Time to put a nail in this "Popular Vote" b.s.

Democrats like to think that the popular vote has meaning. Well, this quick demonstration will illustrate to you that it does not have meaning, at least not on a National Scale. What I am about to demonstrate to you is that the reason the Popular Vote will almost ALWAYS favor the Democrats is because the Two LARGE Democrat States, are unbalanced.

Statistically, you would expect that the political ideology of any population would fall along a normal distribution; A Bell Curve. Further, the larger the population, the more normalized it should become. As such it is totally reasonable to think a small spit of a state like Wyoming would be skewed 60/40 one way or the other, but you would not expect this in a LARGE state like Texas, California, New York or Florida. BUT .. that is exactly what we find for the two Big Blues. Both California and New York are abnormal (60/40), and out of balance with what a normal distribution would predict, whereas both Texas and Florida are pretty close to 50/50. For comparison's sake, consider the following:

Texas (52/48) vs New York (60/40).

If we use total population to represent the voting populations, Texas with 30 Million People split 15.4 million for Trump, 14.6 million for Clinton. New York with only 20 Million People split 8 million for Trump and 12 million for Clinton. Because TEXAS is the larger population, they carry 38 or 39 EC votes, whereas New York, with the a smaller population only as 29 EC votes. The Electoral College gives the Election to Trump because Texas is the Larger Population and therefore has a larger population interests in the race. HOWEVER ..... Clinton wins the Popular Vote, 26 Million to 23 Million.

As I said, this should not be, but it is .... because NEW YORK is an abnormal state, with a population that does not fall along a normal distribution, but rather is a skewed population of Leftists.

I've heard is said time and time again by leftists that the EC is a farce that gives unjust representation to small, uninhabited states, YET ... the above example PROVES that the EC actually protects the LARGER STATE (TEXAS) from the smaller state (New York). In this case, the EC protects the Nation from a smaller state with an abnormally skewed population that should not statistically exists. ON A NATIONAL LEVEL ... the EC protects the Greater Population of 260 Million people from the skewed abnormal distribution in two smaller populations (California - 41 Million; and New York - 20 Million) that are large enough that their distribution should look more like Texas and Florida.

 

"Statistically, you would expect that the political ideology of any population would fall along a normal distribution"

no you wouldnt. there is no reason that political ideology should be a normal distribution. we could have a population where everyone is opposite and no middle exists, or where there is an equal number of folks all along he "left/right" spectrum.

 

Not True JMG .....

A survey done correctly with no agenda to show a particular result will approach a normal distribution as the population increases. It's not uncommon to find abnormal distributions in smaller states like Wyoming, but at the populations get larger, they approach a normal distribution. Even with NY and CA being abnormally stupid, ie., leftists, the US as a whole from a statistical perspective breaks left and right on a 50/50 basis, and in a properly designed study will show a bell curve.

 

a bell curve, with most at the middle and fewer at the extremes, there is no reason we should expect american political opinions to be this way. partially because our spectrum doesnt even make sense.

not every phenomenon occurs at a normal distribution. again we could have a situation where "moderates" are the smallest group and everyone is totally extremely opposed. an inverted bell curve.

like gender. most people have a clear dick or a pussy and defined gender. we dont have a bell curve where most people are gays or intersex or crossdressing gender benders, and the minorities are manly or feminine.

if we have a spectrum of gender

male----------in between genders------------ female

most people are at the extremes. its not a normal distribution. you cant just assume every situation results in a normal bell curve:


lefties -----------moderates-----------righties

political thought doesnt necessrily follow a pattern where most lie in the middle. particularly because the left and right as we define them dont have a platform that is philosophically consistent. like for example you will find that people who are pro-life are almost always pro-gun and low taxes. why? our political spectrum should have at least 2 or 3 axises with a a bare minimum of social views and economic views considered.

 

That's just not the way it works JMG .... if you take California out of the Mix, Trump wins the popular vote by 1.4 Million. He only lost by 2.8 million, but lost in CA by 4.5 million.

The reason .... is CA is a sick state, that is so lopsided to the left that if falls outside of a normal distribution.

 

again, there is no reason to say that a normal bell curve distribution should apply here. not everything on earth is a bell curve.

 

The founding fathers were justifiably afraid of a pure/direct democracy. History of Athens, Rome after Saturnius and Clodius then Cesar made the public assembly more powerful than the senate (which Augustus quickly suppressed) and the excesses of the French Revolution (just beginning in 1789) showed them that democracy quickly fell into the hands of demagogues and mob rule.
The constitution was established to prevent mob rule in many ways. The separation of powers and the electoral college are the preeminent components. With these in place it didn’t and still doesn’t matter what the composition of the electorate is and how society changed because the country could adapt.
However they also understood the electorate had to be educated, sober and serious for it to work and last. Only a responsible electorate could maintain the system. As Franklin said when asked what we had, a monarchy, a democracy or what; he answered “A republic,,,if you can keep it”. The founding fathers weren’t worried about foreign powers but what “the people” could do. Well I’m afraid we’re deep into the irresponsible phase of the electorate where bread and circuses are the currency rather than what is best for the country. I hope I’m not truly at the end of our great experiment and the we can remember what got us to the peak.

 

That's all fine and good, but has nothing to do with normal distributions on things.
jmg has it wrong. Name an issue.

Gun Control, there are rabid right wingers who think we should own tanks, there are rabid leftists who think we should have no guns all, then there is the vast majority who fall in between.
Abortion, there are rabid conceptionists who think a fertilized egg is a person even before implantation, then there is the rabid pro-choicers who think they should be able to get an abortion the day before delivery because they decided they wanted a girl and not a boy, .. then there is the vast majority of people in the middle.

... this could go on and on . But a lot of States don't fit this distribution, but the larger a state is, there more evenly distributed it should become. Like I said, an abnormal distribution in Wyoming has no real impact on the National Popular Vote ... but an abnormal distribution in California, the largest State Population does.

 

genocide of the jews. 99% of people are extremely opposed. less than 1% are in favor. nobody is kinda moderate about it.

 

Nah. I’ve never met anyone that wants a tank. I have met plenty that think no guns should be owned.

I’ve also never met anyone that thinks an egg is a human, but I have met people who think late term pre-birth is ok. In China, well, just look it up.

Anyway, the “far right” as you and others describe it doesn’t exist like the Far Left does. Not even close.