Shopsmith Forums

Having just reviewed the Nation's popular vote, it looks like California popular vote determined Clinton should win by 3.4 million votes.

Thinking about the Nation's total popular vote - Clinton wins this by about 2.3 million votes.

So what would have been the results if there was no Electoral College???
Clinton would have been elected to President by the State of California.

Wow! Getting rid of the Electoral College would mean that California rules the Nation. Especially the area around San Francisco.

Our country has to think about this!

If there were no Electoral College all elections would be determined by the inner cities and the Forever Blue State of California.

mbcabinetmaker wrote:If there were no Electoral College all elections would be determined by the inner cities and the Forever Blue State of California.

Yup, that is why in needs to stay intact.

charlese wrote:Having just reviewed the Nation's popular vote, it looks like California popular vote determined Clinton should win by 3.4 million votes.

Thinking about the Nation's total popular vote - Clinton wins this by about 2.3 million votes.

So what would have been the results if there was no Electoral College???
Clinton would have been elected to President by the State of California.

Wow! Getting rid of the Electoral College would mean that California rules the Nation. Especially the area around San Francisco.

Our country has to think about this!

Fear not! The San Andreas fault(and 'tributaries') shall eventually rectify that!

There are 3,141 counties in the United States
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Just a few statistics to illustrate why the Electoral College is required.
Bill V

I'm confused as to why square miles has anythibg to do with how much someones vote should count.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gfranxman wrote:I'm confused as to why square miles has anythibg to do with how much someones vote should count.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Population density per square mile is the point. Basically the 10 largest cities would control the vote.
Since we are in a Republic not a Democracy we dont use a popular voting system.

So... the more people that gather some where, for instance for jobs, the less their vote should count?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gfranxman wrote:So... the more people that gather some where, for instance for jobs, the less their vote should count?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, but a candidate may cattier to those urban needs/issues.
Also the point is also that would turn this into a Democracy on the Federal level, and we are not, we are a Republic.
CA pretty much runs the state as a Democracy for state level and local items and look the mess the are in.

We are a representative republic not a democracy. Most citizens today couldn't tell you the difference if their lives depended on it. A citizenry uneducated in our nation's history and the founding documents puts our country at serious risk, ie the cries to eliminate the electoral college. In fact we would be much better off had the states not relinquished their control over the senators from each by passing the 17th amendment. Senators used to be appointed by the state legislature so if they voted against the interests of their state they could be recalled and replaced easily. Without the 17th amendment the republicans would likely have a super majority in the Senate right now.

And yes, those who congregate in metropolitan areas do lose some voting swag and that is as it should be based on our system of government.

Jack