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

[Divine Wind]

Every picture tells a story:


Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser

The phrase "outside California" continues to be invalid, and there is no way to make it valid. Because "outside California" -- "outside the Deep South" --- "outside the Midwest" etc etc etc --- are all "outside the definition of the United States". It's no different from "if we hadn't given up those six home runs in the fifth inning we win this game" --- whelp ... you DID give 'em up, and that's why you LOST. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the game you like and discard the ones you don't. PERIOD.

Pop quiz --- in the phrase "United States of America" ---- what's the first word?

This is yet another attempt to divide and conquer. "Without this". "Without that". ******* bullshit.

Let California ---- and all states ---- send their vote proportionally to the will of the People. That gives, in this case at present count, 34 California EVs for Clinton and 19 for Rump. Stop dividing people up already.

Did you catch the fact that your "solution" made the situation ever MORE "undemocratic" than the E-college is now?

A state that goes overwhelmingly for a blue candidate has to SHARE E-votes with the underachievers? That's gonna be a hard sell to take E-Votes from the 4 or 5 states that are huge and blue. I predict the left will mock and scorn you until the end of time for that "idea"...

No, he doesn't seem to understand that fact.

Furthermore, the LWers whining for a "pure democracy" fail to realize the demographics of the USA would not be in the direction they want so much: The US is 77% white and 70%+ Christian. How do they think those demographics will play out vs. the LGBT bathrooms in a pure democratic vote?

Population estimates, July 1, 2015, (V2015)

Religious Landscape Study

 

[Pogo]

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.

It has been frustrating and downright embarrassing trying to explain to my non American friends how Trump won but Hilary had more votes.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. The Electoral College was put into place because of the fear of the majority. The system has been in place for over 200 years and if we want to change it, then we need to change it. That said we are a nation of laws. We honor the system that is in place.

Ah, therein lies the rub. It is "too hard" to change the process, so we're instructed that we need to ignore it and just do whatever it takes to put a democrat in the White House.

"Fear of the majority" he sez

Doesn't that sound like setting up an élite class to run the jernt.

 

[Pogo]

Every picture tells a story:


Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser

The phrase "outside California" continues to be invalid, and there is no way to make it valid. Because "outside California" -- "outside the Deep South" --- "outside the Midwest" etc etc etc --- are all "outside the definition of the United States". It's no different from "if we hadn't given up those six home runs in the fifth inning we win this game" --- whelp ... you DID give 'em up, and that's why you LOST. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the game you like and discard the ones you don't. PERIOD.

Pop quiz --- in the phrase "United States of America" ---- what's the first word?

This is yet another attempt to divide and conquer. "Without this". "Without that". ******* bullshit.

Let California ---- and all states ---- send their vote proportionally to the will of the People. That gives, in this case at present count, .34 California EVs for Clinton and 19 for Rump. Stop dividing people up already.

Here's a little story about that: No.

The Progs are the ones trying to destroy the Electoral College and the integrity of our elections by crying up the False Issue of the Popular Vote. Therefore, analyzing the Poplular Vote is a perfectly valid response. If California had not allowed millions of illegal aliens to vote, then we can see what the result would have been.

This is disappointing from you.

No Sprinkles, some magic fairy didn't just waft down and deposit three million "illegal votes" in California (but magically, nowhere else). That's your self-delusion talking. Some asshat wrote it on the internets -- BFD. That doesn't make it like a real thing.

B'loney. CA passed Motor Voter which enabled illegals to get valid drivers' licenses. There is no voter ID requirement at polling stations. CA's Obamacare service provides coverage for illegals. CA has de facto created a new standard of citizen by ignoring immigration status...for a big reason: The Very Very Rich Liberal Elites like the cheap labor.

You're actually going on the World Wide Web to suggest the fallacy of "here's way it can happen, therefore it happened"?

 

[kaz]

Every picture tells a story:


Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser

The phrase "outside California" continues to be invalid, and there is no way to make it valid. Because "outside California" -- "outside the Deep South" --- "outside the Midwest" etc etc etc --- are all "outside the definition of the United States". It's no different from "if we hadn't given up those six home runs in the fifth inning we win this game" --- whelp ... you DID give 'em up, and that's why you LOST. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the game you like and discard the ones you don't. PERIOD.

Pop quiz --- in the phrase "United States of America" ---- what's the first word?

This is yet another attempt to divide and conquer. "Without this". "Without that". ******* bullshit.

Let California ---- and all states ---- send their vote proportionally to the will of the People. That gives, in this case at present count, 34 California EVs for Clinton and 19 for Rump. Stop dividing people up already.

Did you catch the fact that your "solution" made the situation ever MORE "undemocratic" than the E-college is now?

A state that goes overwhelmingly for a blue candidate has to SHARE E-votes with the underachievers? That's gonna be a hard sell to take E-Votes from the 4 or 5 states that are huge and blue. I predict the left will mock and scorn you until the end of time for that "idea"...

No, he doesn't seem to understand that fact.

Furthermore, the LWers whining for a "pure democracy" fail to realize the demographics of the USA would not be in the direction they want so much: The US is 77% white and 70%+ Christian. How do they think those demographics will play out vs. the LGBT bathrooms in a pure democratic vote?

Population estimates, July 1, 2015, (V2015)

Religious Landscape Study

In North Carolina, the only two State wide Democrat wins were the two who ran on HB2. The media just lies and says HB2 is the potty law. The Democrat Charlotte City counsel passed the law dictating bathroom use to business owners. HB2 just says they can't, bathroom use is up to the owner of the bathroom. The media repeatedly lies about that and it works. Ignorance is the Democrat's best friend

 

[boedicca]

Trump Hit With Thanksgiving Surprise As Green Party Files For Recount In WI, MI, and PA

With calls from election security experts growing, the Green Party has announced that they will be filing for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to help Hillary Clinton win an election that they believe was hacked.…

I notice that none of the agitators are urging that we audit California's vote counts to weed out illegal alien votes. If you want to make sure we got an accurate count, you have to include that.

They are also not agitating to audit the votes where hiLIARy won by a small margin..i.e. Minnesota, which has a history of voting irregularities, and Nevada, which is controlled by the Reid Machine, and New Hampshire, where hiLIARy leads by less than 3K.

 

[Divine Wind]

The phrase "outside California" continues to be invalid.....Stop dividing people up already.

LOL I love irony.

 

[kaz]

Every picture tells a story:


Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser

The phrase "outside California" continues to be invalid, and there is no way to make it valid. Because "outside California" -- "outside the Deep South" --- "outside the Midwest" etc etc etc --- are all "outside the definition of the United States". It's no different from "if we hadn't given up those six home runs in the fifth inning we win this game" --- whelp ... you DID give 'em up, and that's why you LOST. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the game you like and discard the ones you don't. PERIOD.

Pop quiz --- in the phrase "United States of America" ---- what's the first word?

This is yet another attempt to divide and conquer. "Without this". "Without that". ******* bullshit.

Let California ---- and all states ---- send their vote proportionally to the will of the People. That gives, in this case at present count, .34 California EVs for Clinton and 19 for Rump. Stop dividing people up already.

Here's a little story about that: No.

The Progs are the ones trying to destroy the Electoral College and the integrity of our elections by crying up the False Issue of the Popular Vote. Therefore, analyzing the Poplular Vote is a perfectly valid response. If California had not allowed millions of illegal aliens to vote, then we can see what the result would have been.

This is disappointing from you.

No Sprinkles, some magic fairy didn't just waft down and deposit three million "illegal votes" in California (but magically, nowhere else). That's your self-delusion talking. Some asshat wrote it on the internets -- BFD. That doesn't make it like a real thing.

B'loney. CA passed Motor Voter which enabled illegals to get valid drivers' licenses. There is no voter ID requirement at polling stations. CA's Obamacare service provides coverage for illegals. CA has de facto created a new standard of citizen by ignoring immigration status...for a big reason: The Very Very Rich Liberal Elites like the cheap labor.

You're actually going on the World Wide Web to suggest the fallacy of "here's way it can happen, therefore it happened"?

Countered by your plan to prohibit investigating corruption by saying there's been no proof of corruption so we can't investigate it ...

 

[kaz]

Trump Hit With Thanksgiving Surprise As Green Party Files For Recount In WI, MI, and PA

With calls from election security experts growing, the Green Party has announced that they will be filing for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to help Hillary Clinton win an election that they believe was hacked.…

I notice that none of the agitators are urging that we audit California's vote counts to weed out illegal alien votes. If you want to make sure we got an accurate count, you have to include that.

They are also not agitating to audit the votes where hiLIARy won by a small margin..i.e. Minnesota, which has a history of voting irregularities, and Nevada, which is controlled by the Reid Machine, and New Hampshire, where hiLIARy leads by less than 3K.

Yes, Minnesota gave Frankin the Senate seat with outright fraud

 

[Pogo]

Tyranny of the minority! Yeah! America! **** Yeah!

You poor little guy. This is not new and if you want it changed, then you need to push for change. Crying because it didn't turn out the way you want it is pretty stupid.

Stop being ridiculous. Even you should be able to understand people's frustration with our process. Hillary's clobbering Trump in the national popular vote by over 2 million and growing, and you expect people to not be frustrated?

Their frustration springs from their lack of understanding of the rules of the game. "But we held the ball longer and racked up more yards. We should have won!!!" The only thing they can do is try to change the rules going forward, not apply changes retroactively.

Where has anyone suggested "applying the rules retroactively", carrot-nose?

 

[hadit]

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.

It has been frustrating and downright embarrassing trying to explain to my non American friends how Trump won but Hilary had more votes.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. The Electoral College was put into place because of the fear of the majority. The system has been in place for over 200 years and if we want to change it, then we need to change it. That said we are a nation of laws. We honor the system that is in place.

Ah, therein lies the rub. It is "too hard" to change the process, so we're instructed that we need to ignore it and just do whatever it takes to put a democrat in the White House.

"Fear of the majority" he sez

Doesn't that sound like setting up an élite class to run the jernt.

Senators are elected by majority vote. Representatives are elected by majority vote. Only the president is not, and never has been. One has to wonder why, if democrats are so dominant, there are not more democrat Senators and Representatives. Never fear, the majority vote is alive and well in the US.

 

[hadit]

Tyranny of the minority! Yeah! America! **** Yeah!

You poor little guy. This is not new and if you want it changed, then you need to push for change. Crying because it didn't turn out the way you want it is pretty stupid.

Stop being ridiculous. Even you should be able to understand people's frustration with our process. Hillary's clobbering Trump in the national popular vote by over 2 million and growing, and you expect people to not be frustrated?

Their frustration springs from their lack of understanding of the rules of the game. "But we held the ball longer and racked up more yards. We should have won!!!" The only thing they can do is try to change the rules going forward, not apply changes retroactively.

Where has anyone suggested "applying the rules retroactively", carrot-nose?

Just ignore the calls from the usual suspects for the electors to give Hillary the presidency, despite her losing and conceding. Oh, and that's "Applying the changes retroactively", not rules. Do try to keep up.

 

[Pogo]

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.

It has been frustrating and downright embarrassing trying to explain to my non American friends how Trump won but Hilary had more votes.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. The Electoral College was put into place because of the fear of the majority. The system has been in place for over 200 years and if we want to change it, then we need to change it. That said we are a nation of laws. We honor the system that is in place.

Ah, therein lies the rub. It is "too hard" to change the process, so we're instructed that we need to ignore it and just do whatever it takes to put a democrat in the White House.

"Fear of the majority" he sez

Doesn't that sound like setting up an élite class to run the jernt.

Senators are elected by majority vote. Representatives are elected by majority vote. Only the president is not, and never has been. One has to wonder why, if democrats are so dominant, there are not more democrat Senators and Representatives. Never fear, the majority vote is alive and well in the US.

And you left out Governors -- the closest parallel to a President, being the Chief Executive of a state. I bring these up whenever some parrot starts murmuring "mob rule", which they can't defend -- since Governors, Senators, Congresscritters, Mayors, City Councils, Sheriffs etc etc etc etc etc are *ALL* elected by so-called "mob rule", yet nobody calls it that when it's not convenient to do so.

 

[hadit]

Trump Hit With Thanksgiving Surprise As Green Party Files For Recount In WI, MI, and PA

With calls from election security experts growing, the Green Party has announced that they will be filing for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to help Hillary Clinton win an election that they believe was hacked.…

I notice that none of the agitators are urging that we audit California's vote counts to weed out illegal alien votes. If you want to make sure we got an accurate count, you have to include that.

They are also not agitating to audit the votes where hiLIARy won by a small margin..i.e. Minnesota, which has a history of voting irregularities, and Nevada, which is controlled by the Reid Machine, and New Hampshire, where hiLIARy leads by less than 3K.

This strongly reminds me of Fla, 2000, where Algore was adamant about recounts, as long as they were in districts he thought would benefit him. The rest of the state could go pound sand.

 

[boedicca]

Every picture tells a story:


Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser

The phrase "outside California" continues to be invalid, and there is no way to make it valid. Because "outside California" -- "outside the Deep South" --- "outside the Midwest" etc etc etc --- are all "outside the definition of the United States". It's no different from "if we hadn't given up those six home runs in the fifth inning we win this game" --- whelp ... you DID give 'em up, and that's why you LOST. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the game you like and discard the ones you don't. PERIOD.

Pop quiz --- in the phrase "United States of America" ---- what's the first word?

This is yet another attempt to divide and conquer. "Without this". "Without that". ******* bullshit.

Let California ---- and all states ---- send their vote proportionally to the will of the People. That gives, in this case at present count, .34 California EVs for Clinton and 19 for Rump. Stop dividing people up already.

Here's a little story about that: No.

The Progs are the ones trying to destroy the Electoral College and the integrity of our elections by crying up the False Issue of the Popular Vote. Therefore, analyzing the Poplular Vote is a perfectly valid response. If California had not allowed millions of illegal aliens to vote, then we can see what the result would have been.

This is disappointing from you.

No Sprinkles, some magic fairy didn't just waft down and deposit three million "illegal votes" in California (but magically, nowhere else). That's your self-delusion talking. Some asshat wrote it on the internets -- BFD. That doesn't make it like a real thing.

B'loney. CA passed Motor Voter which enabled illegals to get valid drivers' licenses. There is no voter ID requirement at polling stations. CA's Obamacare service provides coverage for illegals. CA has de facto created a new standard of citizen by ignoring immigration status...for a big reason: The Very Very Rich Liberal Elites like the cheap labor.

You're actually going on the World Wide Web to suggest the fallacy of "here's way it can happen, therefore it happened"?

Even Your Book of Record, the New York Times groks what's going on in CA. The one link they miss is that allowing non-citizens to monitor election polls also enables illegals to vote.


California is challenging the historic status of American citizenship with measures to permit noncitizens to sit on juries and monitor polls for elections in which they cannot vote and to open the practice of law even to those here illegally. It is the leading edge of a national trend that includes granting drivers’ licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants in some states and that suggests legal residency could evolve into an appealing option should immigration legislation fail to produce a path to citizenship.

With 3.5 million noncitizens who are legal permanent residents in California, some view the changes as an acknowledgment of who is living here and the need to require some public service of them. But the new laws raise profound questions about which rights and responsibilities rightly belong to citizens over residents.

“What is more basic to our society than being able to judge your fellow citizens?” asked Jessica A. Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, referring to jury service. “We’re absolutely going to the bedrock of things here and stretching what we used to think of as limits.”

One new state law allows legal permanent residents to monitor polls during elections, help translate instructions and offer other assistance to voting citizens. And immigrants who were brought into the country illegally by their parents will be able to practice law here, something no other states allow....

California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

 

[flacaltenn]

Every picture tells a story:


Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser

The phrase "outside California" continues to be invalid, and there is no way to make it valid. Because "outside California" -- "outside the Deep South" --- "outside the Midwest" etc etc etc --- are all "outside the definition of the United States". It's no different from "if we hadn't given up those six home runs in the fifth inning we win this game" --- whelp ... you DID give 'em up, and that's why you LOST. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the game you like and discard the ones you don't. PERIOD.

Pop quiz --- in the phrase "United States of America" ---- what's the first word?

This is yet another attempt to divide and conquer. "Without this". "Without that". ******* bullshit.

Let California ---- and all states ---- send their vote proportionally to the will of the People. That gives, in this case at present count, 34 California EVs for Clinton and 19 for Rump. Stop dividing people up already.

Did you catch the fact that your "solution" made the situation ever MORE "undemocratic" than the E-college is now?

A state that goes overwhelmingly for a blue candidate has to SHARE E-votes with the underachievers? That's gonna be a hard sell to take E-Votes from the 4 or 5 states that are huge and blue. I predict the left will mock and scorn you until the end of time for that "idea"...

Not sure I follow you here.
Of course a "blue" state would have to "share". EVERY state would. If you don't do that, you have the same slap-in-the-face we live under now. Something like six million people in California and New York voted for Rump, yet they will get *ZERO* representation from their state electors.

Somebody explain to me why that should be.

My state was a so-called "battleground" (< another bullshit term invented by the EC system) --- meaning it wasn't 'locked' or clear who was going to win it. As it turned out Rump won it narrowly ---- and yet my state is going to send all fifteen of its electors to vote for Rump, as if we were silly enough to vote unanimously. In a state that goes from ocean to Appalachia, urban, suburban and rural, we all voted for the same guy.

Somebody justify that for me. ANYBODY.

Again, I don't give a flying shit whether that benefits a "left" here or a "right" there. It's a fair and equitable system I'm after.

Anyway this is all staying within the context of having an Electrical College --- if you work within the system but apportion proportionally --- that's how it works out, i.e. 62% of 55 = 34. Simple math. And that is, given the recent results that we have, which are not necessarily the results we get if we knowingly run the election this way.

I don't follow how that makes it "more undemocratic" but following the suggestion some have made to have the electors vote in proportion -- that's the simple result. Of course my next question at that point immediately is ---- if you're going to send electors to vote the same way the people did............... then why do you even need them?

Do the math. It will take you a couple hours, but it's time better spent PONDERING -- than arguing with me.

Go get the 50 state results --- assign them COMPLETELY proportionately and see what the outcome is. And if you're talking about fairness -- you need to include E-votes for 3rd parties and Independents or it's NOT truly proportional. So that McMillan just won a bunch of e-votes in Utah under your system and Johnson probably gets a couple from N.Mex and other states.

 

[Divine Wind]

Senators are elected by majority vote. Representatives are elected by majority vote. Only the president is not, and never has been. One has to wonder why, if democrats are so dominant, there are not more democrat Senators and Representatives. Never fear, the majority vote is alive and well in the US.

If we lived in a pure democracy, there'd be no need for a Congress. All citizens could simply access their voting consoles from home and vote on each bill individually.

Think it can't happen? In a pure democracy, the majority of citizens could make it happen.

 

[Pogo]

Tyranny of the minority! Yeah! America! **** Yeah!

You poor little guy. This is not new and if you want it changed, then you need to push for change. Crying because it didn't turn out the way you want it is pretty stupid.

Stop being ridiculous. Even you should be able to understand people's frustration with our process. Hillary's clobbering Trump in the national popular vote by over 2 million and growing, and you expect people to not be frustrated?

Their frustration springs from their lack of understanding of the rules of the game. "But we held the ball longer and racked up more yards. We should have won!!!" The only thing they can do is try to change the rules going forward, not apply changes retroactively.

Where has anyone suggested "applying the rules retroactively", carrot-nose?

Just ignore the calls from the usual suspects for the electors to give Hillary the presidency, despite her losing and conceding. Oh, and that's "Applying the changes retroactively", not rules. Do try to keep up.

Keep up with this, Hunior ---- NOWHERE does the Constitution require that electors vote "winner take all". The entire process is left up to the states; all they're prescribed to do is send electors. However those electors are selected, and however they vote, is up to the several states.

Go ahead --- just try to prove me wrong

Strawman.

 

[hadit]

It has been frustrating and downright embarrassing trying to explain to my non American friends how Trump won but Hilary had more votes.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. The Electoral College was put into place because of the fear of the majority. The system has been in place for over 200 years and if we want to change it, then we need to change it. That said we are a nation of laws. We honor the system that is in place.

Ah, therein lies the rub. It is "too hard" to change the process, so we're instructed that we need to ignore it and just do whatever it takes to put a democrat in the White House.

"Fear of the majority" he sez

Doesn't that sound like setting up an élite class to run the jernt.

Senators are elected by majority vote. Representatives are elected by majority vote. Only the president is not, and never has been. One has to wonder why, if democrats are so dominant, there are not more democrat Senators and Representatives. Never fear, the majority vote is alive and well in the US.

And you left out Governors -- the closest parallel to a President, being the Chief Executive of a state. I bring these up whenever some parrot starts murmuring "mob rule", which they can't defend -- since Governors, Senators, Congresscritters, Mayors, City Councils, Sheriffs etc etc etc etc etc are *ALL* elected by so-called "mob rule", yet nobody calls it that when it's not convenient to do so.

That's because they're working with the rules as they actually exist, not how they want the rules to be. Why NOT elect governors via county vote?

 

[Pogo]

Every picture tells a story:


Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser

The phrase "outside California" continues to be invalid, and there is no way to make it valid. Because "outside California" -- "outside the Deep South" --- "outside the Midwest" etc etc etc --- are all "outside the definition of the United States". It's no different from "if we hadn't given up those six home runs in the fifth inning we win this game" --- whelp ... you DID give 'em up, and that's why you LOST. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the game you like and discard the ones you don't. PERIOD.

Pop quiz --- in the phrase "United States of America" ---- what's the first word?

This is yet another attempt to divide and conquer. "Without this". "Without that". ******* bullshit.

Let California ---- and all states ---- send their vote proportionally to the will of the People. That gives, in this case at present count, 34 California EVs for Clinton and 19 for Rump. Stop dividing people up already.

Did you catch the fact that your "solution" made the situation ever MORE "undemocratic" than the E-college is now?

A state that goes overwhelmingly for a blue candidate has to SHARE E-votes with the underachievers? That's gonna be a hard sell to take E-Votes from the 4 or 5 states that are huge and blue. I predict the left will mock and scorn you until the end of time for that "idea"...

Not sure I follow you here.
Of course a "blue" state would have to "share". EVERY state would. If you don't do that, you have the same slap-in-the-face we live under now. Something like six million people in California and New York voted for Rump, yet they will get *ZERO* representation from their state electors.

Somebody explain to me why that should be.

My state was a so-called "battleground" (< another bullshit term invented by the EC system) --- meaning it wasn't 'locked' or clear who was going to win it. As it turned out Rump won it narrowly ---- and yet my state is going to send all fifteen of its electors to vote for Rump, as if we were silly enough to vote unanimously. In a state that goes from ocean to Appalachia, urban, suburban and rural, we all voted for the same guy.

Somebody justify that for me. ANYBODY.

Again, I don't give a flying shit whether that benefits a "left" here or a "right" there. It's a fair and equitable system I'm after.

Anyway this is all staying within the context of having an Electrical College --- if you work within the system but apportion proportionally --- that's how it works out, i.e. 62% of 55 = 34. Simple math. And that is, given the recent results that we have, which are not necessarily the results we get if we knowingly run the election this way.

I don't follow how that makes it "more undemocratic" but following the suggestion some have made to have the electors vote in proportion -- that's the simple result. Of course my next question at that point immediately is ---- if you're going to send electors to vote the same way the people did............... then why do you even need them?

Do the math. It will take you a couple hours, but it's time better spent PONDERING -- than arguing with me.

Go get the 50 state results --- assign them COMPLETELY proportionately and see what the outcome is. And if you're talking about fairness -- you need to include E-votes for 3rd parties and Independents or it's NOT truly proportional. So that McMillan just won a bunch of e-votes in Utah under your system and Johnson probably gets a couple from N.Mex and other states.

Yep, they sure do, and that's another strike against the perpetuation of Duopoly that the EC gives us. Again, not sure how that's "more undemocratic".

Matter o' fact, somebody worked out how a proportional-to-the-PV Electoral vote would have worked out in 2012 (the 2016 numbers not being final yet) and it turned out that Romney wins. Whatever. Again my concern is the process, not the outcome. Always has been.

My examples of California and Carolina just happened to be states where 3P votes were not significant but this is a worthy argument.

 

[hadit]

You poor little guy. This is not new and if you want it changed, then you need to push for change. Crying because it didn't turn out the way you want it is pretty stupid.

Stop being ridiculous. Even you should be able to understand people's frustration with our process. Hillary's clobbering Trump in the national popular vote by over 2 million and growing, and you expect people to not be frustrated?

Their frustration springs from their lack of understanding of the rules of the game. "But we held the ball longer and racked up more yards. We should have won!!!" The only thing they can do is try to change the rules going forward, not apply changes retroactively.

Where has anyone suggested "applying the rules retroactively", carrot-nose?

Just ignore the calls from the usual suspects for the electors to give Hillary the presidency, despite her losing and conceding. Oh, and that's "Applying the changes retroactively", not rules. Do try to keep up.

Keep up with this, Hunior ---- NOWHERE does the Constitution require that electors vote "winner take all". The entire process is left up to the states; all they're prescribed to do is send electors. However those electors are selected, and however they vote, is up to the several states.

Go ahead --- just try to prove me wrong

Strawman.

Sure, and the electors are selected by the party that won the state. That is a good thing, makes them less likely to succumb to democrat bullies. I would, though, love to see electors in a Hillary state vote for Trump. That would make liberal heads explode. You wouldn't be able to find a box of crayons or Silly Putty anywhere in the country.