Alabama wins electoral college national championship

Haha. Good for a chuckle: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-s-mcelvaine/alabama-wins-electoral-co_b_14078158.html

The Huffington Post wouldn't like it, but the more appropriate comparison would be like the Spurs trying to claim the 2013 NBA Finals over the Heat because the Spurs scored more total points in the series. Sure they lost 4 of the 7 games, but they had more points overall. But that isn't how we decide the NBA champion.



And the popular vote is not how we decide presidential elections. Because the Finals are not a single competition, but rather potentially 7 competitions of which you need to win 4. Similarly the presidential election is not a single election, but rather 51 elections of varying weights, and you need to win enough to get 270 electoral votes.



Most times the team that scores more points in the Finals also wins the Finals, just like how usually the election winner also won the popular vote, but that doesn't change the rules.



Also, for the record, I did not vote for Trump, which is actually illustrates another reason why the popular vote is irrelevant. You see, I usually vote Republican, but I don't much care for Trump and I live in Washington state, and since Washington was essentially a lock for Clinton and therefore a vote for Trump would make no electoral difference, I chose to vote for someone else that I liked better. Were the presidential election decided on popular vote rather than electoral college I (and people like me) may have voted for Trump and changed the popular vote results. Just as if Clemson had known the champion would be crowned based solely on rushing yards they may have played the game differently.

Rules = Trump wins.

Rules = Clemson wins.



So, declaring a champion because of rules is satirized by pretending you ignored the rules to get a dumb result? Useful idiots.

snoscythe wrote:
Rules = Trump wins.

Rules = Clemson wins.



So, declaring a champion because of rules is satirized by pretending you ignored the rules to get a dumb result? Useful idiots.

Are you calling me an idiot for posting the above link?

BoiseBYU wrote:

Rules = Trump wins.

Rules = Clemson wins.



So, declaring a champion because of rules is satirized by pretending you ignored the rules to get a dumb result? Useful idiots.

Are you calling me an idiot for posting the above link?

I think he is saying that the hacks at the huffington post are useful idiots.

frdbtr wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
Rules = Trump wins.

Rules = Clemson wins.



So, declaring a champion because of rules is satirized by pretending you ignored the rules to get a dumb result? Useful idiots.

Are you calling me an idiot for posting the above link?

I think he is saying that the hacks at the huffington post are useful idiots.

Hope so. I've been called worse, to be sure, but generally from people whose opinion I could not care less. I thought it a bit of humor (and something even an Alabama fan might pull) and not meant for exegesis on the American electoral process.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

Rules = Trump wins.

Rules = Clemson wins.



So, declaring a champion because of rules is satirized by pretending you ignored the rules to get a dumb result? Useful idiots.

Are you calling me an idiot for posting the above link?

I think he is saying that the hacks at the huffington post are useful idiots.

Hope so. I've been called worse, to be sure, but generally from people whose opinion I could not care less. I thought it a bit of humor (and something even an Alabama fan might pull) and not meant for exegesis on the American electoral process.

Unfortunately the last 8 years (and the election itself) have everyone overly sensitive about politics right now. :)

BoiseBYU wrote:

Rules = Trump wins.

Rules = Clemson wins.



So, declaring a champion because of rules is satirized by pretending you ignored the rules to get a dumb result? Useful idiots.

Are you calling me an idiot for posting the above link?

Heck no. Just the libbos at HuffPo.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Rules = Trump wins.

Rules = Clemson wins.



So, declaring a champion because of rules is satirized by pretending you ignored the rules to get a dumb result? Useful idiots.

Are you calling me an idiot for posting the above link?

I wasn't criticizing you either. There are funny comparisons to make between sports and the popular vote, but it is the other side that should be making them.



There can be a discussion about how to select winners for future elections or sporting events, but you can't go back and change the outcome of past competitions based on new rules. That would be like determining new winners for NBA games prior to 1979 based on the three point shot that became a rule in 1979. If the rule had been in affect for those games teams probably would have taken more shots from that range, and defended those shots more diligently. If presidential elections were determined by a national popular vote Trump probably would have campaigned differently and people may have voted differently.



I also reject the idea that the popular vote is the "fairest" way to determine the election. The US is one of the few countries where virtually all sports determine a champion by a playoff, and not simply season long performance. Even NASCAR has a playoff now. In European soccer leagues the champion is the team with the most points at the regular season, but the popular vote argument could theoretically take issue with that too because you could say that it should be the team with the best goal differential rather than points.



Imagine Warriors claiming they are more deserving of last year's NBA title because they won the most games, but even that isn't the equivalent of the popular vote, but instead more like who won more states. The popular vote would be like claiming Golden State should have gotten last year's title because they scored the most points all year (I don't know if they did or not). Not only was that not the agreed upon terms for determining the champ, but I doubt you could find too many people trying to make the case that we should use that to determine a champ. Doing that would increase the importance of each basket (vote), but diminish the importance of each game (state).

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
Rules = Trump wins.

Rules = Clemson wins.



So, declaring a champion because of rules is satirized by pretending you ignored the rules to get a dumb result? Useful idiots.

Are you calling me an idiot for posting the above link?

Heck no. Just the libbos at HuffPo.

Thanks. I probably was too thin skinned in asking....Cheers!

Isola wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
Rules = Trump wins.

Rules = Clemson wins.



So, declaring a champion because of rules is satirized by pretending you ignored the rules to get a dumb result? Useful idiots.

Are you calling me an idiot for posting the above link?

I wasn't criticizing you either. There are funny comparisons to make between sports and the popular vote, but it is the other side that should be making them.



There can be a discussion about how to select winners for future elections or sporting events, but you can't go back and change the outcome of past competitions based on new rules. That would be like determining new winners for NBA games prior to 1979 based on the three point shot that became a rule in 1979. If the rule had been in affect for those games teams probably would have taken more shots from that range, and defended those shots more diligently. If presidential elections were determined by a national popular vote Trump probably would have campaigned differently and people may have voted differently.



I also reject the idea that the popular vote is the "fairest" way to determine the election. The US is one of the few countries where virtually all sports determine a champion by a playoff, and not simply season long performance. Even NASCAR has a playoff now. In European soccer leagues the champion is the team with the most points at the regular season, but the popular vote argument could theoretically take issue with that too because you could say that it should be the team with the best goal differential rather than points.



Imagine Warriors claiming they are more deserving of last year's NBA title because they won the most games, but even that isn't the equivalent of the popular vote, but instead more like who won more states. The popular vote would be like claiming Golden State should have gotten last year's title because they scored the most points all year (I don't know if they did or not). Not only was that not the agreed upon terms for determining the champ, but I doubt you could find too many people trying to make the case that we should use that to determine a champ. Doing that would increase the importance of each basket (vote), but diminish the importance of each game (state).

Thanks. No offense taken and your points well made. I'm thinking more and more that instead of voting at all we just go to trial by combat. Short and sweet and we could probably sell tickets and popcorn!