And Will They Ever Stop Saying,"Yah,But Hillary Got More Votes!!".? No One Cares Anymore !

[Ray From Cleveland]

The electoral college is the most unfair and outdated part of our government. Any fool should want to get rid of it.

And if Hil-Liar won the electoral and Trump won the popular, you would be talking about how great the college is.

 

[Rustic]

Math is hard!

It's logic and being adapt at answering questions with math that matters. And if you're gonna claim "the popular vote" -- you have to include ALL of it. Basic logic and reason. Math is useless without it.

52% voted for someone else. In the near future -- that could 60% or 65%. So claiming pop vote victory under those circumstances is gonna look ridiculous -- isn't it? And that's ANOTHER reason for the electoral college. America wasn't designed for just 2 dynasty parties.

No. She won more votes than anyone else.

Basic math.

She got more votes than Donald, but not more pop votes than the ones that were cast for ALL the other choices. You have no idea what a race without 4 choices would have looked it. You can't invent the data for it.. 52% of voters DID NOT CHOOSE HER... Don't disenfranchise them.

What you are doing with this pop vote thing -- is trying to convince yourself that she got more votes than the competitive field. MY vote was not for Hillary or Trump --- and it matters 5 times more in the statistics than what you are claiming "her margin of victory" was.

The pop vote was NOT a 2 way race.

Spin it any way you want -- the bottom line is:
She won more votes than anyone else. Period.

Basic math. Fact.

Yep and in 2000 the Republicans stole another election. Just think...if Al Gore had assumed the office 6000 young Americans would still be alive and the national debt would be paid off. Among dozens of other things that depended on the Bush tax cuts.

 

[regent]

I think many Americans still like to believe that they, and their votes, are important in selecting their government. Sort of a "we the people" thing.

Then let "we the people" change the way we count votes before an election--not after an election.

I suspect that would not go over well with Republicans and it would take both to change.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think many Americans still like to believe that they, and their votes, are important in selecting their government. Sort of a "we the people" thing.

Then let "we the people" change the way we count votes before an election--not after an election.

I suspect that would not go over well with Republicans and it would take both to change.

It would also take the support of the American people. But the only time it's an issue is when a Democrat candidate loses the presidency.

 

[regent]

The real question is: are the American people ready for a little more democracy and ready to let each American's vote count?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The real question is: are the American people ready for a little more democracy and ready to let each American's vote count?

If we are and decide to change the system, then should we do the same for the Senate? After all, each state gets only two senators and it doesn't matter if you're in a huge state like Texas or a small state like Rhode Island. Our government was structured that way so small states have some say-so in our laws and taxation.

 

[EverCurious]

Good luck, you need 2/3 vote from the states to get it passed. Alaska and other states will never stand for giving away our ability to vote for the president of the country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good luck, you need 2/3 vote from the states to get it passed. Alaska and other states will never stand for giving away our ability to vote for the president of the country.

Not only that, but I think most Americans would not support it. It defeats the concept of equal representation.

 

[flacaltenn]

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

It's logic and being adapt at answering questions with math that matters. And if you're gonna claim "the popular vote" -- you have to include ALL of it. Basic logic and reason. Math is useless without it.

52% voted for someone else. In the near future -- that could 60% or 65%. So claiming pop vote victory under those circumstances is gonna look ridiculous -- isn't it? And that's ANOTHER reason for the electoral college. America wasn't designed for just 2 dynasty parties.

No. She won more votes than anyone else.

Basic math.

She got more votes than Donald, but not more pop votes than the ones that were cast for ALL the other choices. You have no idea what a race without 4 choices would have looked it. You can't invent the data for it.. 52% of voters DID NOT CHOOSE HER... Don't disenfranchise them.

What you are doing with this pop vote thing -- is trying to convince yourself that she got more votes than the competitive field. MY vote was not for Hillary or Trump --- and it matters 5 times more in the statistics than what you are claiming "her margin of victory" was.

The pop vote was NOT a 2 way race.

Spin it any way you want -- the bottom line is:
She won more votes than anyone else. Period.

Basic math. Fact.

She also LOST more popular votes than she "won". In fact about 5 times more votes than just the margin of victory over Trump that you want to focus on..

If you want to focus on an ISOLATED race between Clinton/Trump and make claims about the popular vote, you'd have to hold a NEW election. Because NO ONE knows where that 4.2% of 3rd party votes WOULD have gone in a contest between the 2 of them. We did not have a 2-way contest this time. And the 3rd parties did far more to change the pop vote margin than Clinton did to "win"..

 

[paperview]

She also LOST more popular votes than she "won". ..

Spin it any way you want -- the bottom line is:
She won more votes than anyone else. Period.

Basic math. Fact.

 

[flacaltenn]

She also LOST more popular votes than she "won". ..

Spin it any way you want -- the bottom line is:
She won more votes than anyone else. Period.

Basic math. Fact.

She lost the "pop vote" by over 4%.. At what point is claiming "pop vote victory" important if 52% or 65% or even 70% of voters --- opposed your candidate. I need an answer to that -- because THAT is the future of American politics. More choices. Less dynasties. Less "annointed" arrogant power whores running..

 

[Silhouette]

The Rainbow Reicht wants California to pick the president every time....lol. California's huge population is why we have the electoral college.

They just don't want California to pick or not pick gay marriage. Even in nutzville, it was voted down twice. Ouch! They want California to pick every president because that always winds up being democrat. Then they want that democrat to shine rainbow lights on the Whitehouse the same day his or her handpicked liberal Justices force more gay stuff on Californians who don't want THAT part of the democrat platform..(evidenced by their vote record on it)

 

[regent]

The real question is: are the American people ready for a little more democracy and ready to let each American's vote count?

If we are and decide to change the system, then should we do the same for the Senate? After all, each state gets only two senators and it doesn't matter if you're in a huge state like Texas or a small state like Rhode Island. Our government was structured that way so small states have some say-so in our laws and taxation.

As I remember Nebraska eliminate one house. It sounds like more than "some say so" when they can elect the president.

 

[jasonnfree]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

Y'know, the only time I've seen references to Hillary getting more votes is in response to Republicans crowing about how 'the people have spoken'. It is irresistible to not point out that about 1.5 million more of them spoke for Hillary than Trump. It is a reminder that you do not have a mandate. Also, nobody believes the 4 million illegal votes either. p.s. Is that a symbol of you head banging a brick wall?

Exactly....that goddam Fox News was calling it a mandate!

The electoral college was established to fulfill a need. During the late 1700's, early 1800's people had to ride a mule or the rich ones travel by buggy just to cast a vote. It was to accommodate the activity of everyone voting. It should be done away with and whoever gets the most votes should gain the office. Don't you remember? Daniel Boone killed a bar.

And I'm sure that if the situation was reversed, where hillary won the electorals, and Trump won the popular vote, you'd still be outraged, Right?

 

[bullwinkle]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

Y'know, the only time I've seen references to Hillary getting more votes is in response to Republicans crowing about how 'the people have spoken'. It is irresistible to not point out that about 1.5 million more of them spoke for Hillary than Trump. It is a reminder that you do not have a mandate. Also, nobody believes the 4 million illegal votes either. p.s. Is that a symbol of you head banging a brick wall?

Exactly....that goddam Fox News was calling it a mandate!

The electoral college was established to fulfill a need. During the late 1700's, early 1800's people had to ride a mule or the rich ones travel by buggy just to cast a vote. It was to accommodate the activity of everyone voting. It should be done away with and whoever gets the most votes should gain the office. Don't you remember? Daniel Boone killed a bar.

And I'm sure that if the situation was reversed, where hillary won the electorals, and Trump won the popular vote, you'd still be outraged, Right?

Probably not outraged, Jason. We know how the system is set up, and understand that's the way the mop flops. So far, I haven't seen anyone issue a call to arms. I like to think that if the situation were reversed I would still think it unfair.

We are no longer a country where it takes days and weeks for news to travel. The people of South Podunk know what's up at the very same time the people in Times Square learn the news. They all hear the same speech at the same time. Every State has 2 Senators no matter what the population. The Electoral college, meant to keep the people in remote areas protected from laws and representation determined by more populous regions, is no longer necessary. And when over 2 million more votes are cast for the loser than the winner...there has to be a message in there somewhere for all of us. This has happened twice in this century. It's becoming a habit. We need to hammer out a better way so that each vote really does count.

 

[regent]

The real question is: are the American people ready for a little more democracy and ready to let each American's vote count?

If we are and decide to change the system, then should we do the same for the Senate? After all, each state gets only two senators and it doesn't matter if you're in a huge state like Texas or a small state like Rhode Island. Our government was structured that way so small states have some say-so in our laws and taxation.

When the senate votes on a bill, or for their officers do they use majority vote?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We are no longer a country where it takes days and weeks for news to travel. The people of South Podunk know what's up at the very same time the people in Times Square learn the news. They all hear the same speech at the same time. Every State has 2 Senators no matter what the population. The Electoral college, meant to keep the people in remote areas protected from laws and representation determined by more populous regions, is no longer necessary.

One question: why not? Why should they not be protected?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When the senate votes on a bill, or for their officers do they use majority vote?

Sure they do. But let's take a state like Idaho which has a population of less than two million people. Some Democrat President gets in and wants to expand social programs to people that vote for them, particularly in places like New York City that has a population of 9 million people. So they tax agriculture to pay for the new or existing program. Is that fair to Idaho and states like them?

With equal representation of more populated larger states, Senators from smaller states can stop the bill. That's the idea of equal representation.

Hillary lost the election and nobody can say for sure just why. But she expressed her desire to have abortions right up to the day of birth. The Obama administration has been promoting gay this and transgender that. He threatened public schools that don't allow weirdos into girls bathrooms and showers. If that was an issue that made those hometown states reject Hil-Liar, then the electoral college is what gave them some say-so to reject those policies by the Democrat party and in particular, Obama.

Right now, we need the Electoral College more than ever, and that's because the federal government controls our lives more than ever. If you look at a colored map of the Untied States, it's mostly red. The small blotches of counties that are blue would control the entire country if we went to a popular vote. That would render the rest of the red country helpless to their policies, especially when it comes to abusing the Executive Order.

Currently, those presidential nominees have to be concerned with smaller less populated states in order to get their electoral votes. Take that away, and it wouldn't even make sense for people in those smaller states to vote.

 

[Campbell]

She also LOST more popular votes than she "won". ..

Spin it any way you want -- the bottom line is:
She won more votes than anyone else. Period.

Basic math. Fact.

She lost the "pop vote" by over 4%.. At what point is claiming "pop vote victory" important if 52% or 65% or even 70% of voters --- opposed your candidate. I need an answer to that -- because THAT is the future of American politics. More choices. Less dynasties. Less "annointed" arrogant power whores running..

Are you stupid?

Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million

A half-dozen electors, those who will formally cast votes for Trump and Clinton on Dec. 19, are pushing to block Trump from winning a majority of votes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are you stupid?

Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million

A half-dozen electors, those who will formally cast votes for Trump and Clinton on Dec. 19, are pushing to block Trump from winning a majority of votes.

Are you stupid?

The EC does not vote for the popular vote of the entire country, they vote to represent the voters of their state.