NBC poll: Voters split between Clinton and Trump in November

[Economy 53,154]

21 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

The fact that people are ok with this is beyond me. The popular vote should decide who the candidate is in the primary.

Also the electoral college... there are arguments against that too.

What is your opinion on this? 

This! I get that you have seats in the house etc so u gotta do by state for general election. Its the same here in Canada and in most Countries for that matter...

 

but for a simple nomination i think the popular vote makes more sense!!!

[Morphine Prince 110,000]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

This! I get that you have seats in the house etc so u gotta do by state for general election. Its the same here in Canada and in most Countries for that matter...

 

but for a simple nomination i think the popular vote makes more sense!!!

Imagine how different it would be. George W. Bush and Obama would have never been presidents if we went by popular vote lol. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

28 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

The fact that people are ok with this is beyond me. The popular vote should decide who the candidate is in the primary.

Also the electoral college... there are arguments against that too.

What is your opinion on this? 

....Obama had better performance in swing states.

They were close enough in votes that it didn't matter.

The DNC is there to maximize the probability that a democrat wins the presidency.

If someone wins more of the popular votes, particularly in states that do not go Democrat, but loses all the swing states, they are not likely to win where it matters.

I'm not sure what you're implying. People are part of the Democratic party, not the party of Hillary or Bernie. 

[Morphine Prince 110,000]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

The DNC is there to maximize the probability that someone wins the presidency.

So not that the will of the voters is accomplished, basically. 

I get it but it's not really the people's choice.... 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

So not that the will of the voters is accomplished, basically. 

I get it but it's not really the people's choice.... 

Really now?

The voters' "will" was split relatively evenly between Obama and Hillary. The fact that Obama won most the battleground states meant that he had a better chance of securing victory. Even Hillary recognized that.

It's not that it isn't their choice, but it's better to have a Democrat than a Republican in office where Democrats are concerned. Do you disagree? Do you think it is smart to pick the guy who had 1% more popular votes but lost all the battleground states? Tell me...how is that logical?

I'm not sure why you are arguing this matter. If Bernie had more votes than Hillary (and he doesn't), and if he won more swing states ( he isn't), then he will win the nomination. 

That's not what is happening. Stop dramatizing the situation to suit your needs.

[Morphine Prince 110,000]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Really now?

The voters' "will" was split relatively evenly between Obama and Hillary. The fact that Obama won most the battleground states meant that he had a better chance of securing victory. Even Hillary recognized that.

It's not that it isn't their choice, but it's better to have a Democrat than a Republican in office where Democrats are concerned. Do you disagree?

I'm not sure why you are arguing this matter. If Bernie had more votes than Hillary (and he doesn't), and if he won more swing states ( he isn't), then he will win the nomination. 

That's not what is happening. Stop dramatizing the situation to suit your needs.

Why do you ALWAYS bring up Bernie? I am NOT talking about Bernie wtf. I am speaking about elections in general.

What about Bush winning over Al Gore who won the popular vote? What motive is there to do that? Who will benefit from it? Not a party. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Why do you ALWAYS bring up Bernie? I am NOT talking about Bernie wtf. I am speaking about elections in general.

What about Bush winning over Al Gore who won the popular vote? What motive is there to do that? Who will benefit from it? Not a party. 

There are no superdelegates in the Republican party. 

I'm only bringing up Bernie as an example (and I did so once) because that's the only reason people are suddenly questioning the DNC's rules.  They exist for a reason and have served the party well.

[Whispering 18,865]

29 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

The fact that people are ok with this is beyond me. The popular vote should decide who the candidate is in the primary.

Also the electoral college... there are arguments against that too.

What is your opinion on this? 

Out of 57 elections, the elected President has won both the popular vote and electoral college 53 of the times. (I think that's right) 

Basically, what started out as different reasoning back when the founding fathers designed the election process, now addresses a different set of issues. The electoral college now gives voice to minority voters and smaller states. 

The founding fathers believed that the collective opinion of individual state populations was more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole. 

[Morphine Prince 110,000]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

There are no superdelegates in the Republican party. That they picked Bush over Gore has to do with their system, not the one being discussed.

I'm only bringing up Bernie as an example because that's the only reason people are suddenly questioning the DNC's rules. They exist for a reason. 

Are you serious? Al Gore was the Democratic nominee vs. Bush the Republican nominee in the general. 

Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral college vote. 

Justify it. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

18 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Are you serious? Al Gore was the Democratic nominee vs. Bush the Republican nominee in the general. 

Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral college vote. 

Justify it. 

Welp misinterpreted what you were trying to say. For a second I derped and forgot who Gore was. Fail. 

The electoral college is a compromise between electing a president from the popular vote and electing a suitable representative via Congress that is also elected from popular vote.

It's a system that's in place. It has its faults and its virtues. This is an academic topic, one that neither of us is qualified to discuss at depth.

[Morphine Prince 110,000]

2 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Out of 57 elections, the elected President has won both the popular vote and electoral college 53 of the times. (I think that's right) 

Basically, what started out as different reasoning back when the founding fathers designed the election process, now addresses a different set of issues. The electoral college now gives voice to minority voters and smaller states. 

The founding fathers believed that the collective opinion of individual state populations was more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole. 

Yes, I've heard this before it just doesn't really satisfy me. If in 2000 Al Gore won most of the votes he should've been president. He got 500K more votes (I think) than Bush. 

It's like saying those 500K votes don't mean **** while 5 electoral votes do (which is why Bush won). 

[Morphine Prince 110,000]

Also when speaking to people who say "their vote doesn't matter" they've brought up the 2000 election nearly every time. 

Can't blame them on that one @Whispering

 

[Whispering 18,865]

8 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

So not that the will of the voters is accomplished, basically. 

I get it but it's not really the people's choice.... 

It was if you consider that smaller states should have some say in their nominee. The smaller states still have less impact, but going by the popular vote woukd completely wipe out states with smaller populations. They deserve to have their voices heard and deemed as important...that was the thinking behind the way the government was created, anyhow. It's the same thinking as to why we have a fairly balanced Senate and then a proportional House of Representatives. There needs to be a balance between states with big populations, state representation, and the minority vote having a voice. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Also when speaking to people who say "their vote doesn't matter" they've brought up the 2000 election nearly every time. 

Can't blame them on that one @Whispering

 

That's like saying your vote doesn't matter in a parliamentary democracy where you, simply put, vote for the people who vote for the leader.

It matters. There simply isn't a 1:1 relationship like you assume there is. Given that it applies to everyone, your vote matters as much as everyone else so that logic is flawed. 

[Morphine Prince 110,000]

4 minutes ago, Whispering said:

It was if you consider that smaller states should have some say in their nominee. The smaller states still have less impact, but going by the popular vote woukd completely wipe out states with smaller populations. They deserve to have their voices heard and deemed as important...that was the thinking behind the way the government was created, anyhow. It's the same thinking as to why we have a fairly balanced Senate and then a proportional House of Representatives. There needs to be a balance between states with big populations, state representation, and the minority vote having a voice. 

I'm all for it for the House and Senate, I completely get it an agree with it. Of course smaller states should have representation.

But when we're picking our president IMO it should be up to popular vote. 

When it comes to primaries, fine. I get it. The party works for its own benefit. But for the general, that's where I find it to be more of an issue. 

But as @LebaneseDude this is an academic topic. I'm sure there's a lot of interesting arguments for and against it.