2020 voting

[Tommy Tainant]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

 

[anynameyouwish]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

the BAD GUYS have been busy RIGGING THE SYSTEM for decades now.

at this point voting is an illusion.

Trump WILL win

trump may even become president for life.

if he wants it his fascist dirtbag murderous human scum minions will give it to him

 

[Oddball]

She won the popular vote by an excess of votes in two states...Claiming that she really one is like saying you really won a best-of-seven soccer series because you won two games by a score of 10-1, but lost the other four by 2-1.

That's the system, she knew ahead of time...She was too much of a lazy snob to campaign in flyover country.

Suck it.

 

[JoeB131]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

The Democrats could probably beat Trump without getting more popular votes... they simply have to commit sufficient resources to Swing States that are winnable.

Hillary neglected WI, MI, and PA to piss away a lot of money in AZ, which she was never going to win.

As for the EC, I agree, it is an awful system, but we'd have to amend the constitution to get rid of it... A lot of the smaller states might not be too keen on that, as it gives them outsized influence, and you need 38 states to agree.

 

[anynameyouwish]

She won the popular vote by an excess of votes in two states...Claiming that she really one is like saying you really won a best-of-seven soccer series because you won two games by a score of 10-1, but lost the other four by 2-1.

That's the system, she knew ahead of time...She was too much of a lazy snob to campaign in flyover country.

Suck it.

"Claiming that she really one is like saying you really won a best-of-seven soccer series because you won two games by a score of 10-1, but lost the other four by 2-1."


You are a conservative so that means REALLY FUKING STUPID!

Your analogy is completely wrong (because you are a conservative and REALLY FUKING STUPID)

IF a sporting event is decided by NUMBER OF GAMES won (regardless of score) then you would be correct,

BUT IF a sporting event is SPECIFICALLY DECIDED by TOTAL SCORE and NOT "games won" then you are wrong.

Our presidential election is supposed to be decided by TOTAL POPULAR VOTE and NOT "the number of small conservative states we can capture"

 

[anynameyouwish]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

The Democrats could probably beat Trump without getting more popular votes... they simply have to commit sufficient resources to Swing States that are winnable.

Hillary neglected WI, MI, and PA to piss away a lot of money in AZ, which she was never going to win.

As for the EC, I agree, it is an awful system, but we'd have to amend the constitution to get rid of it... A lot of the smaller states might not be too keen on that, as it gives them outsized influence, and you need 38 states to agree.

agreed

AND...they have GOT TO STOP MOVING LEFTWARD!

I WON'T vote for trump or ANY right winger.....

but I'll be damned if I vote for an extreme socialist.

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD/moderates/sane and rational and FAIR to ALL Americans.

 

[Oddball]

She won the popular vote by an excess of votes in two states...Claiming that she really one is like saying you really won a best-of-seven soccer series because you won two games by a score of 10-1, but lost the other four by 2-1.

That's the system, she knew ahead of time...She was too much of a lazy snob to campaign in flyover country.

Suck it.

"Claiming that she really one is like saying you really won a best-of-seven soccer series because you won two games by a score of 10-1, but lost the other four by 2-1."


You are a conservative so that means REALLY FUKING STUPID!

Your analogy is completely wrong (because you are a conservative and REALLY FUKING STUPID)

IF a sporting event is decided by NUMBER OF GAMES won (regardless of score) then you would be correct,

BUT IF a sporting event is SPECIFICALLY DECIDED by TOTAL SCORE and NOT "games won" then you are wrong.

Our presidential election is supposed to be decided by TOTAL POPULAR VOTE and NOT "the number of small conservative states we can capture"

I'm an agorist/ancap (google them) who doesn't vote at all, and my analogy is a nearly perfect description of how the EC works.

Now get back to your crayons.

 

[Auld Phart]

She won the popular vote by an excess of votes in two states...Claiming that she really one is like saying you really won a best-of-seven soccer series because you won two games by a score of 10-1, but lost the other four by 2-1.

That's the system, she knew ahead of time...She was too much of a lazy snob to campaign in flyover country.

Suck it.

"Claiming that she really one is like saying you really won a best-of-seven soccer series because you won two games by a score of 10-1, but lost the other four by 2-1."


You are a conservative so that means REALLY FUKING STUPID!

Your analogy is completely wrong (because you are a conservative and REALLY FUKING STUPID)

IF a sporting event is decided by NUMBER OF GAMES won (regardless of score) then you would be correct,

BUT IF a sporting event is SPECIFICALLY DECIDED by TOTAL SCORE and NOT "games won" then you are wrong.

Our presidential election is supposed to be decided by TOTAL POPULAR VOTE and NOT "the number of small conservative states we can capture"

Our presidential election is supposed to be decided by TOTAL POPULAR VOTE

since when?

 

[Dekster]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

The process is the same as it has been for as long as any of us have been alive whether you approve of the results or not. That said, I think the number I have seen is that somewhere around 54-55% of the national vote all but guarantees an electoral college win as well.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

Clearly Tommy you don’t understand our system, and how it worked perfectly as intended in 2016. In fact 2016 is an excellent example of why we have the electoral system. The system protects the interest of smaller states against the Tyranny of larger ones. It’s beautiful!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

She won the popular vote by an excess of votes in two states...Claiming that she really one is like saying you really won a best-of-seven soccer series because you won two games by a score of 10-1, but lost the other four by 2-1.

That's the system, she knew ahead of time...She was too much of a lazy snob to campaign in flyover country.

Suck it.

"Claiming that she really one is like saying you really won a best-of-seven soccer series because you won two games by a score of 10-1, but lost the other four by 2-1."


You are a conservative so that means REALLY FUKING STUPID!

Your analogy is completely wrong (because you are a conservative and REALLY FUKING STUPID)

IF a sporting event is decided by NUMBER OF GAMES won (regardless of score) then you would be correct,

BUT IF a sporting event is SPECIFICALLY DECIDED by TOTAL SCORE and NOT "games won" then you are wrong.

Our presidential election is supposed to be decided by TOTAL POPULAR VOTE and NOT "the number of small conservative states we can capture"

Our presidential election was never supposed to be decided by popular vote. Where the hell did you get that idea? You sound like a third grader.

 

[Maxdeath]

The funny part of the whole debate is a democrat were to win only because of the electoral college every dem would be defending it and calling anyone against it stupid. But because it did not work in their favor they are ravenously against it.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

the BAD GUYS have been busy RIGGING THE SYSTEM for decades now.

at this point voting is an illusion.

Trump WILL win

trump may even become president for life.

if he wants it his fascist dirtbag murderous human scum minions will give it to him

So I guess now it will be illegal for trump to win a second term?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

Seeing we are a REPUBLIC of States you must win the State vote and not the National Popular vote and I know you will claim that us beyond stupid but alas you still have a damn Queen, so save your nonsense...

So for a Democrat to win they have to win enough States to win the Electoral College and no California should not be the only state that get to decide who wins the election...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

Without Illegals, the nonliving and 100 years of Tammany hall vote manufacturing, Hillary would have lost by 15,000,000 votes

 

[JGalt]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

The Democrat's popular vote was infested with illegals voting and other fraudulent votes. In order for the Democrats to elect a President in 2020, they would have to ramp up their vote fraud. That's why we have an electoral vote.

I know you're butthurt over your election there. But if you're thinking of moving here because the Democrats have a chance of winning, don't. It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Our presidential election is supposed to be decided by TOTAL POPULAR VOTE and NOT "the number of small conservative states we can capture"

No, it is not. The great men who wrote our Constitution recognized that sparsely-populated areas had different needs than densely-populated areas, and rejected the idea of using a total popular vote to elect the President because that would allow the densely-populated areas to dominate the election, and disenfranchise those living in sparsely-populated areas. They set up the system that we have, to give the sparse states enough of a vote that their interests would not be neglected.

The bicameral structure of our Legislative Branch was set up as it was for a similar reason. We have the House of Representatives, which represents the people proportionally by population, and we have the Senate which gives equal representation to the states, regardless of population.

It may be your wish that we determined the Presidential election by total popular vote, but by wise design, as set up in our Constitution, that is most certainly not how it is supposed to be determined.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Mrs Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 beating Trump by 3 or 4 million. I understand that your system delivered a result that people didnt vote for. Much like ours.

How many more votes will the Dems need to get in order to get a Dem as President ? And at what point will people agree that the process is not fit for purpose ?

Clearly Tommy you don’t understand our system, and how it worked perfectly as intended in 2016. In fact 2016 is an excellent example of why we have the electoral system. The system protects the interest of smaller states against the Tyranny of larger ones. It’s beautiful!

No ,I really get that and I understand the argument. I am not sure that there is a perfect voting system and our own is pretty grim. But at some point it becomes self defeating. When the result is so far distant from the will of the people the process falls into disrepute. When does that kick in ?

 

[JoeB131]

The funny part of the whole debate is a democrat were to win only because of the electoral college every dem would be defending it and calling anyone against it stupid. But because it did not work in their favor they are ravenously against it.

Quite the contrary, Bush won by the electoral college after the people said "no", but most Democrats accepted it.

Because Bush actually acted Presidential. He treated the office and the government with respect.

Even when the CIA went into some serious "CYA" moments of distancing themselves from the Iraq Intel they had provided him, Bush never went around screaming about a "Deep State" or a "Swamp" being out to get him.

 

[boedicca]

The funny part of the whole debate is a democrat were to win only because of the electoral college every dem would be defending it and calling anyone against it stupid. But because it did not work in their favor they are ravenously against it.

According to the Prog-Dems, Democracy only works when they win.