Note that this is different than doing it by congressional district. I have no idea what that would look like however Republicans are better at Gerrymandering so Trump would probably come out ahead. (But with a smaller lead in electoral votes than the current system)

Just saying in both alternate systems the vote would have gone to congress. Which should show just how close this election really was.

If only the Democrats had known about how the system works before the election. Then they could have taken some basic preparations, like focusing more on the key battleground states, or selecting a vaguely decent candidate.

Help, I'm agreeing on politics with Octavious.

Without California the election really wasn't that close.

Honestly I support a proportional system, but it's ridiculous because most whiny people only care DURING election season. We need support in 1, 2 or 3 years and i don't see that happening

@ssorenn: It's the largest state...

Well would you look at that, Hellenic Riot's growing up...

*wipes tear from his eye*

@Matticus - of course it's the largest state, which is why we have the electoral college -- so that a bunch of libtards in a single state can't essentially overthrow the desires of the rest of the country.

As for "assigning electoral votes per vote", apparently you know nothing about STATES RIGHTS. PEOPLE do not decide the President. The STATES decide who the President will be, and the states, per their individual constitutions/laws, get to decide how their STATE electoral votes are assigned.

If you want proportional distribution of your state's electoral votes, then instead of bitching about it on WebDip, you should try to gt the laws changed within your state.

Believe it or not, the Federal Government was never intended to be all powerful, and it was never intended that the Feds decide everything for everybody.

As it is, half the shit that the states are forced to do by the Feds isn't is only becuase they blackmail states by overtaxing everyone/everything, and then demanding states comply with their regulations in order to get THEIR OWN fucking money back.

Fuck the Federal government, which has so far exceeded it's intended power it isn't even funny anymore.

And Octavious has it **perfectly** correct. The better candidate won because he actually had a strategy designed to beat the system *as it is*.

For example, Clinton essentially didn't even campaign in Wisconsin. Michigan, on the other hand, which is generally expected to go Democrat, went for Trump because he campaigned his ass off in Michigan.

See....instead of acting like he was owed something, Trump actually sought out and talked to the people who's votes he needed, and he actually had a message.

I defy ANYONE to tell me what Clinton's actual campaign strategy was, what he message was other than "Trump is a dick". When a fucking self-important bitch with *zero* record of any actual accomplishments, and a lonnnnnng fucking list of questionable, probably criminal, activities tells you someone else is a dick....yeah....doesn't really hold a lot of weight in the voter's mind.

Without California it isn't a valid election, unless you're content to let us secede. We are one of two primary drivers of the entire nation and it is appalling that we are so underrepresented and overtaxed.

Elections should be won with the most votes, not the one with the fewest votes

@krellin: But a fewer number of voters get more say and that's OK, because an Electoral vote in Wyoming should carry 4 times the weight of an Electoral vote in Texas or California (based on current population)... They definitely deserve more say, since the Senate configuration already gives a state like Wyoming an immense about of power in the Legislative body of the Fed. They should have an unreasonable amount of power in determining which candidate claims the Executive branch as well. What terrible reasoning.

I'm not pro-big government, but the nation is more than 200 years past founding and has added 37 more states. I personally think that having a weak Fed and 50 strong state governments would be extremely messy. States already feud constantly. A weaker Fed also leads to greater infringements on human rights overall within specific states.

The Fed could certainly be improved upon in many ways and streamlined in others, but "intended power" was focused on 13 states well over 200 years ago. The Founders, as great as they were, could not have comprehended the world we live in today.

Who aid anything about California not being a part of the election? Typical....liberal reading with his emotion, instead of reading what was actually said.

California was and is a part of the election using the electoral college -- the system EVERYONE going into the election was aware of and *should* have designed a campaign strategy to win. California's electoral votes were assigned appropriately, and the bitch lost.

Period. End of discussion.

Elections are won BY THE RULES, not by what you think they should be won by.

And I guess since you are so fond of popular vote, then - I guess California shop drop all of the fucking ridiculous rules and regulations they have. After all, why should 49 states have to build cars that are more expensive just to appease a bunch of douchbags in California...and yet....there it is. Automakers hae to put excess expensive technology into vehicle just to appease you assholes. So....you are will to push for California to drop it's abusive automotive regulatory system? Because it *clearly* isn't the majority view.

Any again - regarding "popular vote" -- a campaign is design to win against a SYSTEM. Trump ceded California and didn't campaign there. Had it been a popular vote system, then I'm sure Trump would have been all up in Calofornia's ass....and then half the states in the country wouldn't have had ANY participation in the election because why would anyone waste time in a small state, then?

But...to arrogant, self-absorbed twats in California, and sure you think that's perfectly acceptable.....which is EXACTLY why we have an electoral college. Moron.

Matticus - go read a fucking history book or two, and maybe pay attention in school when they talk about government. If you don't comprehend the reason and design of our system, then apparently our school system has utterly failed you.

Here's a question -- do you understand why we have both a Senate and a House of Reps?

Interesting numbers. I wonder what the results would have looked like if we had a proportionally representative system during the election. I think that system is better than what we have now.

I never said Trump didn't win the election. I said it's ridiculous that Electoral votes are distributed in a way that gives one state way more power than it should have, and others less. The size of the state should not matter in a nation-wide election for a single position, regardless of political lean. The Electoral College is elitist bullshit anyway. Trump won the election. Great. I don't care who won the election. Both can eat me. I'm not complaining about the result, only the method as I have for years.

The system itself has been warped beyond recognition by our two dominant parties. Go read a history book as you put it. The Electors no longer serve a purpose. They are chain to their party affiliation, and vote that way 99% of the time. They are supposed to be a check against the tyranny of the majority. They have never acted in this manner.

The Senate protects the interests of the small state, the House the large. The small states can check the House by voting bills down, since any billrequires both body's approval to become law. Derp. Why must a nation election for the Executive branch also slant in the direction of the small states? The few get more say. It's absurd.

@Krellin

The system I described in the original post is one that still respects states rights. It simply describes a system in which each state decided to give electoral votes proportionally within that state. Thus, this system would still include the uneven distribution of electoral votes among states.

I would love for California to secede. Then my family will move to a more conservative United States.

@leon: The Fed would not allow it to happen. California economically is too important, not to mention the military installations and weapons contained within. If they were serious and seceded, it would be met with military occupation and Marshal Law immediately. The people that dream that crap up don't live in the real world.

Just because the candidates both knew about the electoral college system and should have campaigned with it in mind doesn't mean it's a good system that we should be satisfied with. Strangely, the minority voting populous which is given majority power to elect a president seems satisfied with this unfair system - go figure.

@ssorenn "Without California the election really wasn't that close."

The election wasn't even that close at it was. Clinton won by 2% (2.9 million votes). If you were to remove the blue states of Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Connecticut, Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, D.C., and Maryland Clinton would have still lead the popular vote by 350,000 votes.

But yes, if you remove 1/9 of the country (California) Trump would have won the popular vote. Although, with a smaller lead than Clinton got.

@JamesYanik

"Honestly I support a proportional system, but it's ridiculous because most whiny people only care DURING election season. We need support in 1, 2 or 3 years and i don't see that happening"

First of all, people who support proportional representation support it all the time. It just gets more coverage during the election season because its more topical. How do people not understand this? As far as actually implementing this change? It's not going to happen any time soon because of garbage politicians. Therefore, even if people were to march on Washington every Sunday from now until the next election nothing would happen.

The Electoral College is one of the many genius aspects of the Constitution that the framers enacted. Without it elections would be decided by a minority of States, not a plurality of the States. What most people who deride the EC system forget is that the Fed Govt was designed to have no interaction with the People unless the People invoke that interaction. The Fed Govt was designed to oversee disputes between the States, etc. People, usually the losing side, always want to point to the popular vote and say their candidate was the winner. This is a representative democratic constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy. In a Democracy, 51% of the population can vote away the rights of the other 49%! That is why the EC system is so important.

Let me just add some moderate perspective here as I see myself as more of a libertarian than anything else (that is socially liberal and economically conservative). If the electoral votes were handed out proportionately republicans in a state like NY or CA would get better representation as would Dems in a state like TX or VA. It would also open up the floor for 3rd party candidates to actually earn electoral votes and be this earn appropriate representation. In our current system large numbers of people in every single state go unrepresented in the presidential election. Now I agree smaller states should have more sway than larger states (simply logic to keep the government as even as possible) and being that im from a decently large state (PA) I don't get hurt feelings respecting the reality that my state would have a disproportionate advantage in a pure popular voting system. So I really think it is the best interests of every party to look at the electoral system and consider proposing an amendment to the US constitution. Proportional distribution of electoral college votes based on the popular vote in each individual state would garner more fidelity for our national elections and possibly encourage more involvement from all people. Don't just look at this election; consider every republican vote wasted in 2012 because they lived in a traditionally blue state. Every vote for a 3rd party wasted in every election for the past few elections. Think about 2020 and if you are truly confident your state will vote your way or if you should consider the change... if Trump wanted to earn his next 4 years he should champion this new election system and help get it through I'd vote for whoever got it done; regardless of most else.

Let's look at NY

Clinton- 58.8% (4,143,874)
Trump- 37.5% (2,640,570)
Stein- 1.4% (99,895)

Clinton should receive 17 of 29 electoral votes
Trump should receive 11 of 29 electoral votes
Stein should receive 1 of 29 electoral votes.

Simply rounded to nearest whole number for all 3 candidates. In this case 2,740,465 people who went unrepresented this election, would now have a voice. Let's look at a smaller state with a larger portion of third party votes like NM:

Clinton- 48.3% (380,724)
Trump- 40% (315,875)
Johnson- 9.3% (73,669)
Stein- 1.2% (9,729)

Clinton receives 2 of 5
Trump receives 2 of 5
Johnson receives 1 of 5

In this case Johnson receives the 1 remainder vote as he had more votes than stein. In this situation 9,729 people go unrepresented as opposed to reality in which 399,273 (more than half the state) go unrepresented.

Final example to prove this doesn't just benefit republicans and 3rd parties

Let's look at TX a republican safe haven.

Trump- 52.6% (4,681,590)
Clinton- 43.4% (3,867,816)
Johnson- 3.2% (282,584)
Stein- .8% (71,307)

Trump- 20 of 38
Clinton-16 of 38
Johnson-1 of 38
Stein- 1 of 38

noone is unrepresented ... its like magic... or common sense.

This system still grants more power to the votes of smaller states but makes it so every vote in those smaller states is counted. It also means that the votes of usually overpowered minorities (Dems in Red states, Reps in Blue states, and all 3rd parties) matter and can actually influence the election. The balance of power is not changed simply the integrity of the election. BTW this would also encourage more campaigning by both parties in all states as technically all states become battleground. It would be worth it for a Dem to campaign in Wyoming as if they can win 20% of the vote they can get 1 electoral vote. It would be worth it for a Rep to campaign in Massachusetts since 30% of the vote could earn 3 electoral votes.

You really can't blame today's Congress for this one. If you want to fault someone, fault the founders because it's in the Constitution (Article II) for electing the President:
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"
That means every state gets two electors, no matter how tiny it is, and at least one for a representative. The smallest states by population being Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota each get three. Wyoming was the smallest state in the last US Census in 2010 with 523K people, so it gets identified as getting the most lopsided representation, since it gets the three person minimum electors for that population.

What I don't understand, is we are supposed to have proportional representation per Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers." So shouldn't Wyoming be used as the base, getting one representative, and then states gets one for each "Wyoming" population unit, maybe rounding up where there is more than 1/2 a unit? If Wyoming has one representative for it's 523K people, then California with it's 37.253 million people in that same 2010 census should have 71 representatives and 73 electoral votes. But instead it has 53 and 55. So what happened there? Texas with a little over 25 million people should have 48 representatives and 50 electoral votes, but has 38 and 40. So what's going on there? Even following the constitution, something seems messed up in proportional representatives and electoral votes PER THE CONSTITUTION.

Correction - that's Texas with 36 reps and 38 electoral votes.
Instead, the electoral votes are roughly 1 per 700K people (roughly Alaska's population). The smaller states Wyoming and Vermont make out like bandits here. Note that other small states, but not big enough to get a second representative and 4 electoral votes also get robbed badly.

For example, Montana had 989K people in the last census, nearly double Wyoming, but has the same 1 representative in congress and 3 electoral votes as Wyoming. So Montanans should be up in arms too.