Clinton’s popular vote lead surpasses two million.

[imported_tajmahal]

He just claimed that there were millions of fraudulent votes in the election he won. That undermines its legitimacy.

Oops. Haha.

No, he's setting up further political actions based on his campaign and the will of the people. As someone that heavily supported the losing side you can take it any way you want to though.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I find it ironic that only four short years ago Donald was crying about the EC and wanted to do away with it. Now he cries because other people want to do away with it and if it happened the candidate with the popular vote would win. I believe that its time for a change and the EC needs to be put out to pasture in favor of the popular vote. I believe that house representation should still be prorated per capita as it is now so low population states don't lose their voice but the presidential election needs to be the popular vote period.

 

[jackstar7]

It is obvious this argument about the EC is because Hillary lost.

Not about Clinton losing, as it is about Trump winning.

Oh, we now get dozens more targets for terrorists worldwide and he won't move his family into the most secure residence probably in the world... but yeah, at least way fewer people voted for him...

 

[nickqt]

Wyoming has 3 EC votes and California has 55, I wouldn't worry about Wyoming ever having more influence than California. Wyoming would have the equivalent of 0 electoral votes if it was done by popular vote. It is obvious this argument about the EC is because Hillary lost. However, the logic in the EC is sound when it comes to providing some representation to smaller states. Do you really think it would be a good idea for California to make all the political decisions for the entire country?

Imho, California should have 35 electors for democrats and 20 for republicans that represent the final ratio votes between the candidates. Its a win-win for pro-EC and pro-popular vote.

Actually, "California" would make exactly zero political decisions for the entire country if a citizen in Wyoming and a citizen in California has exactly the same political weight for the office of the President.

That does not negate, however, the fact that the EC is going nowhere, and even bothering to discuss how to get rid of it in its entirety is essentially a waste of time.

The EC can be tweaked to be more efficient, effective, and accurate.

No, he's setting up further political actions based on his campaign and the will of the people. As someone that heavily supported the losing side you can take it any way you want to though.

Let's be clear. Strongman Trump is setting up further political actions based on his campaign and the will of the Electoral College voters.

 

[Commodus]

No, he's setting up further political actions based on his campaign and the will of the people. As someone that heavily supported the losing side you can take it any way you want to though.

He made a claim that's both completely unsubstantiated and highly unlikely. If the future president of the US is going to make an assertion like this, he needs firm, incontestable evidence to back it up. So where is it? Produce it immediately. No excuses.

 

[Brainonska511]

Wyoming has 3 EC votes and California has 55, I wouldn't worry about Wyoming ever having more influence than California. Wyoming would have the equivalent of 0 electoral votes if it was done by popular vote. It is obvious this argument about the EC is because Hillary lost. However, the logic in the EC is sound when it comes to providing some representation to smaller states. Do you really think it would be a good idea for California to make all the political decisions for the entire country?

So-called small states already have representation, namely in the Senate. 17% of the country's population can elect a senate majority. Sounds like they have plenty of influence to me. But what's quite amusing in all of this debate is that small-states, like Wyoming and Montana were effectively ignored in the whole election cycle. Which states were candidates focusing on? Medium- to large- states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Imho, California should have 35 electors for democrats and 20 for republicans that represent the final ratio votes between the candidates. Its a win-win for pro-EC and pro-popular vote.

If it was proportional across the entire system, it actually seems that Clinton would come out ahead by 2 electoral votes.

 

[buckshot24]

Translation: even I know what I said was stupid.

You missed the nuance of the translation. You lied about what I wrote and attacked a strawman. The EC wasn't devised to keep slavery legal it was devised to form a nation from independent states.

 

[fskimospy]

Wyoming has 3 EC votes and California has 55, I wouldn't worry about Wyoming ever having more influence than California. Wyoming would have the equivalent of 0 electoral votes if it was done by popular vote.

Of course they wouldn't have the equivalent of 0 votes. They would simply have the same number of votes per person as any other state instead of getting special extra representation for each person based on their zip code.

It is obvious this argument about the EC is because Hillary lost. However, the logic in the EC is sound when it comes to providing some representation to smaller states.

Address the arguments, don't try to change the subject. Smaller states are already massively over represented in the senate. Why do they need even more special extra representation?

Do you really think it would be a good idea for California to make all the political decisions for the entire country?

California wouldn't be making all the decisions for the country or even remotely close to it. Not sure where you got that ridiculous idea.

Imho, California should have 35 electors for democrats and 20 for republicans that represent the final ratio votes between the candidates. Its a win-win for pro-EC and pro-popular vote.

So you would need to vastly expand the number of electors to stop rounding from deciding elections and then you'd basically have a popular vote. Sounds great!

 

[Jhhnn]

You missed the nuance of the translation. You lied about what I wrote and attacked a strawman. The EC wasn't devised to keep slavery legal it was devised to form a nation from independent states.

By keeping slavery legal, obviously, & by giving slave states more power than they deserved on the basis of voting population. Slaves counted as 3/5 of a person in apportioning the HOR & therefore the electoral college votes.

 

[buckshot24]

California wouldn't be making all the decisions for the country or even remotely close to it. Not sure where you got that ridiculous idea.

What do you mean by not "remotely close to it"? California's vote differential in this election was bigger than 31 states combined and 25 states in 2012.

 

[Jhhnn]

What do you mean by not "remotely close to it"? California's vote differential in this election was bigger than 31 states combined and 25 states in 2012.

So what? The EC was a concession of political power to slave states that should have been ended with the Civil War. Low population states will remain highly over represented in the Senate.

 

[fskimospy]

What do you mean by not "remotely close to it"? California's vote differential in this election was bigger than 31 states combined and 25 states in 2012.

We already covered this and using vote differential is illogical.

Remember, what people CHOOSE to do with their power has nothing to do with whether they have it or not. The rest of the country would not be controlled by California the second it didn't want to be.

You will never be able to escape this fact and so your continuing attempts to make this argument work are bound to fail because they are built on an illogical premise.

 

[buckshot24]

We already covered this and using vote differential is illogical.

Remember, what people CHOOSE to do with their power has nothing to do with whether they have it or not. The rest of the country would not be controlled by California the second it didn't want to be.

You will never be able to escape this fact and so your continuing attempts to make this argument work are bound to fail because they are built on an illogical premise.

You said it was illogical and you gave your reasons for saying so but the potential power states have are completely irrelevant if it is never used. Pennsylvania has not had a bigger vote differential than LA County (this year) since Nixon. What good is potential voting power that is never or rarely ever effectively used?

But what did you mean that California not being "remotely close to" making all of the decisions for the country? Compared to now how much influence would California have?

 

[Jhhnn]

We already covered this and using vote differential is illogical.

Remember, what people CHOOSE to do with their power has nothing to do with whether they have it or not. The rest of the country would not be controlled by California the second it didn't want to be.

You will never be able to escape this fact and so your continuing attempts to make this argument work are bound to fail because they are built on an illogical premise.

Yeh, but it has the ring of truthiness.

 

[Zorba]

Wyoming has 3 EC votes and California has 55, I wouldn't worry about Wyoming ever having more influence than California. Wyoming would have the equivalent of 0 electoral votes if it was done by popular vote. It is obvious this argument about the EC is because Hillary lost. However, the logic in the EC is sound when it comes to providing some representation to smaller states. Do you really think it would be a good idea for California to make all the political decisions for the entire country?

Imho, California should have 35 electors for democrats and 20 for republicans that represent the final ratio votes between the candidates. Its a win-win for pro-EC and pro-popular vote.

When was the last time anyone campaigned in Wyoming for a general election? The whole argument of "If there was no EC, Cali would decide everything" is a complete logical fallacy. States would no longer decide anything, the whole population would. All of a sudden the 33% of Wyoming that doesn't vote republican would have a say, and the 40% of Cali that doesn't vote democrat would have a say. People would actually campaign in Texas, Missouri, Georgia, etc. Its not like the margin of Cali by itself could elect a president without the EC, and republican can and do win the popular vote.

 

[fskimospy]

You said it was illogical and you gave your reasons for saying so but the potential power states have are completely irrelevant if it is never used. Pennsylvania has not had a bigger vote differential than LA County (this year) since Nixon. What good is potential voting power that is never or rarely ever effectively used?

But what did you mean that California not being "remotely close to" making all of the decisions for the country? Compared to now how much influence would California have?

It's not up to you to decide if their use of it is effective as their choice represents their desires. Their power is exactly as good as they want it to be and that's the beauty of it.

If Pennsylvania wanted to exercise greater influence towards the election of one candidate or the other it could do so whenever it wants. The fact that Pennsylvania's vote differential was so small that means Pennsylvania as a whole didn't really feel one way or the other about the whole thing and that information is valuable as well from a governance standpoint. The electoral college foolishly attempts to pretend that a 50.001% win and a 100% win are the same thing when they obviously aren't, a mistake a national popular vote would correct.

 

[buckshot24]

It's not up to you to decide if their use of it is effective as their choice represents their desires. Their power is exactly as good as they want it to be and that's the beauty of it.

If Pennsylvania wanted to exercise greater influence towards the election of one candidate or the other it could do so whenever it wants. The fact that Pennsylvania's vote differential was so small that means Pennsylvania as a whole didn't really feel one way or the other about the whole thing and that information is valuable as well from a governance standpoint. The electoral college foolishly attempts to pretend that a 50.001% win and a 100% win are the same thing when they obviously aren't, a mistake a national popular vote would correct.

That isn't the problem of the EC system but how states decide to assign electors, they can change that at any time.

A state like Pennsylvania isn't going to be able to exert the political force that LA County is because it is more diverse and more evenly divided. And I made a mistake, Nixon didn't win Pennsylvania by more than Hillary won LA County. He only won by 950k ish (maybe if you adjust for population). He won LA County btw by (360k ish)

The potential to exert political force is fine and dandy but the fact that these large states are as diverse as they are pretty much guarantees that they will always be pretty much evenly divided and places like LA County will be able to overtake entire states because they aren't.

 

[buckshot24]

When was the last time anyone campaigned in Wyoming for a general election? The whole argument of "If there was no EC, Cali would decide everything" is a complete logical fallacy. States would no longer decide anything, the whole population would. All of a sudden the 33% of Wyoming that doesn't vote republican would have a say, and the 40% of Cali that doesn't vote democrat would have a say. People would actually campaign in Texas, Missouri, Georgia, etc. Its not like the margin of Cali by itself could elect a president without the EC, and republican can and do win the popular vote.

The margin of California would be enough to overtake 31 states, combined, this year.

And Trump would have won the popular vote by 1.5 million without California.

 

[fskimospy]

That isn't the problem of the EC system but how states decide to assign electors, they can change that at any time.

A state like Pennsylvania isn't going to be able to exert the political force that LA County is because it is more diverse and more evenly divided. And I made a mistake, Nixon didn't win Pennsylvania by more than Hillary won LA County. He only won by 950k ish (maybe if you adjust for population). He won LA County btw by (360k ish)

For the last time, stop trying to claim that their CHOICE is indicative of them lacking the power to choose differently if they want. You don't like the outcome so you're trying to pretend the choice isn't there. That's not how it works.

I'm frankly amazed that you've continued to soldier on with this reasoning despite being called out numerous times for how silly it is.

The potential to exert political force is fine and dandy but the fact that these large states are as diverse as they are pretty much guarantees that they will always be pretty much evenly divided and places like LA County will be able to overtake entire states because they aren't.

Of course it doesn't. Stop just making things up.

 

[buckshot24]

For the last time, stop trying to claim that their CHOICE is indicative of them lacking the power to choose differently if they want. You don't like the outcome so you're trying to pretend the choice isn't there. That's not how it works.

I'm frankly amazed that you've continued to soldier on with this reasoning despite being called out numerous times for how silly it is.



Of course it doesn't. Stop just making things up.

You don't decide how I use my power to post on these forums.

I'll stick to my guns because I'm right. I am also frankly amazed that you value your own opinion so much that you think it is binding on others. Me not liking the outcome is completely irrelevant as well. I also am not denying that there isn't a choice I'm saying the choices will always basically be evenly divided because of the diversity of these large states. So please stop saying I don't think the choice is there, that isn't my point nor my belief.

The only way places like Pennsylvania could garner a 1.4 million vote margin is if somebody is running against a corpse or Saddam Hussein. It isn't happening for the foreseeable future and it hasn't for at least 50 years.

 

[Zorba]

The margin of California would be enough to overtake 31 states, combined, this year.

And Trump would have won the popular vote by 1.5 million without California.

And if you threw out Texas, Trump would've lost the EC and would've lost the PV by even more! I guess Texas is controlling the whole country right now!

Thus far Cali, only represents 8.6% of the total vote, hardly a controlling share of the votes, especially considering only 61% are for Hillary.

 

[agent00f]

I believe you have concluded the obvious, that he is entertained by the erection of endless mindless distractions to deflect debate away from relevance. He works for the force of darkness without knowing by whom he is employed. Who could take pleasure in what is morally disgusting?

People who put "victory" over morality.

I was going to say 'I think they have decided instead to rip Republicans a new asshole', but then I realized they've decided rip on the Republicans new asshole they ripped themselves.

Likewise, the republican have certainly "won" for the foreseeable future by holding onto the rust belt by any means necessary. Expect even more handouts to flow from the coasts inward.

 

[agent00f]

Do you claim you have a sense of humor? Get one sometime, it makes life more fun.

People mocking you is only meant to be funny to them.

 

[buckshot24]

And if you threw out Texas, Trump would've lost the EC and would've lost the PV by even more! I guess Texas is controlling the whole country right now!

Thus far Cali, only represents 8.6% of the total vote, hardly a controlling share of the votes, especially considering only 61% are for Hillary.

If you threw out Texas you wouldn't need to get to 270 EC votes and Trump would still have more popular votes (without California). You'd only need 251 EC votes without Texas and Trump would still have enough. California is only 8.6% of the population but enough to totally override the rest of the country due to them being so uncompetitive. An EC system prevents such an imbalance and why we should keep it.

 

[agent00f]

If you threw out Texas you wouldn't need to get to 270 EC votes and Trump would still have more popular votes (without California). You'd only need 251 EC votes without Texas and Trump would still have enough. California is only 8.6% of the population but enough to totally override the rest of the country due to them being so uncompetitive. An EC system prevents such an imbalance and why we should keep it.

This argument only bolsters the case for popular vote, not that dishonest people care.