Hillary Clintion Leads by 1.7 Million in Popular Vote. More than both JFK's and Carter's Victories

[EverCurious]

The "majority" of the country didn't even vote...

 

[Meathead]

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If we can't agree on a national popular vote, what seems reasonable to me would be requiring states to distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state as Mane and Nebraska do. In that way, the electoral college is maintained, giving smaller states an edge in the electoral college but it makes voting within each state more democratic always giving the minority a chance to win electoral votes. More importantly, it will destroy the red state blue state mentality which has been so destructive to national unity. Each party would have to win the votes from each state. No state would be "in bag".

That's been suggested. The issue with it is that Maine and Nebraska don't apportion their EVs according to the state's popular vote; they apportion them by Congressional district. And those are already, in many states including this one, artificial monstrosities far more divisively honed due to gerrymandering. So we'd get in many cases even more extremity of division, with intentionally-designed "deep red" districts and "deep blue" ones. That seems an enormous can of worms that would be easilly manipulated by whichever party has enough power in a given state to design those districts. They already manipulate them for advantage; this would invite them to make it even worse.

But what if the number electors awarded to a candidate was in direct proportion to the state's popular vote? A 60%/40% split in the state popular vote would result in a 60%/40% split in the states electoral votes. I think that would pretty well destroy the concept of solid red and solid blue states. All states would be in play, not just a handful of battleground states.

It could be done by congressional district but then you'd have to deal with the two senate seats. That wouldn't work well with highly concentrated Dem populations, same as the House.

 

[paperview]

The "majority" of the country didn't even vote...

Over 58% of the voting age population voted, so yes, a majority did vote.

 

[EverCurious]

Ah good catch. Clarification there I meant for Hillary or Trump heh

 

[paperview]

Ah good catch. Clarification there I meant for Hillary or Trump heh

My statement still holds. You are wrong.

 

[EverCurious]

Trump has what 61m, Clinton 63m, out of a total of 235m That leaves how many? The majority.

 

[paperview]

Trump has what 61m, Clinton 63m, out of a total of 235m That leaves how many? The majority.

135,557,845 estimated ballots cast. [2016 November General Election]

231 million eligible voters.

Do the math.

 

[EverCurious]

... Okay.

231-63-61 = 107

AKA the majority of people did not vote for Trump or Clinton.

 

[paperview]

... Okay.

231-63-61 = 107

AKA the majority of people did not vote for Trump or Clinton.

Math is hard for you, eh? Even going by your math: 124 > 107

Still:

64,637,503 Clinton

62,409,389 Trump

Millions left to count.

 

[Avatar4321]

There are still over 3 million votes left to count in California. Therefore, Clinton's victory will be over 2 million votes, possibly over 3 million votes.

This is a sad time for democracy in the United States. We have to deal with the corrupt racist and misogynist bully Trump for at least 4 years because of some nonsense known as the electoral college, which no other democracy in the world is stupid enough to have.

We aren't a democracy. We were never meant to be. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[EverCurious]

paperview you are seriously wearing my patience with your stupid.

124 > 63 (clinton votes)
124 > 61 (trump votes)

Aka the /majority/ didn't vote for Trump or Clinton.

 

[paperview]

paperview you are seriously wearing my patience with your stupid.

124 > 63 (clinton votes)
124 > 61 (trump votes)

Aka the /majority/ didn't vote for Trump or Clinton.

Look, numbnutz: Is 127 million (actual vote counts to date) greater than 107 or not?

 

[EverCurious]

Estimated voters in America 235m according to google. Trying to change the numbers to how many actually voted does not change the reality of how many eligible voters are in the country.

 

[paperview]

Estimated voters in America 235m according to google. Trying to change the numbers to how many actually voted does not change the reality of how many eligible voters are in the country.

Oh, lookatchew, and your little walkback....No, your number is wrong again:
Total number of Americans eligible to vote: 218,959,000
Total number of Americans registered to vote 146,311,000

Still, that doesn't matter: You don't vote, you don't count.

Voting Turnout Statistics - Statistic Brain

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Estimated voters in America 235m according to google. Trying to change the numbers to how many actually voted does not change the reality of how many eligible voters are in the country.

Oh, lookatchew, and your little walkback....No, your number is wrong again:
Total number of Americans eligible to vote: 218,959,000
Total number of Americans registered to vote 146,311,000

Still, that doesn't matter: You don't vote, you don't count.

Voting Turnout Statistics - Statistic Brain

However No single person got a majority of those that voted. Unless you think 48 percent is greater then 50......

 

[EverCurious]

No the only person walking back here is you sonny.

The eligible voting population in 2012 was 241M according to Pew. My [now forgotten] source (election project) said 235M this year, /you/ stated it was 231M eligible voters (see your own post #387) so I went with that number because I cannot remember my source for the 235m number for 2016. Nice attempt, but fail.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Say it....

P R E S I D E N T T R U M P

again....

P R E S I D E N T T R U M P

and again....

P R E S I D E N T T R U M P

 

[Spoonman]

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

what you have to do is appeal to the majority of the states. she failed to do that. bottom line courting the illegal vote is not a wise strategy.

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

Wrong in Any State that allowed you to enroll to vote by getting a drivers license and no further check was made illegals voted you can count on it. And the estimate is that 3 million at least voted. Let me know when she has 3 million more than Trump and then she still loses. Further until California came in Trump was up a million.

Excellent. The "everybody knows" fallacy's first cousin, the "you can count on it" fallacy. Just because you say so. And you can believe it, because----- wait for it ---------------- 'it's estimated".

the best thing about illegals is they drive labor costs down. what a company used to have to pay union wages and benefits for can now be obtained for minimum wage

 

[Spoonman]

what you have to do is appeal to the majority of the states. she failed to do that. bottom line courting the illegal vote is not a wise strategy.

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

well yea there is. and it is a key reason Hillary lost.

"There is" because you just posted it on the internets, and then read your own post, therefore it's true?

republicans have the white house, control the senate and thanks to harry reid can appoint the cabinet unopposed, control the house. control the majority of governors and state houses. get to shape the supreme court for generations. get to change back the future of America into something positive. have said **** you to political correctness and have instituted a rebellion in the opposite direction. the republicans are galvanized and the democrats are in a shambles. wikileaks has exposed them for the sham they are and America realizes they are not the party of the people. latinos will realize trump and the republicans are not trying to deport every Mexican as the democrats claim and it will cost the democrats the majority of the latino vote in the future. democrats totally miscalculated and the cost will drag them down for years.

Whatever.
Doesn't have anything to do with the previous point, does it?

it has everything to do with it. and democrats will keep losing elections until they realize it too

 

[Freewill]

There are still over 3 million votes left to count in California. Therefore, Clinton's victory will be over 2 million votes, possibly over 3 million votes.

This is a sad time for democracy in the United States. We have to deal with the corrupt racist and misogynist bully Trump for at least 4 years because of some nonsense known as the electoral college, which no other democracy in the world is stupid enough to have.

Funny, Trumps 306 electoral college votes is more then all three of them.