The electoral college

[Bootstrap]

No but it is a good illustration of exactly what the inventors of the electoral college wanted to do. In their opinion, Montana has as much right to state their opinion as California does. Had the popular vote made the decision, than rural areas would invariably be trodden underfoot in an election like this.

This election proves that the system works how they envisioned it.

It's democracy with a twist.

The power of your vote depends on the state you live in. In a presidential election, the least powerful voter is the California voter. The most powerful voter is in Arizona.

The five states your vote is worth the least in: California, Maryland, Washington DC, New York, Massachusetts. The five states your vote is worth the most in: Arizona, Iowa, Alaska, South Dakota, Ohio.

And yes, this is the system we have. You win by winning the electoral college. The "flyover" states have more power per voter (but they also have fewer voters). Love it, hate it, it doesn't matter much. That's the way the system works, always has, always will.

[appleman2006]

I think the fact that you have a system where in fact less populated areas have a chance to be heard is a good thing. Even the way things are presently urban interests are far more likely to be heard over rural which I think is a bad thing.

One other thing to keep in mind as well. Because of the electoral college system parties plan their campaigning accordingly. My guess is that as close as the majority vote was this time around, had the outcome actually been based on it Trump would of spent far more time in places like California and the west coast and could very well have more than made up the difference.

There is another way of looking at it as well. If you add in all the people that did not go to the polls and add them to Trump's supporters he has a pretty strong mandate. As I always say. If you do not vote you are by default saying you will be satisfied with whoever is chosen as the winner.

[PeterG]

Lester is basically right, but it's worth noting that the Framers designed the electoral college without anticipating the development of a two-party system, not to mention the ways that American society has changed since 1787. This is speculation, of course, but I suspect that if the Framers could have seen into the future they would have adopted a parliamentary system, in which the legislature chooses the executive, which was one of the proposals considered at the Constitutional Convention.

[Bootstrap]

I think the fact that you have a system where in fact less populated areas have a chance to be heard is a good thing. Even the way things are presently urban interests are far more likely to be heard over rural which I think is a bad thing.

You could design this various ways. There are trade-offs.

If we changed it now, I do think that campaigns would largely ignore the middle of the country and concentrate on the coasts. That makes me think it's good.

Originally, one of the reasons for this system was to make sure that the northern states could not vote to abolish slavery, so it had some bad consequences. And this system definitely gives less power, on average, to the inner city voter, who is just as neglected by the system as the white rural voter.

One other thing to keep in mind as well. Because of the electoral college system parties plan their campaigning accordingly. My guess is that as close as the majority vote was this time around, had the outcome actually been based on it Trump would of spent far more time in places like California and the west coast and could very well have more than made up the difference.

Who knows. I only know the outcome of elections that actually happen. Trump won this one, by the rules of our system.

There is another way of looking at it as well. If you add in all the people that did not go to the polls and add them to Trump's supporters he has a pretty strong mandate. As I always say. If you do not vote you are by default saying you will be satisfied with whoever is chosen as the winner.

I doubt it. Polls said very clearly that most people were very disgruntled about their choices. These were the two least popular presidential candidates in history. As I read it, people just weren't motivated to vote because they did not like their choices.

[Robert]

What it also does is lets the land owners and ones paying for things to have a voice. New York, Chicago and all of California are about broke and much of the rest of the country supports then with our part of the national debt.

At one time, several states had statutes that only land owners could vote. This was to slow the chance of the ones getting things would outvote the ones paying for things through taxes and such.

Although a lot of manufacturing is done in the cities, the resources to supply it all come from the rural areas. The Electoral college keep the few big cities from overpowering the rural areas.

I hear some speaking about the popular vote. This is as important as the dog vote. It is not relevant because campaigns would be structured totally different if it was just the popular vote, as Bootstrap pointed out.

The USA are also NOT a democracy, but a republic. The US is a democratic republic, but the founders were just as concerned about mob rule. The Electoral college is also a way to see how a republic works. It is not democracy. Everyone does not vote and get the way of the masses. They elect representatives, and those representatives work to speak to the needs and wants of their constituents. The electoral college is the same. The electors are to represent their constituents, not Hollywood actors who think they know more then everyone else because they are famous.

[ken_sylvania]

What it also does is lets the land owners and ones paying for things to have a voice. New York, Chicago and all of California are about broke and much of the rest of the country supports then with our part of the national debt.

I have a hunch that New York, California, and Illinois might not be getting such a great deal as you suggest. Take a look at this study done by taxfoundation.org comparing Federal Taxes paid vs. Federal Spending received by state from 1981 to 2005. There might be some disagreement regarding their method of apportioning the debt burden, but I don't expect that will change the results significantly.
The federal government spends massive sums on roads and agricultural subsidies in the less populated states.

At one time, several states had statutes that only land owners could vote. This was to slow the chance of the ones getting things would outvote the ones paying for things through taxes and such.

Although a lot of manufacturing is done in the cities, the resources to supply it all come from the rural areas. The Electoral college keep the few big cities from overpowering the rural areas.

I hear some speaking about the popular vote. This is as important as the dog vote. It is not relevant because campaigns would be structured totally different if it was just the popular vote, as Bootstrap pointed out.

The USA are also NOT a democracy, but a republic. The US is a democratic republic, but the founders were just as concerned about mob rule. The Electoral college is also a way to see how a republic works. It is not democracy. Everyone does not vote and get the way of the masses. They elect representatives, and those representatives work to speak to the needs and wants of their constituents. The electoral college is the same. The electors are to represent their constituents, not Hollywood actors who think they know more then everyone else because they are famous.

And it all sounds good, until the populace figures out that the rich really hold the strings, and the representatives are listening to the money-men rather than their constituents.

[Robert]

And it all sounds good, until the populace figures out that the rich really hold the strings, and the representatives are listening to the money-men rather than their constituents.

The land owner only had to own like an acre or small portion. Enough to have "a horse in the race."

One a little different note, I also just read this.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/19 ... r-clinton/

[Robert]

Take a look at this study

Challenge is this is state by state. Not a way to break out the populated cities on it.

[temporal1]

the less populated areas are less dependent on urban areas than vice versa.
urban areas could not exist on their own. they take, and take for granted. until a crisis.

[PeterG]

What it also does is lets the land owners and ones paying for things to have a voice. New York, Chicago and all of California are about broke and much of the rest of the country supports then with our part of the national debt.

I have a hunch that New York, California, and Illinois might not be getting such a great deal as you suggest. Take a look at this study done by taxfoundation.org comparing Federal Taxes paid vs. Federal Spending received by state from 1981 to 2005.

Here's an article on the same topic from Mises.org.
Yes, there's a chart.

Challenge is this is state by state. Not a way to break out the populated cities on it.

Naturally, these values aren't spread evenly within the states themselves, either. Areas that are more rural and reliant on agriculture will tend to be net tax receiver areas both because farmers and ranchers receive a lot of government subsidies, and also because agricultural work tends to have lower productivity than urban work.

Urban areas, in contrast, produce most of the tax revenue, so highly urbanized states will tend to more often be "break even" or "net tax payer" states.

Note:

One thing that must not be ignored is the fact that the US government spends more than it takes in nationwide. During 2013, for example, the federal government spent a dollar for every 80 cents it took in via taxes.

Nationwide, the tax-spending ratio is not one dollar, but it about $1.20. So, states that are getting around $1.20 back for every dollar extracted in taxes are really just at the national average.

FWIW, McMaken goes on to blame the situation on central banking and federal regulation.

It's interesting to compare the chart above to this one: