency, what happens to all the ones I mentioned (and didn't mention)?

BTW What should we do with a city like Detroit where there's more votes than voters? Will we need to recount every major city to make sure there's no fraud like Detroit? Do you think LA would pass the test?, I highly doubt it personally.

Hey JM, couldn't get link to work. I've seen several videos on youtube of election night and completely hilaraious. News hosts crying, people bawling there eyes out at the Jarvitz (SP) center, all great stuff. When the realization sets in that Trump is going to win people start losing it. SNL did a great skit on it. Here it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHG0ezLiVGc

It doesn't go by county, but by the popular vote of each state, I feel silly pointing that out but you made a silly comparison.

Thats exactly what a democratic vote does.

I dont think you understand your own argument. You've both challenged and agreed with my point that all votes should count the same. Maybe you should figure out what your position is before contributing further.

Yeah - and slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person (without actually letting them vote) so as to give the South more sway in the elections. See! They believed in affirmative action voting then too ! I'm happy to challenge the notion that an idea is relevant today by virtue of it being implemented by the "Founding Fathers".

Dividing up electoral votes by state boundaries is nonsensical in the modern world. I dont know that a voter in Kansas City, KS holds different federal priorities from one in Kansas City, MO based on what side of the river they are on - and yet thats how their vote is grouped.

Likewise there are farmers in Massachusetts...and City folk in Indiana... and atheists in Tennessee....and Evangelicals in Hollywood. These people are all disenfranchised by a larger group they share a state border with. Wouldn't it be nice if these people actually figured into our election?

If every vote counted equally, a vote in Wyoming would be as important as one in California.
How many visits did either candidate make to Wyoming? South or North Dakota? Montana? Utah?