The wisdom of crowds.

Hadn't thought about it in awhile, but I'm pretty sure the electoral college screws the idea of the wisdom of crowds.

I think the betting market got it right, because Hillary was the right choice for mass choice if not the more complex electoral college choice which people probably weren't considering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

So it was 4 elections now, not decided by popular vote.
o

Andrew Jackson would have had another term, Rutherford B. Hayes, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton.

Also, I note, Republicans almost always represent the minority of the population lately so how can they actually be right?

edit- Not Hayes, would be Tilden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_J._Tilden

Quote: rxwine

So it was 4 elections now, not decided by popular vote.

But, but, we don't have a popular vote
system, the popular vote is irrelevant.
We have 51 separate elections, they
decide who wins. You seem surprised
by this, even though you know how
it works. Why do you think we saw
an EC map every time we turned on
a TV for the last 6 weeks.

Quote: Evenbob

But, but, we don't have a popular vote
system,

Thanks for taking the time to miss the point.

: \

Quote: rxwine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

So it was 4 elections now, not decided by popular vote.

Andrew Jackson would have had another term, Rutherford B. Hayes, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton.

No it is 5 elections now. You missed one.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland's 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.


In 1884 Grover Cleveland beat James G. Blaine, and then in 1892 Grover Cleveland beat Benjamin Harrison with James B. Weaver getting 8.5% of popular vote. Grover Cleveland is the only POTUS to serve nonconsecutive terms.

Quote: Evenbob

But, but, we don't have a popular vote
system, the popular vote is irrelevant.
We have 51 separate elections, they
decide who wins. You seem surprised
by this, even though you know how
it works. Why do you think we saw
an EC map every time we turned on
a TV for the last 6 weeks.

Saying things like "the popular vote is irrelevant" is exactly why the Republican party is out of touch with mainstream America. The Republican party steadfastly opposes many things that the majority of Americans want. But rather than help those things come to pass in accordance with the will of the people, Republicans try (successfully, so far) to twist and distort the system. The only thing they care about is keeping themselves in power.

The Electoral College is stupid, and I think that all the people whose votes counted less because of it are going to be very much not inclined to let it happen again. People don't want to be told that their votes are irrelevant.

Quote: stinkingliberal

The Electoral College is stupid,

Yes, lets turn all future elections over
to Calif and NY and a few other urban
centers and just be a banana republic
where the same party or same family
will rule for decades. Somebody is
stupid, but it wasn't the founding
fathers and their brilliance of the
EC.

I saw a former FBI agent on a show that
says Trump is probably low in his estimate
that 2mil illegals voted. He said he and
every FBI agent in the filed routinely see
fake drivers licenses when they deal with
illegals and have for decades. They are
very easy to get and will fool anybody
except law enforcement. They will certainly
fool a polling place.

With the system we have now, a vote in CA
can't effect a vote in NY or TX. With winner
take all, which the Lefties love, 2 mil illegal
votes in Calif cancel out 2mil legal votes in
TX or anywhere else. That's why Lefties love
illegals, change to winner take all and there
will be Dem presidents forever. That's why
it will ever change.

Quote: Evenbob

Yes, lets turn all future elections over
to Calif and NY and a few other urban
centers and just be a banana republic

Bullshit, Bob, pure bullshit. Everyone's vote counting the same doesn't make us a banana republic. It makes us a democracy. And the same party hasn't ruled for any appreciable length of time--it keeps switching back and forth. Also, why shouldn't large urban centers have more say than other areas in the process--THEY HAVE MORE VOTERS! Of course, what you're really saying is, "I don't think the darkies and Hispanics should be allowed to vote." You're a bigot, Bob, and no doubt proud of it.

And don't bother spouting that 2 million illegal voter nonsense. I mean, really, you are SUCH a puppet! Your master Trump tweets some nonsense, and you have to take it as gospel? I mean, ooh, you watched "some show" where some guy said that was true. Ooooooh, well all right then! It must be factual! Some guy on some show said it!

You're a fool and a sucker, Bob. And he's played you. I think I'm done with your nonsense, at least for now.

Quote: stinkingliberal

And don't bother spouting that 2 million illegal voter nonsense. I mean, really, you are SUCH a puppet!

What nonsense? All you need to do is see how liberals go ape when you suggest Voter ID. When you mention how illegal aliens getting drivers licenses and motor voter laws enable it. How liberal groups fight tooth and nail against purging voter rolls of people who do not belong.

We have some cities wanting to let illegal aliens vote in non-federal elections. Not hard to imaging them turning a blind eye to illegal aliens who got registered now.

BTW: any idea why Hillary has not denounced liberals sending death threats to Electors?

Quote: stinkingliberal

Also, why shouldn't large urban centers have more say than other areas in the process--THEY HAVE MORE VOTERS! Of course, what you're really saying is, "I don't think the darkies and Hispanics should be allowed to vote."

...and that is what way too many Liberals do. They take a conversation and toss racism into it to when there is none.

What they fail to see is that crying "racism" where there is none just leads to real incidents of "racism" being ignored. No one knows where the hell the fire is because all they do is create a lot of smoke.

Not want illegal immigrants or other disqualified (or not registered) folks to vote is not "racist."

Asking for an ID to vote and asking for it in just about every other transaction we make is not "racist."

Favoring the system for electing a President put forth in the Constitution is certainly not "racist."

Not having to fear a loss of power due to being smaller is a fundamental original concession given to states so that they will want to be in the union. If you value state's rights then you understand; if you don't value such, you still begrudge the concession.

It is more of an open factual matter with the constitutional arrangement with the US Senate - two for Wyoming, two for New York, etc.

It's the same thing with the Electoral College, but it seems to become forgotten with most people.