Clinton’s popular vote lead surpasses two million.

[buckshot24]

It's a stupid line of argument because you're arbitrarily leaving out a state. Why are you arguing over California when you could say we should ignore New York and Massachusetts (while counting California), then Donald John Trump won the popular vote in 48 states. But you'll never let facts or logic get in the way.

It isn't arbitrary because people were saying California wouldn't be dictating to the rest of the country. There isn't another single state out there that would do this in either direction.

Just for the record you understood that I wasn't saying Trump won 49 individual states, right?

 

[ivwshane]

It's a stupid line of argument because you're arbitrarily leaving out a state. Why are you arguing over California when you could say we should ignore New York and Massachusetts (while counting California), then Donald John Trump won the popular vote in 48 states. But you'll never let facts or logic get in the way.

Its that whole, "George w Bush kept us safe from terrorist attacks" line of bullshit reasoning the retarded right likes to use. Ironically trump was the one Republican who didn't go along with that narrative. I guess buckshat didn't get the memo.

 

[buckshot24]

Its that whole, "George w Bush kept us safe from terrorist attacks" line of bullshit reasoning the retarded right likes to use. Ironically trump was the one Republican who didn't go along with that narrative. I guess buckshat didn't get the memo.

What does that have to do with anything? Somebody made a point and I refuted it with math. California would have overridden the rest of the country had we had a popular vote. There isn't a single other state that would have done that either way.

 

[repoman0]

There isn't another single state out there that would do this in either direction.

There isn't another single state that is the sixth largest economy in the world either. California is also uniquely positioned as the most populous US state, by far. Why shouldn't it have a large say? Why do the arbitrary borders drawn around California determine how much say its 39 million people have compared to the rest of the country?

 

[buckshot24]

There isn't another single state that is the sixth largest economy in the world either. California is also uniquely positioned as the most populous US state, by far. Why shouldn't it have a large say?

It does have a large say.

 

[Brainonska511]

Just for the record you understood that I wasn't saying Trump won 49 individual states, right?

Yes, I am well aware of how you didn't say that. You're saying he won the popular vote across 49 states, if you ignore California, and that's still stupid. Arbitrarily leaving off states is a pointless exercise.

It does have a large say.

California has a 'large' say, but it is actually reduced relative to its size. On an electors per person scale, California is much worse off than Wyoming and actually has a reduced say compared to what it should have.

 

[Blackjack200]

It does have a large say.

Actually it had no say since they voted for Clinton and Trump was elected.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, I am well aware of how you didn't say that. You're saying he won the popular vote across 49 states, if you ignore California, and that's still stupid. Arbitrarily leaving off states is a pointless exercise.

Thank you. There was a couple of posters who took it the other way. I don't see it as pointless when somebody says California wouldn't be dictating to the rest of the country when that would exactly be what it was doing in this cycle if we went by popular vote.

California has a 'large' say, but it is actually reduced relative to its size. On an electors per person scale, California is much worse off than Wyoming and actually has a reduced say compared to what it should have.

Yup, we live in a United STATES where one state can't coalesce power and dictate to the rest of the states.

 

[buckshot24]

Actually it had no say since they voted for Clinton and Trump was elected.

That's like saying all the people who voted for Romney had no say. They had a say but their say wasn't large enough to overcome other's say. haha

 

[repoman0]

Yup, we live in a United STATES where one state can't coalesce power and dictate to the rest of the states.

That is not even close to a reasonable description of the situation. California has a large population, but it's still less than 15% of the population of the country, and doesn't vote 100% democrat. If a simpleton like Trump managed to get this close to winning the popular vote despite California, then it shouldn't take much brain power to realize that California does not on its own determine any election, ever.

The fact that in this election, one state managed to swing the popular vote doesn't mean anything. It could easily go the other way with a non-simpleton running for the GOP. I suspect you know this and am starting to understand why people here call you intellectually dishonest.

 

[Blackjack200]

That's like saying all the people who voted for Romney had no say. They had a say but their say wasn't large enough to overcome other's say. haha

That's accurate, the difference is that the people that voted for Romney were significantly out voted by the general electorate. California voted with the popular vote winner, Clinton, but was defeated by the electoral vote structure. To act like that structure provides California with a "large say" in an election is pretty fucking stupid. Or just disingenuous. I'm leaning toward the latter.

 

[Abwx]

Yup, we live in a United STATES where one state can't coalesce power and dictate to the rest of the states.

That s total stupidity since it s the other way around as proved by this election...

Make an effort if you can, and just imagine that California would had voted the same repartition between Trump and Clinton and with same participation and that the states where Trump did win would have voted also the same but with a participation of only say 10% of the voters, Trump would had been elected even with 30 millions votes deficit for the whole country popular vote....

 

[baydude]

Here is a non profit entity's statement regarding the popular vote.

http://truethevote.org/statement-regarding-trump’s-claim-illegal-voting

 

[Brainonska511]

Here is a non profit entity's statement regarding the popular vote.

http://truethevote.org/statement-regarding-trump’s-claim-illegal-voting

First: "nonprofit entity" means fairly little in terms of trustworthiness.

As for the specific "nonprofit entity", that doesn't seem like a reliable source for unbiased, factual information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_the_Vote

True the Vote (TTV) is a conservative[2][3] vote-monitoring organization based in Houston, Texas whose stated objective is stopping voter fraud. The organization supports voter ID laws[4] and trains volunteers to be election monitors and to spot and bring attention to suspicious voter registrations that its volunteers believe delegitimize voter eligibility. The organization's tag line is "If you see something at the polls that just doesn't seem right, record it."[5] True the Vote's current president is Catherine Engelbrecht.

 

[buckshot24]

That is not even close to a reasonable description of the situation. California has a large population, but it's still less than 15% of the population of the country, and doesn't vote 100% democrat. If a simpleton like Trump managed to get this close to winning the popular vote despite California, then it shouldn't take much brain power to realize that California does not on its own determine any election, ever.

Except this one if we went by the popular vote. Trump had 1.7 million plus votes in the rest of the country and lost California by almost 4 million votes. So the exact situation that you say never would happen would have this election.

The fact that in this election, one state managed to swing the popular vote doesn't mean anything. It could easily go the other way with a non-simpleton running for the GOP. I suspect you know this and am starting to understand why people here call you intellectually dishonest.

Who cares if it could go the other way?

 

[buckshot24]

That's accurate, the difference is that the people that voted for Romney were significantly out voted by the general electorate. California voted with the popular vote winner, Clinton, but was defeated by the electoral vote structure. To act like that structure provides California with a "large say" in an election is pretty fucking stupid. Or just disingenuous. I'm leaning toward the latter.

55 EC votes is a lot, biggest number in the country. Clinton was defeated because she couldn't convince the voters that both candidates were targeting to vote for her. The system didn't cause it.

 

[fskimospy]

That's accurate, the difference is that the people that voted for Romney were significantly out voted by the general electorate. California voted with the popular vote winner, Clinton, but was defeated by the electoral vote structure. To act like that structure provides California with a "large say" in an election is pretty fucking stupid. Or just disingenuous. I'm leaning toward the latter.

If states (PA, etc.) vote in a way that doesn't affect the outcome under a national popular vote then according to buckshot they have no say. If states (California) vote in a way that doesn't affect the outcome under the electoral college system then according to buckshot they do have a say. A head scratcher to be sure!

Under both systems every state has a say. The only question is if that 'say' is the smart way to do things.

 

[repoman0]

Except this one if we went by the popular vote. Trump had 1.7 million plus votes in the rest of the country and lost California by almost 4 million votes. So the exact situation that you say never would happen would have this election.
Who cares if it could go the other way?

Yeah, democratic votes in California took it along with all the other democratic votes in the rest of the country. California on its own cannot take the election because it has less than 15% of the population. Therefore, California did not determine the popular vote.

I have no idea why you're trying to make this argument. California voted for Clinton in a similar proportion to other states, such as Massachusetts. Maybe if the GOP put up a less shitty candidate, the numbers would be closer in educated states such as CA and MA. But the arbitrary removal of California to determine the general election results is pointless and has no foundation in statistics or anywhere, and is simply retarded.

 

[soulcougher73]

55 EC votes is a lot, biggest number in the country. Clinton was defeated because she couldn't convince the voters that both candidates were targeting to vote for her. The system didn't cause it.

They should have 200 EC votes if they were equal to Wyomings EC power. Of course from my spreadsheet wed have like 1638 EC points total for equality

 

[buckshot24]

Yeah, democratic votes in California took it along with all the other democratic votes in the rest of the country. California on its own cannot take the election because it has less than 15% of the population. Therefore, California did not determine the popular vote.

I have no idea why you're trying to make this argument. California voted for Clinton in a similar proportion to other states, such as Massachusetts. Maybe if the GOP put up a less shitty candidate, the numbers would be closer in educated states such as CA and MA. But the arbitrary removal of California to determine the general election results is pointless and has no foundation in statistics or anywhere, and is simply retarded.

Except it would have this year. I'm making this argument because somebody said it wasn't the case. California would have "overridden" the collected preference of the other 49 states in this election. I'm not sure why you keep saying it isn't possible when it happened just a few weeks ago.

You are criticizing me for using a screwdriver to loosen a screw by assuming I'm using it to do calculus.

 

[buckshot24]

If states (PA, etc.) vote in a way that doesn't affect the outcome under a national popular vote then according to buckshot they have no say. If states (California) vote in a way that doesn't affect the outcome under the electoral college system then according to buckshot they do have a say. A head scratcher to be sure!

Under both systems every state has a say. The only question is if that 'say' is the smart way to do things.

Is being ungenerous a hobby of yours? 2 straight posts you've maligned me with ridiculous misinterpretations to what I've been saying.

 

[fskimospy]

Except it would have this year. I'm making this argument because somebody said it wasn't the case. California would have "overridden" the collected preference of the other 49 states in this election. I'm not sure why you keep saying it isn't possible when it happened just a few weeks ago.

You are criticizing me for using a screwdriver to loosen a screw by assuming I'm using it to do calculus.

We are criticizing you for your incredibly tortured math. You are arbitrarily dividing the country up into groups in order to arrive at the outcome you want when it makes no sense. By your logic you could argue that in 2000 New Hampshire overrode the collected preference for the other 49 states in the election by awarding its electors to Bush.

 

[buckshot24]

They should have 200 EC votes if they were equal to Wyomings EC power. Of course from my spreadsheet wed have like 1638 EC points total for equality

Did you determine who would be president in such a situation?

 

[fskimospy]

Is being ungenerous a hobby of yours? 2 straight posts you've maligned me with ridiculous misinterpretations to what I've been saying.

You may not like what I wrote because it exposes how ridiculous your position is, but that doesn't change the fact that they are accurate descriptions of your position. Instead of attacking me for being mean maybe you should reconsider why you are saying contradictory things.

 

[soulcougher73]

Except it would have this year. I'm making this argument because somebody said it wasn't the case. California would have "overridden" the collected preference of the other 49 states in this election. I'm not sure why you keep saying it isn't possible when it happened just a few weeks ago.

You are criticizing me for using a screwdriver to loosen a screw by assuming I'm using it to do calculus.

This should clear up why you dont have to worry about big cities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k