MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[Gran Virginia]

Yes, more states, but what actually matters is more electors.

What?

Yes, Trump got more states, but what matters (the reason he won) is because he got more electors. It is absolutely possible to become president while losing more than half of the states.

[Zurkerx]

The National Enquirer's parent company has admitted to prosecutors that it made the $150,000 payment in "concert with" the Trump campaign in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election.

"AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

Now with added sauce.

Excuses coming in 3... 2... 1...

I can only imagine that this is only going to get worst for the President. Watch as he turns against the Enquirer and says they're fake news.

[Thuzbekistan]

Now with added sauce.

Excuses coming in 3... 2... 1...

I can only imagine that this is only going to get worst for the President. Watch as he turns against the Enquirer and says they're fake news.

They are tho. They said the queen was dead as clickbait once

[Salandriagado]

I appreciate that you underestimated my stupidity but I have no clue what that means

Okay quick and dirty version.

Each state has X amount of votes in the Electoral College, where X= the number of Seats in both The House and the Senate (DC just gets 3, because amendments)
I.e CA has 55 electoral votes (53 Congresspersons and 2 senators)
The Candidate that wins the popular vote in each states receives said Electoral Votes.
i.e Hillary won the popular vote in California, and thus received said 55 Electoral Votes.
Trump won Texas and received 38 electoral votes, (36 congresspersons and 2 senators)
The first candidate to win enough states, so that they receive at least 270 electoral votes, is the next president.

Trump won 30 States for a total of 306 Electoral Votes.
Clinton won 20 States and DC, for a total of 232 votes.
Trump wins.

Better?

With a slight asterisk for Maine and Nabraska, which are special and divide their electoral votes by their congressional districts (with the senator's EVs being statewide).

[Telconi]

Now with added sauce.

Excuses coming in 3... 2... 1...

I can only imagine that this is only going to get worst for the President. Watch as he turns against the Enquirer and says they're fake news.

He'd be right tho...

[Tarsonis]

Yes, more states, but what actually matters is more electors.

What?

Yes, more states voted for Trump than for Clinton, while more total people in the country voted for Clinton than Trump.

But it's not quite that simple. Each state has a different value, so it's not necessarily getting the most states but the states with the most value. For example, if a candidate only won the 14 largest states in the country, they'd win the presidency with 280 votes, despite getting less states than their opponent.

However because the states themselves are so diverse, that's never happened.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I still don’t get it
If it’s population based why not just make it popular?

[Telconi]

I still don’t get it
If it’s population based why not just make it popular?

Because that would devalue the votes of lower population states.

[Tarsonis]

I still don’t get it
If it’s population based why not just make it popular?

Originally because when the law was written it was the 1790s and communication sucked.

Now it's because it provides a middle ground between the population, and state representation. It requires candidates to form coalitions of states rather than just appeal to the cities.

[Tarsonis]

Now with added sauce.

Excuses coming in 3... 2... 1...

I can only imagine that this is only going to get worst for the President. Watch as he turns against the Enquirer and says they're fake news.

The Enquirer is a Tabloid...

[Gran Virginia]

I still don’t get it
If it’s population based why not just make it popular?

It's not entirely population based, and part of the point is that states are free to determine how the votes in their state translate into the electoral votes. Most states do winner take all, but some don't.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I still don’t get it
If it’s population based why not just make it popular?

Because that would devalue the votes of lower population states.

But why does that matter if everyone votes?

[Tarsonis]

Because that would devalue the votes of lower population states.

But why does that matter if everyone votes?

Checks and balances.

[Thuzbekistan]

Because that would devalue the votes of lower population states.

But why does that matter if everyone votes?

To make sure small states and populations have a say in how they are governed

[Telconi]

Because that would devalue the votes of lower population states.

But why does that matter if everyone votes?

Because having a class of perpetual losers is bad.

[Gran Virginia]

Because that would devalue the votes of lower population states.

But why does that matter if everyone votes?

Because a system where the rules for dozens of different communities are dictated by a small fraction of those places is a bad system.

[Tarsonis]

51% dictating to 49% is a tyranny, which is why our government is setup the way it is.

[Internationalist Bastard]

But why does that matter if everyone votes?

To make sure small states and populations have a say in how they are governed

But wouldn’t rural votes be stronger if all counted together?
Like isn’t Austin a super liberal city in Texas, wouldn’t that fuck with a state vote?

[Thuzbekistan]

To make sure small states and populations have a say in how they are governed

But wouldn’t rural votes be stronger if all counted together?
Like isn’t Austin a super liberal city in Texas, wouldn’t that fuck with a state vote?

It would, but it's up to a state to decide how that would go. It's also not about ideology, but population density

[Tarsonis]

To make sure small states and populations have a say in how they are governed

But wouldn’t rural votes be stronger if all counted together?
Like isn’t Austin a super liberal city in Texas, wouldn’t that fuck with a state vote?

It does, but but the rural areas still beat it. Austin is a large area with large population. The Rural areas have less population per area, but there's much more of them.


3+3+3> 7

[Gran Virginia]

To make sure small states and populations have a say in how they are governed

But wouldn’t rural votes be stronger if all counted together?

Depends on where/what scale you're taking about. California has a lot of rural communities but Californian politics are almost always dominated by the big cities.

Ideally, states either shouldn't be big enough for this kind of thing to really matter, or should follow an internally federal model, but a supreme court decision from several decades ago decided (in a particularly obnoxious stretch of logic) that all state level representatives have to be apportioned by population.

[Internationalist Bastard]

But wouldn’t rural votes be stronger if all counted together?
Like isn’t Austin a super liberal city in Texas, wouldn’t that fuck with a state vote?

It would, but it's up to a state to decide how that would go. It's also not about ideology, but population density

So then why wouldn’t cities win if it’s about density?

[Tarsonis]

It would, but it's up to a state to decide how that would go. It's also not about ideology, but population density

So then why wouldn’t cities win if it’s about density?

Because 3+3+3>7.

There's more rural areas than there are cities. So even though they have less population density, they end up being greater.

This is of course only at the state level, the national level is different.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So then why wouldn’t cities win if it’s about density?

Because 3+3+3>7.

There's more rural areas than there are cities. So even though they have less population density, they end up being greater.

This is of course only at the state level, the national level is different.

How is it different on the national level?

[Gran Virginia]

Because 3+3+3>7.

There's more rural areas than there are cities. So even though they have less population density, they end up being greater.

This is of course only at the state level, the national level is different.

How is it different on the national level?

Different levels of urbanisation in different states.