First major error is presuming all the Libertarians would vote Trump.

Completely agree. I think that *most* would have, but there’s really no way of telling whether that’s 51% or 80% without polling. Then the other question is how many would have voted Hilary, which (again, taking a finger-in-the-air guess) would have been very small.

The Electoral College exists for a very specific reason. Rural states did not want to join a union of states where their voices would be marginalized, and if the architecture of the voting system was rigged in such a way that their state would have no say, they never would have joined the United States in the first place.

Yes, I am familar with the history of this.

There’s an argument to be made that first past the post, winner take all state apportionment of electoral votes is a bad way to do it, and that argument is deeply rooted in mathematics:

That’s a bit too long for me to read and then comment on, but suffice to say that I am familiar with the math that shows that the electoral college does not always give us the results we would intuitively expect.

…but there is no good argument to the idea that we should shift to a popular vote where a tiny fraction of the United States geography can bully the central “fly over” states into policy that does not work for their region.

Sure. The math is that the entire election would be decided by the vote in the 20 largest SMSAs — — allowing the candidates to pretty much ignore everyone else — and to make matters worse, both candidates would be focused on the priorities of the urban voters. As I’ve reminded many “let’s move to the popular vote” people on several occasions, it’s generally not a good idea to disenfranchise the people who grow your food.

At a minimum, the best you can go with an honest “fix” is to apportion electors by vote ratio within each state. And when you do that, Trump still wins because a vote in Montana is worth more than a vote in California, as it should be.

Not to digress, but I’ve also seen math that shows that when House districts are computer-apportioned rather than politician-apportioned, the makeup of the House doesn’t change all that much — maybe two or three seats. Another example of something (gerrymandering) that everyone gets agitated about, but if a better way was actually agreed upon….. not much would change.

Written by

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store