Does Electoral Map reflect America? Did Trump manipulate the vote, and if so, was it justified?

View attachment 98086

That is a lot of red states

remove the false votes by the dead and illegals........... Trump wins the popular vote as well

Time to accept and work together as one nation

And again the problem with maps like this is not only is it showing artificial votes (EVs) but its colors in no way reflect voting -- they reflect land area.

A population-proportional map looks quite different.

countycartlinearlarge.png

People choose in each state. Representatives of each state then vote for president.
We do no have a democracy, we have a representative system.
Used to only property owners could vote, now every citizen over 18 can vote.

The winner of each state gets the number of votes equal to the representatives of that state. We began with only 13 states, now we have 50.

go back to the federalist papers

12th amentdment was ratified in 1804

United_States_1804-03-1804-10.png

Was there a point coming?

Cool map anyway.
 
View attachment 98086

That is a lot of red states

remove the false votes by the dead and illegals........... Trump wins the popular vote as well

Time to accept and work together as one nation

And again the problem with maps like this is not only is it showing artificial votes (EVs) but its colors in no way reflect voting -- they reflect land area.

A population-proportional map looks quite different.

Yes Pogo that's more what I wanted, by population. but is that so detailed that it's hard to depict clearly?
I think one person posted a grey map showing population, and I just couldn't read it that well.
is that why it's done by land area so it's more visible?

They basically blow up areas of higher population (because more votes) and shrink areas of lower, because fewer. The resulting distortion looks nothing like a political map ("political" in the cartographic sense) but it's not supposed to -- it represents how the country votes.

The one with the blue and red states implies that that square-mile area of Wyoming voted red to the same degree that upper northeast blot (that's Boston) voted blue, which of course it doesn't .


The House representatives are for population and the Senate for the states.
Total is the electoral college
 
View attachment 98086

That is a lot of red states

remove the false votes by the dead and illegals........... Trump wins the popular vote as well

Time to accept and work together as one nation

And again the problem with maps like this is not only is it showing artificial votes (EVs) but its colors in no way reflect voting -- they reflect land area.

A population-proportional map looks quite different.

Yes Pogo that's more what I wanted, by population. but is that so detailed that it's hard to depict clearly?
I think one person posted a grey map showing population, and I just couldn't read it that well.
is that why it's done by land area so it's more visible?

They basically blow up areas of higher population (because more votes) and shrink areas of lower, because fewer. The resulting distortion looks nothing like a political map ("political" in the cartographic sense) but it's not supposed to -- it represents how the country votes.

The one with the blue and red states implies that that square-mile area of Wyoming voted red to the same degree that upper northeast blot (that's Boston) voted blue, which of course it doesn't .


The House representatives are for population and the Senate for the states.
Total is the electoral college

Yes, we all know how the system works. Some of us even know why it was put there.
Do you know how it was originally apportioned?

And many of us can see how it in fact doesn't work except to discourage voters from voting.
 
The only manipulating that was going on was the media manipulating the polls to discourage Trump voters. It didn't work.
 
4 million dead and illegals across the country are believed to have voted

Elections Expert: "We Now Have 4 Million Ineligible and Dead Voters ...
www.thegatewaypundit.com/.../elections-expert-now-4-million-ineligible-dead-voters...
Oct 18, 2016 - J. Christian Adams: Dead people are voting and it's something this administration does .... How many dead people voted in the last election?

remove them and Clinton did not win any popular vote

Depending on the site, the margin between the candidates was 200,000-400,000

the number of students at the ten top liberal colleges

a 1/4 - 1/3 the population of NH

All this objections is out of place, staged, bought and paid for.

American is not so divided, hateful or "traumatized" as the main news would have you believe. Time the news gets a major reality check and start reporting the truth.

Electoral college represent up in congress, so why should they not represent up to pick president? We picked them and each states has spoken by voting

We have been doing this for more than 200 yrs. This is our system, not anarchy or mobs in the streets committing crimes. This is our system of laws.

Shake hands and get on with making american the best we can as a united nation
 
He energized the country to get out and vote, over turning the rigged system
 
Here's a set of maps showing both the RED as a separate map
then the BLUE:

US election 2016: Trump victory in maps - BBC News

Several maps here usually based on land area rather than population --- but perhaps this one is the most revealing of effects:

_92323780_us_county_level_voting_624map-1.png
Thanks Pogo
It seems too time consuming to map out ALL districts per state to see where the big blocks were coming from
not just by state but by urban areas and districts also.

I found this on NY
How Every New York Neighborhood Voted in the 2016 Presidential Election

If we just mapped out DISTRICTS in these 4 key population states
CA
NY
TX
FL

Would that be enough to check if Trump would still beat Clinton
if the Electoral Votes were split proportionally among districts within the states that have greater populations?
 
Here's a set of maps showing both the RED as a separate map
then the BLUE:

US election 2016: Trump victory in maps - BBC News

Several maps here usually based on land area rather than population --- but perhaps this one is the most revealing of effects:

_92323780_us_county_level_voting_624map-1.png
Thanks Pogo
It seems too time consuming to map out ALL districts per state to see where the big blocks were coming from
not just by state but by urban areas and districts also.

I found this on NY
How Every New York Neighborhood Voted in the 2016 Presidential Election

If we just mapped out DISTRICTS in these 4 key population states
CA
NY
TX
FL

Would that be enough to check if Trump would still beat Clinton
if the Electoral Votes were split proportionally among districts within the states that have greater populations?

I just mused on that same question in the Electoral College thread. Don't know if anyone's worked this out but what if that portion of the Electors who represent the Congressional districts of their state, voted in the same proportion their districts did? That would require half-votes but could be counted as such.

But then if you count half votes what happens when you get the common case of a 55-45? Should we count hundredths of a vote? "Candidate X gets 16.45 votes and candy Y gets 17.55"? All of which inches closer and closer to a genuine PV anyway.....

Of course this isn't really a representative system either, as so many districts have been fatally gerrymandered....
 
These 10 Maps Show the Nation's Turned Red--Here's How Complete Trump & GOP's Domination Really Was

I asked for a better map showing the Votes distributed by county but haven't found one.
Above is one link I did find, comparing maps,
but I still wanted something more clear. Can I ask for help, if anyone found one better?

My questions are
A. Does this pink/red spread really represent the vote and voice of the nation?
B. If candidates like Trump manipulated the media and vote to get this result, by using the same tactics the media has been hyping, of playing the celebrity and crisis card both to extremes to stay relevant and in the headlines,
if underneath that media facade ARE core values that aren't being paraded in the media and public for votes,
is it justified to abuse media tactics to emotionally sway the vote, when underneath there are serious principles at stake that aren't selling in the media, so the only way to win is to play the hyped up media game for the election?

Is this good or bad?

I guess this is like asking
is it okay to use "marketing gimmicks" if that is the only way.

I KNOW that if what you're selling is bad, of course, the marketing gimmicks are unethical. But if you believe the real content is good, is it justified to play games to win at risk of distracting from real issues that should be the key.
Will you SORE FUCKING WHINERS PLEASEEEEEEEEE STOP CRYING.
 
These 10 Maps Show the Nation's Turned Red--Here's How Complete Trump & GOP's Domination Really Was

I asked for a better map showing the Votes distributed by county but haven't found one.
Above is one link I did find, comparing maps,
but I still wanted something more clear. Can I ask for help, if anyone found one better?

My questions are
A. Does this pink/red spread really represent the vote and voice of the nation?
B. If candidates like Trump manipulated the media and vote to get this result, by using the same tactics the media has been hyping, of playing the celebrity and crisis card both to extremes to stay relevant and in the headlines,
if underneath that media facade ARE core values that aren't being paraded in the media and public for votes,
is it justified to abuse media tactics to emotionally sway the vote, when underneath there are serious principles at stake that aren't selling in the media, so the only way to win is to play the hyped up media game for the election?

Is this good or bad?

I guess this is like asking
is it okay to use "marketing gimmicks" if that is the only way.

I KNOW that if what you're selling is bad, of course, the marketing gimmicks are unethical. But if you believe the real content is good, is it justified to play games to win at risk of distracting from real issues that should be the key.
Will you SORE FUCKING WHINERS PLEASEEEEEEEEE STOP CRYING.

Who's posting in ALL CAPS with an angry monkey avatar?

But thanks for pointing out a good post I missed. I'll get right on it.
Oh you can go now since you're contributing nothing. Thangyew.
 
I guess this is like asking
is it okay to use "marketing gimmicks" if that is the only way.

I KNOW that if what you're selling is bad, of course, the marketing gimmicks are unethical. But if you believe the real content is good, is it justified to play games to win at risk of distracting from real issues that should be the key.

Thanks be to GMU. I had missed this part before. When you put the word "maps" in front of me I see "cookie" :)

Great ethical question. Can someone who sells freezers to Eskimos be called a "success" because he got somebody to buy something they don't need?

Strangely there walk among us those who would agree to that point, whether applied to the current Orange Crash or to Billy Mays or to Kevin Trudeau.

Which for me begs the question --- what kind of mind would look right past the ethics of what was done to congratulate the actor on doing it, in the simple name of "success"?

To take the extreme, Hitler was "successful" at what he was doing, for a time... or you could say the European "settlers" were "successful" at exterminating Indians. I doubt if these wags would apply it to Hitler but apparently for them there's some kind of negotiable line somewhere. And that's weird.
 
I guess this is like asking
is it okay to use "marketing gimmicks" if that is the only way.

I KNOW that if what you're selling is bad, of course, the marketing gimmicks are unethical. But if you believe the real content is good, is it justified to play games to win at risk of distracting from real issues that should be the key.

Thanks be to GMU. I had missed this part before. When you put the word "maps" in front of me I see "cookie" :)

Great ethical question. Can someone who sells freezers to Eskimos be called a "success" because he got somebody to buy something they don't need?

Strangely there walk among us those who would agree to that point, whether applied to the current Orange Crash or to Billy Mays or to Kevin Trudeau.

Which for me begs the question --- what kind of mind would look right past the ethics of what was done to congratulate the actor on doing it, in the simple name of "success"?

To take the extreme, Hitler was "successful" at what he was doing, for a time... or you could say the European "settlers" were "successful" at exterminating Indians. I doubt if these wags would apply it to Hitler but apparently for them there's some kind of negotiable line somewhere. And that's weird.

Dear Pogo that's half of what I'm asking.
What if conservatives really need to take responsibility for checking govt
and not rely on elected officials to check themselves. (and liberals also!)

So Trump forces that question and responsibility on both left and right.
If this is a good thing, to force left and right to get involved since Trump doesn't listen
to either party unless they make sense to him and he agrees business wise,
then is it justified that Trump
MANIPULATED voters by playing the celebrity card in the media,
even the race and negative campaign cards,
in order to motivate that vote in that direction.

Does that ends justify the means?

I KNOW that if the ends are BAD then it is WORSE when
it was manipulated by the media as false advertising and fraud.

But what if the result is GOOD in forcing both sides to police the changes in govt
in order to make sure they don't go too far off course.

If that is a good thing
is it still WRONG that Trump abused media to get the vote out "for the wrong reasons"
to bring about this Ultimate message that both parties need to get busy
get involved and quit depending on govt to save them.
We need to save our govt in order to save our country.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top