Which explains why I hate the whole "red state/blue state" thing. These days it seems that liberals think everyone in a red state is ignorant and conservatives think everyone in a blue state is elitist. Historically I would guess that most states have changed back and forth over the years. Changes in population or social or economic issues which tip the balance don't mean that every resident of the state suddenly changes affiliation, and some are always independent. My son once volunteered for a presidential candidate in our state and was dismayed to learn that the national party wouldn't give any funds to the state organization because they had determined in their formula our state wasn't needed to win. That is why who wins the popular vote doesn't matter. If the system was different, money would be distributed differently, and the results would probably be about the same. It's called politics.
Though there are many factors and some anomalous years, if you look at the data (go on, take a look, it's interesting and revealing) it becomes clear that since the American Civil War the major defining factor in US presidential elections has been race. I'm loathe to admit this as I tend to disagree with people who see racism as the reason for everything, but, just look at the map. Democrats were the party of racists (in the south, and to a lesser extent in the mid-west) from 1860 until 1964. 100 years of Democrats owning the "solid south." Then what happened? The Civil Rights Act of 1964, introduced by a Democratic Congressman, signed into law by a Democratic president, and *immediately* the country flips completely, defying 100 years of precedent. The racist states turned from blue to red and vice versa. The only years that are different since then are 1968 when the Democrats splintered
... and formed the Dixiecrat party, and in 1976 when the Democrats ran a southern peanut farmer from Georgia. (he would go on to carry Georgia in 1980, as well) but the overall pattern in every other year for the past 150 years can be explained by this one thing. The racist states try to dress up their racism in different ways and call it different things. Things like "states rights" and "smaller government" which was their way of saying keep the federal government weak so that state and local governments are free to oppress their minority populations; and of course gun rights became a big thing because southern militias needed to be armed to keep said minorities in line. This one issue has shaped American political discourse so pervasively and for so long that most people don't even realize it, they think that their party is in favor of small government because they believe in fiscal responsibility or something like that.
and of course not all Republican voters are racist and many now actually do believe in these things racism aside but that is where our current two-party national divide originally came from and how many ideas that we now take for granted as conservative or liberal principles came to take shape.
That's an exorbitant amount of time. I'm pretty sure a quick typist could type all 50 states twice in that amount of time. That's what I did to get New Hampshire. Started at Alabama and worked my way down alphabetically.
How about all quizzes being so short that only the top 2% typists can actually finish it on time, that way those of us in pursuit of knowledge can relax and take up gardening instead?
If I don't know answers I don't guess 100 things to be "right". I just skip to the next one and click Give Up. You can't learn anything if all you remember is typing everything that came into your head.
This group is changing steadily. Missouri is pretty safe for the GOP - even in Trump's worst polling periods it never looked like going blue. Virginia is increasingly behaving as a blue state, not a swing state. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, could become more of a swing state and North Carolina looks to be following Virginia's trajectory. Meanwhile I think Iowa could follow Missouri and move towards becoming a more GOP-leaning state.
North Carolina was won by Obama in 08, but since then has mainly gone GOP in national and local races. It seems like it was more of a fluke than anything.
Indiana did the same thing with Obama in 08. I'd still say NC is a swing state though. Enough large cities to be close to 50/50. The rural and urban highly contrast each other.
This is the fifth election in which the Democrat won the popular vote but a different candidate won the presidency. (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and now 2016. 1824 Republicans weren't around but the other elections the Republican won)
Before 1964 the Democratic and Republican parties were very different, with completely different platforms and constituencies. I'd be careful drawing any broad conclusions going back to the 1800s. But the fact that this has happened twice in the last two decades is troubling.
It's not troubling at all. The electoral college protects small states and keeps them in the participation process. Otherwise we'd have the 2-3 biggest states picking all the winners in every election.
No we'd get the citizens of the USA picking the winner. There's no reason why voters in WY should havemore say than voters in CA, and if we used a popular vote states wouldn't decide anything. The 10 million people of GA would count exactly the same as the 10 million people of OK+CT+IA. Also this would eliminate the way the minority in each state is subsumed by the majority, rendering their votes meaningless. That applies as much to Republicans voting in CA as it does to Democrats voting in TX. Finally, the main purpose of the EC as devised by the founding fathers was to protect against dangerous but popular demagogues (like Trump) coming to power. The founders were very wary of direct democracy for this reason. They knew such villains could appeal to the plebes before betraying them. If the EC decides to vote against Trump this year it'll have done what it was designed to do. But it probably won't, and if it doesn't, then it is useless.
LOL what a silly argument. Voters in WY already do not have more say than voters in CA. WY has 3 electoral votes, CA has 55 which is about a 1700% increase over WY. States are assigned a number of votes based on their population. The higher the population, the more electoral votes. The presidential election is NOT a popularity contest, and the founders didn't want it to be. They formed a republic, and they knew that direct democracy (which is what the popular vote is, not the EC) always leads to fascism. The founders were brilliant when they created the Electoral College. The election gives States the right to send delegates to the Electoral College. Otherwise we wouldn't be the United STATES, and also, the Electoral College protects the minority, not the majority as you say, by giving power to ALL the states and giving a voice to the people who don't live in the 5 biggest cities.
So if the Electoral College votes against Trump, it's doing what it is "supposed to do?" No. The electoral college is supposed to vote the way the citizens voted according to their respective state. Yes they could go and vote the other way if they wanted to, but they'd disgrace themselves and trash their careers in the process. But you're right, it probably won't happen. Just getting one to switch will be problematic. They need how many to overturn Trump, about 46? That'd be like winning the lottery 46 times. Not gonna happen.
So Trump is a "demagogue?" Demagogues don't use rational arguments. I watched all the debates. Trump had nothing but rational arguments, unlike his opponent, who basically had no message at all, other than "vote for me because I am a woman" and "I will continue Obama's policies" which are proven disasters. Trump laid out specifics and she didn't have an answer for anything. She thought if she smiled and laughed a lot, that would be enough. The laugh is on her.
Here's my two cents: the electoral college is stupid (see CGP Grey video), Trump didn't win the popular vote but won the electoral college (see different CGP Grey video) because he played his cards well (there'll probably be a CGP Grey video on that soon). He may not have won fairly, but that's not a problem with him, it's a problem with the country, and the way we elect our leaders.
Everybody has campaigned how they've campaigned because of the EC. If candidates really wanted to win the popular vote, they'd campaign in population-rich areas, not in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Maine, etc. The EC makes candidates campaign in those states.
Well you can make an argument that the states in the United States are like small countries. Similar to how the UN security council gives 1 vote per member.
Now, i'm not saying this is a strong argument, but it was an incentive for some states to join the United States following independence.
The Electoral College votes are unevenly distributed, and the bigger states like California and Texas don't get the representation they deserve, while tiny states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska all get 3 votes. It also gives the majorities in each state an advantage, so in safely Democratic states like California and solidly Republican ones like Alabama the minor party really has no shot at winning, rendering their votes essentially useless for the purpose of electing the candidate they voted for. It's only in the swing states that people's votes really count since that is what can tip the election in favor of either candidate. This can barely be called democratic, as in a democracy all votes count equally. I find this system absurd, and don't see any reason as to why the US doesn't go by popular vote, since that is after all what determines what the majority of people want. Also, in the Electoral College, a candidate can technically win with only 21.91% of the vote.
Also, the Electoral College doesn't actually benefit the small states, since presidential candidates don't really care about them unless it's an insanely close election. This means that the EC doesn't really benefit anyone and should be abolished altogether. Popular vote benefits everyone equally, no matter if you live in a big city of in the countryside.
I personally think that not having the electoral college will make elections more interesting. Rather than both candidates visiting the same swing states each time, we would see republicans campaigning in California, or Dems campaigning in Rural Mississippi.
With that said though, the margin of victory the Dems get in CA and NY simply outweighs everything else. So, it would not be the best way.
I love going back and reading comments before the election and then those since trying to justify how Clinton should be President even though she lost the popular without California by 1.4 million votes. Lets face it, California is NOT a good gauge for the country as a whole. As for those not happy about the electoral college (and making excuses about it because Hillary lost), the candidates enter into it knowing how the system works and they accept it. It is the most fair, giving every state a total number based on the percentage of their population of that state. It is how the system has always been. The infants love it only when their candidate wins and throw temper tantrums when they don't. Us grown ups accept when we don't like who won and hope for something else in the next election.
For a "grown up," it's pretty weird to make an argument by casually removing millions of voters from California from consideration because that state isn't, you know, a "good gauge" for the country as a whole.
You know that whether or not you like California's political atmosphere, it's still a state, right. So as far as I'm aware, you can't just remove the votes of any state. If not, time to remove the votes the Republicans get in Texas, Georgia and North Carolina.
The state is solid red, though, outside of NoVA, Richmond, and some parts of the Norfolk metro area. As those areas have become more densely populated it turned more and more purple, and is now starting to become blue. But before 2008 Virginia had voted for the Republican candidate for president in every single election going back to 1952 except once ('64).
Going by the most recent polling data, the 10 most competitive states this year look to be (in descending order):
Ohio
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Iowa
Texas
Arkansas
New Hampshire
Arizona
and Pennsylvania
I'm not really sure I believe that Arkansas poll. If that was a fluke, then Nevada would slide in to the 10th most competitive spot. Would be pretty crazy if Trump lost in Arkansas. But the fact that Texas and Georgia are competitive this year is also bad news for him. Those have traditionally been Republican strongholds and also where they get a substantial chunk of their electoral college votes.
None of the other states are surprising. My home state of Virginia is leaning more blue all the time. Happy to see that sanity is prevailing there.
Saying Florida isn't a swing state anymore is a rushed conclusion in my opinion, I'd wait for the 2022 midterms and 2024 election to see. For all we know, it could have been a fluke because of the much-more-Republican-than-usual Cuban vote in Miami-Dade. Other than that, I'd agree.
Now, i'm not saying this is a strong argument, but it was an incentive for some states to join the United States following independence.
With that said though, the margin of victory the Dems get in CA and NY simply outweighs everything else. So, it would not be the best way.
Ohio
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Iowa
Texas
Arkansas
New Hampshire
Arizona
and Pennsylvania
I'm not really sure I believe that Arkansas poll. If that was a fluke, then Nevada would slide in to the 10th most competitive spot. Would be pretty crazy if Trump lost in Arkansas. But the fact that Texas and Georgia are competitive this year is also bad news for him. Those have traditionally been Republican strongholds and also where they get a substantial chunk of their electoral college votes.
None of the other states are surprising. My home state of Virginia is leaning more blue all the time. Happy to see that sanity is prevailing there.