Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(101,257 posts)
90. Right, using your example numbers
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 03:09 PM
Aug 2012

You are working with 300 million citizens, and 3,000 total electoral college places.

If about 6 million vote in Ohio (roughly the same as 2008), then, to shift 14 EC places out of 115, you fake 14/115 * 6 million = 730,435 votes. It's a turnout of 6/11.5= 52% of the total number of citizens.

The fraud would be 14 out of 3,000 - 0.466% of the college.

In a direct election, with the same turnout across the country, that's 52% of 300 million = 156 million. 730,435/156 million is 0.00466, ie 4.6%.

It will never happen. The south won't let it /nt still_one Aug 2012 #1
For once I agree with the south xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #10
That was not the intent of the electoral college. That is why they have 2 senators from every state still_one Aug 2012 #14
You began with a completely unargued statement and ended with an unargued opinion... xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #21
No matter what my view is, the fact is it won't go away, it is here to stay /nt still_one Aug 2012 #22
Maybe, but anything can be changed.. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #24
In theory yes. Either way I hear you /nt still_one Aug 2012 #34
Look, Arkansas has slightly fewer people than Chicago, but Arkansas voters have more power CreekDog Aug 2012 #40
You are comparing a city to a state.. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #41
look it's not the way democracies do things CreekDog Aug 2012 #43
I'm not speaking in favor of EC, I'm advocating against popular vote. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #44
I'm not arguing for pure democracy, but the voters should have equal power CreekDog Aug 2012 #48
There is more involved in changing the system than just getting rid of bad policies xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #45
the popular vote to elect the president and vice president CreekDog Aug 2012 #49
This is a republic not a democracy, like it or not...n/t pipoman Aug 2012 #119
A republic is a form of democracy. tabasco Sep 2012 #128
And I tire of people ascribing the dictionary definition of 'democracy' pipoman Sep 2012 #129
No, tabasco Sep 2012 #135
So you think it is a good xxqqqzme Aug 2012 #58
Then address the filibuster policies xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #59
No, it's about giving equal power to all voters cpwm17 Aug 2012 #76
People in Arkansas have a tradition of voting only once slackmaster Aug 2012 #78
If we did away with the electoral college, then each voter in your state would have the JDPriestly Aug 2012 #47
Nothing wrong with that, each voter having the same power CreekDog Aug 2012 #51
Sounds reasonable... onpatrol98 Aug 2012 #112
In a democracy, sheer numbers decide a lot of things like whether tax money goes to fund or JDPriestly Sep 2012 #120
not necessarily DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #64
You are confusing Congress with the EC apnu Aug 2012 #65
Yeah, why should more than half the goverment be based on voters CreekDog Aug 2012 #94
In a popular vote system, it would not be decided in any areas treestar Aug 2012 #74
They are already ignored Floyd_Gondolli Aug 2012 #81
I am 31 and Clinton carried AR in 1992 & 1996 xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #97
I don't like... GTurck Aug 2012 #75
I agree that it will never happen, but the Southern states are not the issue slackmaster Aug 2012 #77
electoral college is a fraud Dkc05 Aug 2012 #2
There are about 40 states that are either BLUE or RED XemaSab Aug 2012 #3
At the very least, we can push Ken Burch Aug 2012 #4
btw, is that an old file photo, or did Al grow another beard? Ken Burch Aug 2012 #5
He didn't say what solution he preferred. Popular vote is absulutely the wrong answer. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #6
Yes, Texas, Georgia, New York and California would be worth campaigning in jeff47 Aug 2012 #8
No. I do not agree with your statement BlueStreak Aug 2012 #11
Let me give a little example. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #17
Now do the math for the large cities. jeff47 Aug 2012 #23
But the other side wants to win also. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #30
It's a zero sum game. jeff47 Aug 2012 #32
The flaw is you're still thinking states. jeff47 Aug 2012 #18
There's nothing wrong with that. My system would be an improvement. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #31
Wow are you wrong. jeff47 Aug 2012 #35
That's why we have Congress cpwm17 Aug 2012 #79
One house of Congress represents the states. jeff47 Aug 2012 #88
California only gets attention as a place to get money. JDPriestly Aug 2012 #50
Exactly. There is no real incentive for EITHER Rs or Ds to vote BlueStreak Aug 2012 #67
That's why they don't want proportional voting. Sirveri Aug 2012 #98
I think they would spend time here JonLP24 Aug 2012 #71
Phoenix would get attention. The rest of the state would be ignored. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2012 #87
California gets 55 EV and my state gets 6 xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #16
And the problem with majority rule is ... ? BlueStreak Aug 2012 #19
The problem would be that a person could be xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #29
Can you please illustrate that with a scenario? BlueStreak Aug 2012 #33
Majority vote is about numbers. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #37
To add some numbers to this jeff47 Aug 2012 #39
Thank you. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #42
those 9 states have 18 senators, the other states have 82 CreekDog Aug 2012 #53
You're looking at states as monolithic entities muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #56
How their EC votes are given is determined by the state. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #60
Using a popular vote treats each citizen like an individual muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #66
Right, but that gives too much of an advantage to election-riggers BlueStreak Aug 2012 #69
There's no advantage to a proportional EC muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #80
There is an advantage to a firewall. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #82
If a corrupt state alters, say, 10% of its individual votes muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #83
No. That is not "my system" BlueStreak Aug 2012 #84
Right, using your example numbers muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #90
I don't follow your numbers, but it isn't about the numbers anyway. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #91
Your scenario is one in which the total vote is very close, but the electoral college is not muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #93
You don't seem to understand the concept of "firewall" BlueStreak Aug 2012 #106
Ohio's electors are part of the election of the president muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #109
Cities would elect the candidates because most "individuals" live in them xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #99
Most individuals in the US are white; would you say it is white people who elect candidates? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #107
Sometimes it is. Obviously you can win elections without the minority vote or repubs would never win xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #115
Exactly. Proportional electors REDUCES the dominance of the big states BlueStreak Aug 2012 #68
The problem is that sometimes the majority tramples legitimate interests of minorities slackmaster Aug 2012 #85
so the minority should get the right to win elections with less votes than the majority? CreekDog Aug 2012 #108
A simple majority of ELECTORAL votes is required to elect the President slackmaster Aug 2012 #110
We were talking about what you think, not how it works CreekDog Aug 2012 #111
What I think doesn't matter. The EC is intended to protect the interests of small states. slackmaster Aug 2012 #113
"what I think doesn't matter" CreekDog Aug 2012 #114
I used to want to end the Electoral College jeff47 Aug 2012 #7
Re: the empty state problem BlueStreak Aug 2012 #9
I'm using 'state' as a convenient grouping mechanism. jeff47 Aug 2012 #15
In my system, the non-urban areas get MORE of a voice BlueStreak Aug 2012 #20
Only because you haven't done the math yet. (see my other reply) jeff47 Aug 2012 #26
And remember the "empty states" get 2 Senators. That is a huge amount of power. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #25
Assuming the filibuster will remain is not a good idea. jeff47 Aug 2012 #27
You do know, don't you, that NYC . . . markpkessinger Aug 2012 #117
Link? (nt) jeff47 Sep 2012 #122
Here ... markpkessinger Sep 2012 #125
Ah, there's the problem jeff47 Sep 2012 #134
Okay, but after this election shawn703 Aug 2012 #12
I see that happening also Freddie Aug 2012 #62
Therein lies the key hypocrisy of many people who wish to end the Electoral College slackmaster Aug 2012 #86
The easy way to do is is proportionate delagations at the state level bhikkhu Aug 2012 #13
As a practical matter, it would have to be done nationally. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #28
If California abandoned the electoral college we could say goodbye to ever electing a Democrat again cpwm17 Aug 2012 #95
I'm for a direct democracy. None of this republic shit. nt Comrade_McKenzie Aug 2012 #36
Yeah - why waste time with the Constitution - just do it like you want it...not! Direct Democracies 24601 Sep 2012 #123
My beef with the EC TexasBushwhacker Aug 2012 #38
It is a virtue of the EC to negate the factor of turnout BlueStreak Aug 2012 #70
Not only does it not count, it goes to Rmoney treestar Aug 2012 #73
We in California don't count nearly as much as the voters in Rhode Island or Wyoming or JDPriestly Aug 2012 #46
That makes little sense. JoePhilly Sep 2012 #127
This just occurred to him now? jberryhill Aug 2012 #52
Oddly, the EC will probably benefit Obama this election season... Drunken Irishman Aug 2012 #54
Eventually, the EC may become Proportional But LarryNM Aug 2012 #55
Winning the popular vote and "losing" the election xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #61
It didn't start with California karynnj Aug 2012 #57
Well, now Republicans must support the electoral college, since they cannot ever agree with Al Gore. tclambert Aug 2012 #63
Popular vote makes more sense considering we are a democracy. bamacrat Aug 2012 #72
Thank you Al Gore n/t librechik Aug 2012 #89
One voter, one vote. What's not to like? Throd Aug 2012 #92
Exactly TexasBushwhacker Aug 2012 #100
No, I'd limit absentee ballots to legal voters, not just anyone who asks. I don't want 8 year olds 24601 Sep 2012 #124
Until we have a better way of counting votes MurrayDelph Aug 2012 #105
I think it should be abolished too! Liberalynn Aug 2012 #96
I'll second that. Cleita Aug 2012 #101
Or in other words sgsmith Aug 2012 #103
I don't think there would have been a majority nationwide. Cleita Aug 2012 #104
I agree Auggie Aug 2012 #102
The electoral College is fucking stupid... and-justice-for-all Aug 2012 #116
Just want to be careful what we change it to Billy888 Aug 2012 #118
One person one vote. No taxation without equal representation. Exultant Democracy Sep 2012 #121
The Electorial College is a firewall against state-level election fraud. w4rma Sep 2012 #126
watch this video on the electoral college wilt the stilt Sep 2012 #130
Thank you wilt the stilt for the link cal04 Sep 2012 #132
As long as the electoral college remains, your vote is merely a suggestion. Dump it. humblebum Sep 2012 #131
Generally, Californians hate the EC taught_me_patience Sep 2012 #133
I'd favor preference voting and getting rid of the EC. roamer65 Sep 2012 #136
If you want to read about something very fraudulent and undemocratic about the EC... roamer65 Sep 2012 #137
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Al Gore Calls for End of ...»Reply #90