Interesting factoid about EC winners who lost the popular vote....

[OKTexas]

If you don't like the law, then change the law, pretty damn simple

Working on it

National Popular Vote

Funny how commies come up with unconstitutional schemes to try to nullify the Constitution and gain permanent power.

.

It's not unconstitutional (the States can allocate their EC's in whatever manner they want to) it's just very unlikely to ever be implemented.

Only based on the votes in their State, no State legislature has the authority to nullify votes within their State based on votes in another State or groups of States. Damn, talk about vote nullification, this shit is worse than non-citizens voting.

.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[QUOTE="Ray From Cleveland, post: 21479301, member: 55493"]It helps to have more equality across the country.

The above from a right wing idiot who has a hard time coping with voting rights and wealth sharing??[/QUOTE]

He's talking about ACTUAL equality, not that pusillanimous leftist bullshit version.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Go lay it out for us, you all started crying in 2000

You mean, the first election in any of our lifetimes where the candidate lost the popular vote, yet won the election? Gee , HOW WEIRD.

And your mind reading of my thoughts 18 years ago aside, I think the 2016 election was wapecially problematic, in that the EC not only failed in its intent, it actually caused the very thing it was designed to prevent.

Only in your mind, only in your mind. Take all the time you want in trying to change the process, you can take 100 years, I really don't care. I find all your crying just plain funny, you love being the poor victim. LOL!

Yet your posts in this topic are clearly more whiny and juvenile than mine.
I'm not sure I do want to change the process. But that doesn't mean I can't point out when it has failed. And it failed bigly in 2016.

how did it fail in 2016???

By causing the precise result it was, in no small part,designed to prevent: the election of a person like Donald Trump.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[QUOTE="Ray From Cleveland, post: 21479301, member: 55493"]It helps to have more equality across the country.

The above from a right wing idiot who has a hard time coping with voting rights and wealth sharing??

WTF is wealth sharing? I mean completely off topic of course, but what?[/QUOTE]

That's where you work your ass off for money that nat and his comrades then take and give to lazy people whose votes they want to buy.

 

[g5000]

I wish these people who whine about Citizens United would actually read the decision.

 

[Dana7360]

There have been only FOUR presidents who LOST the popular vote but managed to WIN based on the Electoral College decision.......Bear in mind that we are the ONLY representative republic/democracy who utilize the decision of the EC.

Want to guess which party the FOUR electoral college presidents belonged in?

Benjamin Harrison
Rutherford Hayes
George W. Bush
The Donald......

Funny how you seem to forget JFK won the EC and not the popular vote either. wikipedia propagandists have desperately tried to disappear that fact, but I was actually alive and voted for the man so I remember the election results, unlike you youngsters.

"By the way, the fact that Kennedy failed to win the national popular vote was initially noted by major national publications such as the New York Times. As the years passed, and his legend grew, the complicated truth about the 1960 vote was forgotten, to be replaced by the story that Kennedy won by a little more than 100,000 votes.

After JFK was assassinated, his widow Jackie led an effort to elevate him to the pantheon of great presidents. His time in office became associated with “Camelot,” a then-current Broadway musical that depicted a Golden Age, the time of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Myths were shaped to support this concept—how he saved the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis, how he fought hard for civil rights, how he was the most faithful of family men, how, if he had lived, he would have prevented the Vietnam disaster.

A small part of that myth was that he won the popular vote in 1960. It was a pretty insignificant little fib that became important only in light of the attempts to deprive George W. Bush of legitimacy in 2000 and to abolish the Electoral College altogether."

JFK’s popular vote victory: the myth

I tried to read your post but couldn't get past the lie in the first sentence.

JFK most certainly won both the popular vote and the EC vote in 1960. The popular vote was close but the EC wasn't.

JFK received 34,227,096 popular votes. He received 303 EC votes.
nixon received 34,107,646 popular votes. He received 219 EC votes.

You might want to try a real encyclopedia like the very old and trusted Encyclopedia Brittanica. They actually have honest facts.

United States presidential election of 1960 | United States government

 

[Meathead]

Nixon, first go. And every incumbent who lost second term Now take a shower.

Wrong. Not even close.

I've never met a pseudocon who knows American history.

They were presidents who lost the EC and popular vote. You're not very bright, are you?

Nixon won both the EC and the popular vote in both elections, retard.

There is one President who lost both the EC and the popular vote at the same time. You're not even close, retard.

Nixon ran for president three times. First time he lost the popular vote and EC. You know even less about politics than hygene.

He didn't win in 1960, did he, dumbass.

Only one President scored less votes and less EC and still won.

Your question was stupidly put. Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush 1 were all presidents who lost the EC and popular vote in my lifetime.

 

[progressive hunter]

Go lay it out for us, you all started crying in 2000

You mean, the first election in any of our lifetimes where the candidate lost the popular vote, yet won the election? Gee , HOW WEIRD.

And your mind reading of my thoughts 18 years ago aside, I think the 2016 election was wapecially problematic, in that the EC not only failed in its intent, it actually caused the very thing it was designed to prevent.

Only in your mind, only in your mind. Take all the time you want in trying to change the process, you can take 100 years, I really don't care. I find all your crying just plain funny, you love being the poor victim. LOL!

Yet your posts in this topic are clearly more whiny and juvenile than mine.
I'm not sure I do want to change the process. But that doesn't mean I can't point out when it has failed. And it failed bigly in 2016.

how did it fail in 2016???

By causing the precise result it was, in no small part,designed to prevent: the election of a person like Donald Trump.

thats just a personal view,,,from my view its the opposite,,,well not really cause I didnt want either one

so in practice it did exactly what it was meant to do, elect a POTUS by EC and not by the popular vote

 

[Cecilie1200]

They will never be able to move on

Speaking of acceptance or "moving one"....
Remember when McConnell the turtle stated that his MAIN priority was to make Obama....you know the half black guy.....a ONE-TERMER???............LOL

Yes, that would be a perfect example. He accepted that Obama won, and moved on to defeating him in the next election.

Notie that he did NOT say that his main priority was to reverse the first election.

 

[g5000]

Wrong. Not even close.

I've never met a pseudocon who knows American history.

They were presidents who lost the EC and popular vote. You're not very bright, are you?

Nixon won both the EC and the popular vote in both elections, retard.

There is one President who lost both the EC and the popular vote at the same time. You're not even close, retard.

Nixon ran for president three times. First time he lost the popular vote and EC. You know even less about politics than hygene.

He didn't win in 1960, did he, dumbass.

Only one President scored less votes and less EC and still won.

Your question was stupidly put. Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush 1 were all presidents who lost the EC and popular vote in my lifetime.

You're right. I should have realized you would need it dumbed down for you.

Sorry about that!

 

[g5000]

They will never be able to move on

Speaking of acceptance or "moving one"....
Remember when McConnell the turtle stated that his MAIN priority was to make Obama....you know the half black guy.....a ONE-TERMER???............LOL

Yes, that would be a perfect example. He accepted that Obama won, and moved on to defeating him in the next election.

Notie that he did NOT say that his main priority was to reverse the first election.

Horseshit. McConnell never accepted Obama won.

Nor did any pseudocon.

So now some karma has come around to ***** slap them and they whine, "No fair!"

 

[OKTexas]

I'm confused. Were you trying to convince us that the EC was a good idea? Because that's what you did, and I for one was already on board with that concept.

The EC was initiated to APPEASE slave states and smaller (by population) ones.....

NO other democracy on the planet neglects the will of the majority in the popular vote.

Simple as that.

We don't here either dickweed, Presidents are elected by Sovereign States, United States is a plural term, not a singular one.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

so in practice it did exactly what it was meant to do

That is one intent. Another was to keep a wholly unqualified cult of personality out of the white house. Instead, it put one there.

 

[g5000]

Karma's a *****.

 

[DandyDonovan]

They were presidents who lost the EC and popular vote. You're not very bright, are you?

Nixon won both the EC and the popular vote in both elections, retard.

There is one President who lost both the EC and the popular vote at the same time. You're not even close, retard.

Nixon ran for president three times. First time he lost the popular vote and EC. You know even less about politics than hygene.

He didn't win in 1960, did he, dumbass.

Only one President scored less votes and less EC and still won.

Your question was stupidly put. Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush 1 were all presidents who lost the EC and popular vote in my lifetime.

You're right. I should have realized you would need it dumbed down for you.

Sorry about that!

The answer to your question was of course John Quincy Adams

 

[Dana7360]

Now, morons like you are totally against raising the minimum wage because that would "hurt" rich republican donors.

So you want the person at McDonald's who can't get your order right in the drive-thru to be paid $15 per hour?

The reality is that if that person isn't paid a living wage that person goes on public assistance.

So we can have the employee be paid a living wage or we can increase our taxes to pay for all the public assistance they need to survive.

While the CEOs, executives and stockholders make millions a year.

You have a problem with the wrong people. The people who need to not be paid more are the CEOs, executives and stockholders. They're just fine.

I personally don't want to pay those CEOS, executives and stockholders those millions a year. I prefer to pay that worker that 15 dollars an hour. They actually work for a living, they spend their earnings in our community thus supporting our economy. You just can't say that about those CEOs, executives and stockholders. They've parked their money off shore to avoid paying the small percentage of taxes our government imposes on them.

 

[OKTexas]

we are not a democracy,,,

Just for education sake.....

We are not a "direct democracy" because of the founders' fears of the tyranny of the majority....but we ARE a representative democracy.

Isn't the tyranny of the majority exactly what you want with the dissolution of the EC?

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you can be honest for once in your life, don't you think it's every opposition parties goal to make a President a one-term President?

NO..........not when a senate leader states that this would be the MAIN priority just days after an election.

What you mean is "Not when a REPUBLICAN Senate leader" does it. Because I haven't noticed any outrage on your part - or even commentary - about the incoming Democrat House members stating days after the election - and even during the election - that THEIR main priority was to impeach the President . . . which is far worse.

 

[progressive hunter]

so in practice it did exactly what it was meant to do

That is one intent. Another was to keep a wholly unqualified cult of personality out of the white house. Instead, it put one there.

that description would include both trump and hilary,,,and again thats just your opinion

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

so in practice it did exactly what it was meant to do

That is one intent. Another was to keep a wholly unqualified cult of personality out of the white house. Instead, it put one there.

that description would include both trump and hilary,,,and again thats just your opinion

Yes,thank you for letting me know my opinion is my opinion.