ruffdove wrote:The first reason the debate is pointless is because if Trump won the majority of the popular vote and Clinton won in the EC, all the left wing nuts would be nodding their approval at the wisdom of the Founders for having the foresight to have an EC and it would be some right wing nut who started this thread. You can deny this all you want, but nothing anyone says will make me believe I'm wrong about this.
Prior to this data, the numbers remain consistently strong to amend the Constitution (not divided by party that I can find) across the board since at least 1967. It didn't suddenly spike at 2000, people seem to be pretty down with the EC in general.
I mean, I guess it's possible that many people could change their minds if Clinton won in the EC but not the popular vote. But the left is also still stinging over Gore in 2000, and up to now, the right hasn't been to happy with it either. Do you posit the same effect if the democrats won the NEXT won in the EC and lost the popular vote? How many times do the Republicans have to lose the popular vote and win the presidency will it take to convince you liberals might not change their mind and praise the wisdom of the forefathers in large numbers if it finally falls in their benefit? Is it POSSIBLE the republicans might be disproportionately benefiting from the college? Does it even matter? I mean, when you consider the inertia that just resists Constitutional change by default, those anti-EC numbers prior to the recent spike (phew!) are astounding.
ruffdove wrote:There are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Republicans in upstate NYC whose turnout is severely depressed by the fact that however many of them turn out, they get cancelled by NYC.
New York State is a closed primary state. That reduces the "registering as a voter in the other party" effect seen in other states considerably to the point where I'm going to ignore it.
2,337,728 registered republicans as of November 1, 2016 in New York State outside New York City.
2,836,693 registered democrats as of November 1, 2016 in New York State outside New York City.
501,976 registered republicans as of November 1, 2016 in New York City.
3,343,041 registered democrats as of November 1, 2016 in New York City.
2,819,534 people voted for Donald Trump in New York State in 2016.
4,556,124 people voted for Hillary Clinton in New York State in 2016.
345,795 people voted for someone else in New York State in 2016.
There are 2,839,704 registered republicans in New York State as of November 1, 2016.
There are 6,179,734 registered democrats in New York State as of November 1, 2016.
Your contention is that voter turnout among those who would of voted for Trump in New York was severely depressed.
Were the depressed turn-out of people that would have voted for Trump but didn't primarily democrats (or perhaps third party in your view?
Now full disclosure, there's about a little under 2 million people registered as blank, independent or a third party outside of New York City as well.
"independents" would apply to this 2 million pool. Of those who voted in the election, 42% voted for Trump (based on exit polling). 49% voted for Clinton (based on exit polling).
Exit polling lists a greater percentage of republicans voting for Clinton than democrats voting for Trump. (2% differential)
Let's say 1 million of the "independents" voted.
Let's say the remaining 1 million did not. Let's say 80% of the non-voting independents would have voted Trump, that's 800k lost votes.
1.5 million democrats didn't vote for Clinton. Tack on 200k of the independents as per our prior generous assumption, fair is fair.
Isn't it more probable in light of these statistics that the depressed turnout effect was more pronounced in the party that was overwhelmingly favoured to win?
I live in a voting precinct in Canada that has voted for the same party in every election in remotely recent memory. I can tell you, as someone who is often inclined to vote for that party, knowing this does not "get out my vote". You've offered a narrative of why someone might not vote in New York State for Trump...but there is an equally compelling narrative of why people wouldn't bother for Hillary, as well as a narrative for someone who didn't want to vote for Hillary but would have never in a thousand years voted for Trump.
I mean it's hard to work these numbers into a situation like you described, with this huge untapped pool of voters for Trump who didn't show up. Maybe I don't see it but you do. But applying your narrative to these statistics seems difficult.
These narratives SEEM right when you are predisposed to believe them, but there is data you can look at to see if there might be reasons that you are wrong. That's always been science's success strategy...they start by trying to prove their theory wrong and they keep trying and invite other people to after sharing their information.
We certainly agree that the popular vote officially means nothing. It does represent the will of the majority of people that voted for the President of the United States though in a quantifiable fashion. It can't be good for the country to regularly hold elections and have that result conflict with the actual result. It can't be good for the country to have that happen too many times in the exact same direction either. It's worth considering. How you think this is going to fly if it happens a third time the same way in the next 20 years?Citation A
(Voter Registration in New York State, localized)Citation B
(election results in New York)Citation C
(exit polling)Citation D
(inclination to amend the electoral college over time)Citation E
(New York State is a closed primary state)