2020 voting

[Unkotare]

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 ?

No elections in your own country to worry about, douche?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

It's still retarded Mormon Bob. So let's look at the biggest discrepencies in population in 1787.

The largest population was Virginia. 747,000 people in the 1790 Census. The smallest was Delaware with 59,000. The difference was that VA had 12 times as many people as DE.
1790 United States Census - Wikipedia

OOOOOKay, now let's look at today. Biggest state is California with 37 million. The Smallest is Wyoming, where the men are men and the sheep are scared. 593,000 people live there. California has 63 times more people than Wyoming... but they should have "Equal" say? I think not.

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.

Again, not a good thing. It just means stuff doesn't get done. Most democracies have a single house of Congress or Parliment... and this is mostly a good thing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

An extremist leftist who serves the Islamists doesn't like the outcome of an election in a different country, therefore the election, itself, is to be questioned.

If, through some truly hellish twist of fate, Nihad Awad had been elected, Tammy would think our system was the most beautiful thing in the world.

 

[JGalt]

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.

Do you mean the same George Bush who was constantly portrayed as a "chimp" by the left?

 

[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.

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.

So you are hoping that your little diatribe on Bush somehow changes what I wrote?

Let's face it the democrats have tried to impeach the last six Republican presidents. They have talked about it during every one of those terms.

 

[Dick Foster]

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 ?

Hey you shitforbrains. Does London and only London elect your parliament and prime minister?

Anyone from a country still stupid enough to be paying for a monarchy has no business commenting on any other nations government or electoral processes.

BTW we've whupped your dumb asses twice now and bailed you stupid shits out of the messes you've made twice so you're no one to be giving advice to us.

 

[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!

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 ?

The 2016 election was not distant from the will of the people at all. Trump won 50% more states than Hillary.

 

[Jitss617]

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 ?

You should get a education before you post

 

[gtopa1]

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"

You dill!! A series is decided by games won, not total points scored. Get a brain you tool!!

Greg

 

[Anathema]

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 ?

As you’ve pointed out, it’s not a matter of number of votes, but the ability to get the votes in the right places that matters in the Presidential election.

The Electoral College was created and continues to exist as a means to ensure the entire country, not just the large urban areas and high population states, get a say in election g the POTUS

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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 ?

Your love of the democratic process is showing you dumbed down left wing nazi morons

 

[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 ?

The 2016 election was not distant from the will of the people at all. Trump won 50% more states than Hillary.

But more "people" voted for Hillary. A lot more.So people in every state have their votes count for nothing. That is not healthy.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[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 ?

As you’ve pointed out, it’s not a matter of number of votes, but the ability to get the votes in the right places that matters in the Presidential election.

The Electoral College was created and continues to exist as a means to ensure the entire country, not just the large urban areas and high population states, get a say in election g the POTUS

Its a greater or lesser say depending on your postcode.Everybody is oppressed by that.

 

[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!

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 ?

The 2016 election was not distant from the will of the people at all. Trump won 50% more states than Hillary.

But more "people" voted for Hillary. A lot more.So people in every state have their votes count for nothing. That is not healthy.

Wrong again Tom. She won the PV by 2%, or about 3 million votes. That is not a lot more. Furthermore, she won California by over 4 million votes. That’s right, the entire popular vote difference was less than the popular vote of one state, California.

 

[tycho1572]

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 ?

Trump wasn’t a politician in ‘16 when he kicked Hillary’s ass. I can only imagine how bad democrats will be beat in ‘20 after all the positive gains we’ve had under his leadership.

 

[Anathema]

Its a greater or lesser say depending on your postcode.Everybody is oppressed by that.

No, everyone is Empowered by that. It forces candidates to campaign across the entire country and work to find solutions that work in both Small towns in Iowa AND in New York City. .

 

[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 ?

The 2016 election was not distant from the will of the people at all. Trump won 50% more states than Hillary.

But more "people" voted for Hillary. A lot more.So people in every state have their votes count for nothing. That is not healthy.

Wrong again Tom. She won the PV by 2%, or about 3 million votes. That is not a lot more. Furthermore, she won California by over 4 million votes. That’s right, the entire popular vote difference was less than the popular vote of one state, California.

And under the current system everyone in California, whoever they vote for, is less of a citizen than an American in any of the smaller states. Its a version of the "Rotten Boroughs" we had before the Great Reform Act. Why bother voting if your vote doesn't count?

 

[Anathema]

And under the current system everyone in California, whoever they vote for, is less of a citizen than an American in any of the smaller states. Its a version of the "Rotten Boroughs" we had before the Great Reform Act. Why bother voting if your vote doesn't count?

The pure majority (50%+1) theory simply ensures that the major urban areas are the only voters that count. In fact, under that paradigm, a Presidential candidate wouldn’t even need to visit any Midwestern state or any rural area of ANY stste.

 

[Oddball]

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 ?

The 2016 election was not distant from the will of the people at all. Trump won 50% more states than Hillary.

But more "people" voted for Hillary. A lot more.So people in every state have their votes count for nothing. That is not healthy.

And under the popular vote, the votes of scores of millions more in flyover country will be meaningless.

Just stay over there and fix your own Muzzy infested craphole.