Should 3rd Party Voters be blamed for the Trump Victory?

[Neanderthaland]

I said the electoral college was stupid then, but it didn't change the result of those elections. It doesn't matter overmuch how MUCH you win or lose an election, but just whether you win or lose.

It's like the old saying:

Do you know what they call the person who graduates last from medical school?

Doctor.

Even China has electoral committees for Hong Kong and Macau, America should too because the little guys need representation.

Not disproportional representation.

[New Chalcedon]

The blame isn't purely on the third party voters. You can't blame misguided, nigh suicidal optimism.

No, the lion's share of the blame is on the American people.

This is our fault. We could've stopped this while there was still time, and we didn't. Now, we're likely to see at least eight years of conservative, likely Alt-right hegemony in the Federal government.

That said, when the next hurricane hits Florida and the rest of the South, I'm sure as shit keeping my wallet shut when time comes to donate.

I live in the South.


Thanks buddy, I think I can live without your donations. I voted Johnson, but who cares, right? I'm just another Alt-Righter, right? Obviously Gary Johnson wasn't going to win. That's not why people voted for him! I voted for Johnson because he closely represented my values and beliefs the most! Albeit not as much as you think.

Don't worry - with the Tea Partiers ascendant in Congress, you likely won't get any Federal aid next time, either.

[New Chalcedon]

Even China has electoral committees for Hong Kong and Macau, America should too because the little guys need representation.

Not disproportional representation.

That's actually the point of a federalist arrangement - the smaller states/regions have enough power to stop the bigger ones trampling all over/exploiting them.

[Stormaen]

Someone has probably already said this, but FiveThirtyEight did the number crunching. They reckon it would've taken 1 in every 100 Trump voters to vote for Hillary for her to win. Third party support didn't make an impact. If Hillary had taken a mere 600,000 votes extra across Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin combined, she'd have won.

People talk of a surprisingly large Trump win but, really, when you look at the numbers, it was closer than it looked.

[Stormaen]

Not disproportional representation.

That's actually the point of a federalist arrangement - the smaller states/regions have enough power to stop the bigger ones trampling all over/exploiting them.

Wyoming is vastly over-represented in both the US Congress and the Electoral College. At the same time, California is hugely under-represented in both of those bodies. Alas, that's the way the founding fathers intended it.

With the Electoral College, the Rust Belt states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania) were heavily focussed on. Under a popular electoral system, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston would've been where US presidential candidates spent their time and money.

[Galloism]

That's actually the point of a federalist arrangement - the smaller states/regions have enough power to stop the bigger ones trampling all over/exploiting them.

Wyoming is vastly over-represented in both the US Congress and the Electoral College. At the same time, California is hugely under-represented in both of those bodies. Alas, that's the way the founding fathers intended it.

With the Electoral College, the Rust Belt states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania) were heavily focussed on. Under a popular electoral system, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston would've been where US presidential candidates spent their time and money.

Solution: we split california into 5 states.

[Stormaen]

Wyoming is vastly over-represented in both the US Congress and the Electoral College. At the same time, California is hugely under-represented in both of those bodies. Alas, that's the way the founding fathers intended it.

With the Electoral College, the Rust Belt states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania) were heavily focussed on. Under a popular electoral system, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston would've been where US presidential candidates spent their time and money.

Solution: we split california into 5 states.

Isn't it Texas who has reserved the right to split into 5 states?

Also, I think many northern and rural, Republican voting Californians (they're not as rare as we think) would probably welcome that.

Alternatively, Congress could sign off the "Wyoming Rule", whereby each state's number of representatives (and therefore electoral college presence) is equal to the number of voters in the smallest voting district. It would mean the House of Representatives going from 435 to c. 550, though. Not sure many in the smaller states would welcome that as they'd have a harder time gerrymandering.

[Galloism]

Solution: we split california into 5 states.

Isn't it Texas who has reserved the right to split into 5 states?

Yeah.

But if we're going to mathematically break the system, we might as well go all the way.

Also, I think many northern and rural, Republican voting Californians (they're not as rare as we think) would probably welcome that.

Eh... true.

Alternatively, Congress could sign off the "Wyoming Rule", whereby each state's number of representatives (and therefore electoral college presence) is equal to the number of voters in the smallest voting district. It would mean the House of Representatives going from 435 to c. 550, though. Not sure many in the smaller states would welcome that as they'd have a harder time gerrymandering.

I'm not familiar with this rule. Can you lend a man a bigger explanation of what you mean?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Hi, everyone.

We're redirecting a number of the various Trump-related threads to a new megathread, as they're reproducing like Tribbles, and with no poisoned quadro-triticale to stem the tide.

Please continue the current conversation here. Thanks in advance for your understanding.