Revisiting That Dirty Popular Vote Thing Again

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your bigoted, hyper-partisan trolling? It speaks for itself.
But hey - thanks for another laugh!

He lost the popular vote and every indication is that he cares very much about it. No matter how much you switch and bounce around on the subject that is still where we are at.

Indications? Such as what?

Lying about millions of illegal votes and having his toady insist and lie for him about the size of his inauguration. It's embarrassing.

I don't know what either has to do with it. To be totally honest, I think Trump didn't even expect to get elected yet alone care about the popular vote. I really don't know why he would care. He won. He surprised most people in the country. It's quite a feat. He campaigned night and day while Hillary was getting drunk in her well stocked wine cellar right next to her server.

As for the inauguration, I think Trump understands it was not going to be like his rallies in a very liberal town.

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States marked commencement of the term of Donald Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice President. An estimated 300,000 to 600,000[1][2] people attended the public ceremony held on Friday, January 20, 2017, on the West Front of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Why would Trump lie about voter fraud by the order of millions?

Why would Trump lie about his inauguration crowd size?

Such provably false lies that all have to either do with his popularity or whether he won the popular vote. I have no idea why you cultists keep making excuses for him.

Trump had a source about the millions of voter fraud cases, but I can't remember what it was. As for inauguration size, what did he say it was? Wiki states it was estimated between 300 and 600,000.

 

[HappyJoy]

He lost the popular vote and every indication is that he cares very much about it. No matter how much you switch and bounce around on the subject that is still where we are at.

Indications? Such as what?

Lying about millions of illegal votes and having his toady insist and lie for him about the size of his inauguration. It's embarrassing.

I don't know what either has to do with it. To be totally honest, I think Trump didn't even expect to get elected yet alone care about the popular vote. I really don't know why he would care. He won. He surprised most people in the country. It's quite a feat. He campaigned night and day while Hillary was getting drunk in her well stocked wine cellar right next to her server.

As for the inauguration, I think Trump understands it was not going to be like his rallies in a very liberal town.

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States marked commencement of the term of Donald Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice President. An estimated 300,000 to 600,000[1][2] people attended the public ceremony held on Friday, January 20, 2017, on the West Front of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Why would Trump lie about voter fraud by the order of millions?

Why would Trump lie about his inauguration crowd size?

Such provably false lies that all have to either do with his popularity or whether he won the popular vote. I have no idea why you cultists keep making excuses for him.

Trump had a source about the millions of voter fraud cases, but I can't remember what it was. As for inauguration size, what did he say it was? Wiki states it was estimated between 300 and 600,000.

That's helpful. Why do you believe these lies other than you want to? You're in a cult.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Indications? Such as what?

Lying about millions of illegal votes and having his toady insist and lie for him about the size of his inauguration. It's embarrassing.

I don't know what either has to do with it. To be totally honest, I think Trump didn't even expect to get elected yet alone care about the popular vote. I really don't know why he would care. He won. He surprised most people in the country. It's quite a feat. He campaigned night and day while Hillary was getting drunk in her well stocked wine cellar right next to her server.

As for the inauguration, I think Trump understands it was not going to be like his rallies in a very liberal town.

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States marked commencement of the term of Donald Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice President. An estimated 300,000 to 600,000[1][2] people attended the public ceremony held on Friday, January 20, 2017, on the West Front of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Why would Trump lie about voter fraud by the order of millions?

Why would Trump lie about his inauguration crowd size?

Such provably false lies that all have to either do with his popularity or whether he won the popular vote. I have no idea why you cultists keep making excuses for him.

Trump had a source about the millions of voter fraud cases, but I can't remember what it was. As for inauguration size, what did he say it was? Wiki states it was estimated between 300 and 600,000.

That's helpful. Why do you believe these lies other than you want to? You're in a cult.

I believe what I see. The lib pictures were taken when the people started coming in if I remember correctly; trying to mislead the public that nobody was interested in the event. Here is what it looked like, so tell me where Trump lied.

 

[HappyJoy]

Lying about millions of illegal votes and having his toady insist and lie for him about the size of his inauguration. It's embarrassing.

I don't know what either has to do with it. To be totally honest, I think Trump didn't even expect to get elected yet alone care about the popular vote. I really don't know why he would care. He won. He surprised most people in the country. It's quite a feat. He campaigned night and day while Hillary was getting drunk in her well stocked wine cellar right next to her server.

As for the inauguration, I think Trump understands it was not going to be like his rallies in a very liberal town.

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States marked commencement of the term of Donald Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice President. An estimated 300,000 to 600,000[1][2] people attended the public ceremony held on Friday, January 20, 2017, on the West Front of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Why would Trump lie about voter fraud by the order of millions?

Why would Trump lie about his inauguration crowd size?

Such provably false lies that all have to either do with his popularity or whether he won the popular vote. I have no idea why you cultists keep making excuses for him.

Trump had a source about the millions of voter fraud cases, but I can't remember what it was. As for inauguration size, what did he say it was? Wiki states it was estimated between 300 and 600,000.

That's helpful. Why do you believe these lies other than you want to? You're in a cult.

I believe what I see. The lib pictures were taken when the people started coming in if I remember correctly; trying to mislead the public that nobody was interested in the event. Here is what it looked like, so tell me where Trump lied.

View attachment 310360

So you post a picture that doesn't demonstrate Trump's crowd size because it was taken from the front? Gee, you're playing honest here aren't you, little cultist.

Trump's inaugeration started as 12:00pm btw.

EDIT: You can also see the empty space during the inauguration just before Trump speaks in the video below, it's at about the 248 mark.

 

[Slade3200]

How does It protect the smaller states? Can you give an example?

I think it makes sense for residents to be represented and I think the citizenship issue needs to be addressed and fixed by congress

It's been explained number of times.

If you need to campaign in four most populous states to win the popular vote of the whole country, why would you campaign in North Dakota? It's easier to import half a million of illegals into California and give them driver's license, and wink while you tell them "you can't vote".

A popular vote system applied to the last election makes California’s results an advantage to republicans over the EC advantage that went to the Dems. It would have been a 6 point swing in favor as the Republicans.

If true, how Hillary got all of 55 California's EC votes?

she got that because of the electoral college system. 55 votes amounts to over 10% of the total vote. IF it was a popular vote system Hillary would get less than 7% and Trump would have gotten 3.5%. Thats a 6 point swing in Trumps favor. Do the math

Although math is correct, you're comparing apples from oranges.

Even with your "6 point swing" Trump would lose the election. How that works in "his favor"?

I’m not talking about the entire election. I’m talking about the faux talking point I hear repeated about the popular vote giving Cali all the power. That’s not how it works. I just want people to know what they are talking about instead of repeating incorrect talking points

 

[colfax_m]

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Nobody would campaign outside of large population centers if we had straight PV determination of the President Elect. Also consider if in 20 years or so we get a popular citizen who decides to run and gets 25% of the vote—Dwayne Johnson, George Clooney or Rush Limbo are capable of doing so.

So the eventual victor will likely be someone who got 40%. We could have that now of course but it is more likely under the PV.

Without the EC, people would actually start campaigning in far more places than they do now. Right now, a small number of swing states control the outcome of the election. The vast majority of campaigning takes place there.

A Republican has no reason to campaign in California where currently any Republican vote is effectively thrown in the trash. No Democrat has a reason to campaign in Texas where the same thing happens. Without the EC, a Republican would actually have a reason to fight for votes in blue states and vice verse.

 

[colfax_m]

I really don't know why he would care

Because that’s how Trump’s ego works. He can never admit he’s didn’t win something.

 

[colfax_m]

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

yet you are for states with less population to be held to standards in CA and TX simply because they carry the most people. the needs of one are not the needs of all and all needs should be represented when possible.

you act as if these "arguments" you and others have are new. that perhaps our forefathers missed something along the way. no. the very reason we have the EC is to prevent what you are wanting done.

you are not advocating a system for us all, you are advocating a system that makes you personally happy and pretending everyone else should be happy for the same reasons.

Our forefathers missed a lot of things. They knew it when they wrote the constitution. They did not foresee a party system let alone states forcing their electors to vote for the popular vote winner.

Don’t bring up the founding fathers without acknowledging that our current EC is not the one they envisioned.

don't ignore why they did what they did cause you don't like it. you are doing nothing to ensure states have equal votes in your commentary so it leads one to understand you want what is best for your views, not the country.

I’m not ignoring why they did what they did. They built the EC like they did to ensure populist demagogues like Trump wouldn’t be elected. They had no intention that electors would be ceremonial. Electors were intended to use their own judgement.

 

[colfax_m]

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

A nationwide popular vote would overwhelmingly represent the desires of urbanites living in a few very large cities while ignoring the desires of millions living outside said cities. The EC, like it or not, ensures that the desires of the minority are actually considered.

Nonsense. There are millions and millions of voters you’re referencing and every single one of their vote counts. There’s every reason to reach out for their vote. Why wouldn’t a candidate consider them?

 

[dblack]

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

A nationwide popular vote would overwhelmingly represent the desires of urbanites living in a few very large cities while ignoring the desires of millions living outside said cities. The EC, like it or not, ensures that the desires of the minority are actually considered.

Nonsense. There are millions and millions of voters you’re referencing and every single one of their vote counts. There’s every reason to reach out for their vote. Why wouldn’t a candidate consider them?

Because they are few and far between. If we go to pure democracy, candidates will spend the lion's share of their campaigns trying to appeal to urban centers where there are large concentrations of voters. That's where they'll get the most bang for the buck.

 

[colfax_m]

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

A nationwide popular vote would overwhelmingly represent the desires of urbanites living in a few very large cities while ignoring the desires of millions living outside said cities. The EC, like it or not, ensures that the desires of the minority are actually considered.

Nonsense. There are millions and millions of voters you’re referencing and every single one of their vote counts. There’s every reason to reach out for their vote. Why wouldn’t a candidate consider them?

Because they are few and far between. If we go to pure democracy, candidates will spend the lion's share of their campaigns trying to appeal to urban centers where there are large concentrations of voters. That's where they'll get the most bang for the buck.

Isn’t that what they already do?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I really don't know why he would care

Because that’s how Trump’s ego works. He can never admit he’s didn’t win something.

He did win something. He won the presidency. How much more can you win than that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are a couple of cases that the SC will hear next month regarding the electoral college. Only 32 states operate by popular vote.

And they're gonna do what? Decide that the Constitution is Unconstitutional?

 

[colfax_m]

I really don't know why he would care

Because that’s how Trump’s ego works. He can never admit he’s didn’t win something.

He did win something. He won the presidency. How much more can you win than that?

I didn’t say he didn’t win anything. I said Trump can’t stand the fact that he didn’t win something, in this instance he can’t stand the fact that he didn’t win the popular vote.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The SCOTUS can't change the electoral college. That requires changing the constitution and that's not the SCOTUS's job.

Congress can.

No they cant.
This is a perfect example of how america has fallen so far.
Our voting block is full of morons.

Yes they can, it would take a 2/3 vote.

No they can not It takes an amendment.

Who do you think passes amendments?

Constitutional Amendment Process

Oh yea, CONGRESS, with a 2/3 majority. Oh look I was right all along and you were wrong. Stop spreading disinformation.

From your own link, moron:

". . . an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures."

"The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration . . ."

" The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention . . ."

"When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action . . ."

"A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)."

So no, Congress doesn't "pass" amendments, it proposes them. The states make it part of the Constitution.

I wish you luck convincing 38 states that they want the country run by a handful of metropolitan areas while everyone else sits down, shuts up, and takes whatever they dish out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

Hillary won the popular vote

Which doesn't exist, and that's why she did NOT win the election.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

Hillary won the popular vote

So what? Trump won more states.

And if popular vote counts, why Barry was presidential candidate, and not her, since she had more votes than him in Dem Primaries?

Hillary won the popular vote

A sure sign that your life is empty and pathetic: you cling to fantasies of winning things that don't exist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I really don't know why he would care

Because that’s how Trump’s ego works. He can never admit he’s didn’t win something.

He did win something. He won the presidency. How much more can you win than that?

I didn’t say he didn’t win anything. I said Trump can’t stand the fact that he didn’t win something, in this instance he can’t stand the fact that he didn’t win the popular vote.

Yeah, I'm sure he tortures himself over not winning a made-up vote counting method that matters to nothing . . . while he's sitting at his desk in the Oval Office, in the few spare minutes he isn't running the country.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

yet you are for states with less population to be held to standards in CA and TX simply because they carry the most people. the needs of one are not the needs of all and all needs should be represented when possible.

you act as if these "arguments" you and others have are new. that perhaps our forefathers missed something along the way. no. the very reason we have the EC is to prevent what you are wanting done.

you are not advocating a system for us all, you are advocating a system that makes you personally happy and pretending everyone else should be happy for the same reasons.

Our forefathers missed a lot of things. They knew it when they wrote the constitution. They did not foresee a party system let alone states forcing their electors to vote for the popular vote winner.

Don’t bring up the founding fathers without acknowledging that our current EC is not the one they envisioned.

don't ignore why they did what they did cause you don't like it. you are doing nothing to ensure states have equal votes in your commentary so it leads one to understand you want what is best for your views, not the country.

I’m not ignoring why they did what they did. They built the EC like they did to ensure populist demagogues like Trump wouldn’t be elected. They had no intention that electors would be ceremonial. Electors were intended to use their own judgement.

In reality until about 1824 MOST electors were not even voted on the State legislatures picked them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are a couple of cases that the SC will hear next month regarding the electoral college. Only 32 states operate by popular vote.

And they're gonna do what? Decide that the Constitution is Unconstitutional?

Actually 43 States operate by majority rule voting. Not sure what the 5 missing states do. 2 States use proportional voting.