No, that is not what the Electoral College is.
Are we going to argue semantics? Ok, fine.
EC 101
Each state is allocated a number of votes based on the total number of seats that the state has in the US Congress (Senate and HoR), with the exception of
Washington, D.C, which has electoral votes but no representation.
The number of HoR members was
set to 435 back in 1913, with
further additions clarifying how those were to be allocated (percentage of overall population), with logic guaranteeing every state a minimum of 1 representative. This makes things a bit fuzzy when it comes to number of constituents per representative, though it's up to the state government to draw these numbers as evenly as possible.
When voting for president in the November election, we are actually voting for the members of the Electoral college delegation for our state, usually based on a political party. In most states (including Oklahoma), the party that wins the popular election gets the entire delegation, anywhere between 3 and 55 votes.
On December 19th, the electoral college will meet and cast their votes. Just because they were voted in for a specific party does not mean that they are guaranteed to vote for that party, but though there are some states with
laws against this. The winners of the electoral college is sworn in as president and vice president on January 20th
************
Note, winning the popular election for most (maybe all) only involves having enough of a
unified front to get "the most" votes in your state. I counted 11 states where under 50 percent of the voting population determined the results for the other 50%+ of people. I will concede that you aren't technically voting against someone, but with the sheer amount of "CROOKED HILARY" and #NeverTrump that was being slung from all sides, it's a data point that warrants consideration.
The weighted average of the states is just that. You're taking the winning popular vote number at a state level, and assigning a value to set from the state's raw population number.
google's election search results into csv. I calced everything beyond R-Count in excel
Look at it this way - Alabama is worth 9 electoral votes, won with 1,306,925 R votes, Washington is worth 12, winning at 1,207,943 D, Kentucky is allocating 8 votes with 1,202,942 R. Practically speaking, a very similar number of people won the election in each state, yet Washington was worth more for less effort.
I'm not saying that this will work in my favor. In fact, as the HoR and Senate's current layout suggests, the the opposite is likely to be true. But adjusting the EC to more accurately represent the DIVERSE nature of the peoples in the states that make it up would would be a step in the right direction and could work as a step in the right direction to bringing more people into the election. As mentioned above, how many people in califorina or other states stayed home because they were were basically guaranteed to be blue? How many dems in Texas? California's HoR representation is 39 democrats and 19 republicans, with Texas at 25 republican and 11 democrats. That's enough to shake things up and make everything a "swing state".
I have no idea what "Judy combining" means.
I posted from my phone, didn't catch an auto correct.
I agree with erfalf. "Fair" or not, the electoral process was known by all the candidates beforehand. Many people do not like the process. Many people do not like the outcome of this particular election.
But, Hillary Clinton conceded yesterday. Running for the presidency was her choice. Since 1985, she has had nine opportunities to become president (by being elected to that particular office). The electoral process has been established for a long time. She went for the presidency in 2008 and lost. She went for it in 2016 and lost. If she is still around and feels up to the task, she can try again in 2020, which will be her tenth opportunity.
As far as I know, states have that option. Electors are proportioned in Maine and in Nebraska. But that doesn't mean all of the other states should be forced to change their current election procedures to something else simply because Maine and Nebraska have done so.
Yes she conceded. Yes, the system as it stands will see that Trump and Pence are in the white house.
How about we look forward for once in our lifetimes, stop focusing on the now. Should we as a country manage to survive (like we did through Bush and Obama), what about in 2020? Why do we need to have the exact same system in place? The constitution evolves for good and bad, but you can't stop that.
Take a look at the rapid iteration of everything else in the world. Figure out what needs to change, rather than cling onto the past because "it kinda works". Be willing to iterate on things. Leave the kids and grandkids something to look forward to.
Rambly and at least 9 posts in between the time i started, but had to get it out.