Electoral College CAN elect Hillary

[JakeStarkey]

The EC?
1876. 1888. 1824. Sometimes with a push from Congress when nobody won it.

Fun fact: no POTUS has ever been elected with a popular vote deficit of 1.7% (the current Rump gap) without Congress having to intervene.

Gore's was 0.51%, just over the population of Wyoming (at the time).
Clinton's 1.7 (so far) exceeds the population of Wyoming, Alaska, both Dakotas, New Mexico, West Virginia, Montana, Nebraska and half a dozen other states.

And yet he easily won the electoral college. California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and other deep blue States have well oiled machines. Millions of Republicans in those States don't show up. Again, no one ran for the popular vote. If you want to argue that should be the rule, fine, do that. But get over the but hurt that we should change the rules for an election when it's over.

NO ONE RAN FOR THE POPULAR VOTE

Easily? He won by 38 electoral votes. And lost by 7 million popular votes.

This will be far, far harder for him than the Bush the Younger.

Trump won by 75 electoral votes.

Also, he only lost by 2 million popular votes, but what is your point with that? No one ran to win the popular vote

He won by 38 votes. He lost the popular vote by seven million. The point is that America is going to keep giving him hell. It's only going to increase every single day.

Do some research, moron. Your stats are wrong

You may be right. He won, allegedly, 306 electoral votes, so he won by 36 and not 38 EVs.

 

[Crixus]

Kaz, no one is changing the rules. But the losers have the constitutional right to demand recounts and there is no federal law against trying to persuade the electors to vote differently than the popular vote in their states.

Actually it's State law. 29 States do require electors to vote the way the State voted. 21 don't. If it were reversed and Republicans were trying to overturn an election won by Democrats, you'd be hysterically screaming bloody murder

And where did recounts come in? We're discussing electors

Would the recounts even make a difference? Trump diddnt just win by 500 votes, we are talking 70,000 or more in some places.

No, the recounts won't matter. Too many States would have to be overturned, it's not going to happen

Correct.

If anything, overturning these votes would pretty much mean the end of the democratic party.

I don't like Trump, but screwing with the process would piss me off.

Any elector in my state who changed his vote would not bother to return.

One: there would be no house for him to live in (although if he had a basement it might still be standing).
Two: It simply would not be safe.

They're Trumps electors, it's not going to happen. Democrats tried the same thing in 2000 and didn't get a single flip

Put yourself in their shoes. Would you REALLY want to be one of those guys?

 

[Pogo]

With Michigan there will be too many to flip. if the republican electors flip for clinton ANYWHERE, there will be a million people on their doorstep lined up to kick their ass.

There's nothing in the Constitution about "kicking their ass". Face it, the EC vote is up to them; the voters have no control over that.

Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.

Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.

We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Ah, election by thuggery and coercion huh? And what state is this again?

My state voted blue....just so you know.

But to your point...no...that would be the left.

They are the ones hammering electors in red states.

 

[Crixus]

There's nothing in the Constitution about "kicking their ass". Face it, the EC vote is up to them; the voters have no control over that.

Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.

Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.

We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

And what exactly were the margins in the three contested states?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There's nothing in the Constitution about "kicking their ass". Face it, the EC vote is up to them; the voters have no control over that.

Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.

Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.

We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

And this matters why ?

 

[Pogo]

Ah, election by thuggery and coercion huh? And what state is this again?

My state voted blue....just so you know.

But to your point...no...that would be the left.

They are the ones hammering electors in red states.

Yeah I saw that link --- Whirled Nuts Daily. The Birfer site.

 

[kaz]

Actually it's State law. 29 States do require electors to vote the way the State voted. 21 don't. If it were reversed and Republicans were trying to overturn an election won by Democrats, you'd be hysterically screaming bloody murder

And where did recounts come in? We're discussing electors

Would the recounts even make a difference? Trump diddnt just win by 500 votes, we are talking 70,000 or more in some places.

No, the recounts won't matter. Too many States would have to be overturned, it's not going to happen

Correct.

If anything, overturning these votes would pretty much mean the end of the democratic party.

I don't like Trump, but screwing with the process would piss me off.

Any elector in my state who changed his vote would not bother to return.

One: there would be no house for him to live in (although if he had a basement it might still be standing).
Two: It simply would not be safe.

They're Trumps electors, it's not going to happen. Democrats tried the same thing in 2000 and didn't get a single flip

Put yourself in their shoes. Would you REALLY want to be one of those guys?

I don't belong to a political Party and don't want to, so I'm not really the one to ask. I hate Parties. The founders toyed with the idea of banning Parties for office holders. Not doing that was the biggest mistake they made. The Parties force conformity, it's why we have two lock step voting blocks who rarely cross over. Parties are what turned our country into a political oligopoly

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And here we go again....another discussion of why we have the EC.

Why does the left not just go for an ammendment that dissolves the states and makes this a single state.

 

[Pogo]

Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.

Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.

We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

And this matters why ?

Once AGAIN --- any given post "matters" because it directly addresses the post it's quoting, that's why.

You may have to take Kaz off Ignore in order to see it. That's what I had to do.

 

[kaz]

There's nothing in the Constitution about "kicking their ass". Face it, the EC vote is up to them; the voters have no control over that.

Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.

Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.

We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

Chastising me by saying what I said to you, clever. Yes, the PV is irrelevant. Those weren't the rules and no one ran to win the PV. So why do you keep talking about it then if it's irrelevant and you agree with that?

 

[Pogo]

And here we go again....another discussion of why we have the EC.

Why does the left not just go for an ammendment that dissolves the states and makes this a single state.

It's hardly necessary to toss the baby out with the bathwater, is it.

What's also unnecessary is this artificial division the EC creates, chopping the country up into bullshit artificial "red" and "blue" zones where only a handful of voters get a meaningful vote, and even then not really, because we don't vote --- the EC does.

There, back on topic.

 

[Pogo]

Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.

Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.

We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

Chastising me by saying what I said to you, clever. Yes, the PV is irrelevant. Those weren't the rules and no one ran to win the PV. So why do you keep talking about it then if it's irrelevant and you agree with that?

I didn't even bring it up, Jethro. I corrected the wag who DID bring it up. You remember? The clown(s) who tried to tell us 62.4 > 64.6?

Why do you think they keep doing that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.

Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.

We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

And what exactly were the margins in the three contested states?

Immaterial. Move along.

 

[kaz]

Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.

We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

And this matters why ?

Once AGAIN --- any given post "matters" because it directly addresses the post it's quoting, that's why.

You may have to take Kaz off Ignore in order to see it. That's what I had to do.

Yes, you demand answers to your questions while you consider questions to you optional. I'm still not agreeing to that system. You want me to answer your questions, you answer mine

 

[JakeStarkey]

Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.

Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.

We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

Chastising me by saying what I said to you, clever. Yes, the PV is irrelevant. Those weren't the rules and no one ran to win the PV. So why do you keep talking about it then if it's irrelevant and you agree with that?

You are right, you are not clever. Pogo has the best of it, and you are looking up from the dust.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

And this matters why ?

Once AGAIN --- any given post "matters" because it directly addresses the post it's quoting, that's why.

You may have to take Kaz off Ignore in order to see it. That's what I had to do.

Yes, you demand answers to your questions while you consider questions to you optional. I'm still not agreeing to that system. You want me to answer your questions, you answer mine

Kaz, you are accusing Pogo of what you do. You are engaged in an Alinsky-Limbaugh mirroring assault. You fail.

 

[EverCurious]

Pogo BS the EC gives small states like Alaska at least a snowballs chance in who's elected. Without EC California, New York, Florida, and Texas decide the fate of the entire country, it's crap.

You want to be "fair" then unlock "winner take all" and portion out each states votes.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Be careful what you wish for Dimocrats, this kind of anarchy could backfire in your face.

What "anarchy" is that then?

Wanna borrow my copy of the Constitution?

Yeah yeah, spin it all you want, but the fact of the matter is this is the way we have always ran our presidential ele tions. Everyone knows the rules and the goal, and we now expect these electors to carry out their duty the way ir's always been done.
Going forward, you're free to work toward a new system, but you need to live with the results of the current election.

 

[kaz]

Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.

We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.

And that matters why ?

We've never elected a president on popular vote.

Yes, Trump didn't run for the popular vote. It's a childish canard that Hillary would have won if those had been the rules. The left just won't give up their butt hurt. They can't deal with that they lost, so they change the rules after the game. If someone else did that to them, they would suddenly get how stupid it is

Where is anyone "changing the rules after the game"? Hm? Is this another one of your pulled-it-out-of-your-lower-intestine fantasies, like that accusation yesterday you couldn't prove and then ran away?

"Who would have won" in a PV contest is only speculation. That wasn't the game so nobody knows, but clearly more people *did* vote for her. Take away the damping effect of the Electrical College (hee hee) and it's a whole different campaign but judging by Rump's narrow margins in so-called "swing" states and Clinton's margins in so-called "blue" states, it's a fair bet she would have won that one by more than the margin she has now.

Chastising me by saying what I said to you, clever. Yes, the PV is irrelevant. Those weren't the rules and no one ran to win the PV. So why do you keep talking about it then if it's irrelevant and you agree with that?

I didn't even bring it up, Jethro. I corrected the wag who DID bring it up. You remember? The clown(s) who tried to tell us 62.4 > 64.6?

Why do you think they keep doing that?

OK, I see what you think you were doing. Actually, he said Trump won the popular votes in the States that he won. He didn't say Trump won the overall popular vote. He said it doesn't matter who won the overall popular vote. You responded with the overall popular vote. So you did bring it up, but apparently not intentionally, you just didn't read what he said very carefully