I'm talking about exit polls (a poll taken directly after the vote), not about the vote count or political polls during the campaign

because that's what barneystinson falsely attacked in his first post in this thread "Based on exit polling. Right... The same exit polling that was horribly off in the us elections, and said that brexit was a lost cause? "

If more people want you than the other guy, why not? Why give more value to the vote of people just because they live in a smaller state/swing state?

I think honestly even Clinton, as flawed of a candidate as she was, would have won had Comey not interferred and basically hijacked the news cycle for the last 10 days leading into the election. All it took was a few thousand votes in the mid-west to swing and that was basically the election.

Shouldn't exit polling be the easiest thing int he world to keep segregated and determine who is winning each state?

If you poll someone in Michigan who they voted for, and they say Hillary. That is one vote for HIllary in MICHIGAN. That is also one vote for hillary in the U.S., but that is irrelivent.

Now I can see why exit pollig is insanely bad. Location, location, location.

Where do you think the exit polling happens? In places wiht a lot of people. And which way do people predominately vote in big cities. They take that data and then for teh rest of the state they just "guess". Basically just take the results from last election and assume the same for this election. if you watched the election results that night, you would see them constantly surprised and showing the counties that were Obama before but went Trump this time. 

The reason for th surprise was because they never exit polled there. They can't be everywhere and thus just assume nothing will change. 

To prevent mob vote.

Imagine your in High School and you have your whole student council meeting to discuss where to put extracurriculer funding. You have 20 people in art, 15 people in drama/theater, you have 10 people in math club, 5 people in chess club, ect. Add up to 99 people. 

Then you have 100 people in Basketball/football/ect. The sports. IF we go with pure popular vote, guess who has 100% of the say all the time. The sports people would get ot decide everything.

THe point of the electoral college is ot prevent that. It makes it so that the little guy is not ignored.

Or in real world terms. It makes it so that the smaller states are not ignored and only California, New York, ect have all the say. 

now you are finally having a glimpse why it's so hard to do a representative exit poll for individual states (there are far more factors than simply not being "everywhere", but it is an important one) and much easier to do one nation wide

and there was little need to, as the nation wide popular vote usually gave a very good indication who would take the electoral college (Al Gore won by 550k or a mere 0.5% - by all means a statistical tie)

This assumes that people can be seperated perfectly into entities of interest. If a part of the sportsclub has overlapping interests with other groups, but are in conflict with the same issue within their group, this gives negotiation power to the other groups.

In the context of an election, the farmers from Minnesota could have overlapping interests with the farmers of California, students have common interests, the poorer or more fortunate population, immigrants everywhere, etc... 

In any natural electorat, a proportional democracy gives approximately equal power to all individuals. 

So, for people living in the netherlands- what do you gain (or lose) from this? Very interesting nonetheless

Well, maybe not WW but at leat in Europe because it was important for whole Europe. 

Shifting to the right (rechts) overall

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7IewJ1XgAAuxAX.jpg:large