The people did NOT vote for Trump

[First]

Unlike you I admit when I screw things up. I read the article on National Review and assumed it was correct,

The fact that your judgment could be so bad as to take a NR article at face value tells everybody here all they need to know (if they didn't already); you're easily duped.

once I saw that it wasn't I admitted my mistake. You should try it some time, President Hillary Clinton with 340 EC votes would approve. Hack.

lol, I already said I didn't get her electoral votes right, I got her popular vote right. Again, my record even in this 2016 election is still far better than yours kiddo.

 

[First]

I don't recall ever citing conspiracy theories. Did they find the 340 EC votes for Hillary yet?

You don't recall a lot, cuck.

Your beta male post is too weak for me to respond to otherwise.

 

[buckshot24]

The fact that your judgment could be so bad as to take a NR article at face value tells everybody here all they need to know (if they didn't already); you're easily duped.

I had no reason to doubt it and didn't check for myself, wasn't all that important to me. Once I did, I retracted.

lol, I already said I didn't get her electoral votes right, I got her popular vote right. Again, my record even in this 2016 election is still far better than yours kiddo.

You did not get her popular vote correct, keep lying to yourself, nobody else is buying it. President Hillary Clinton ain't walking through that door.

 

[buckshot24]

You don't recall a lot, brilliant gentleman.

Your beta male post is too weak for me to respond to otherwise.

Good, maybe you'll not respond at all.

Let me put it this way. I didn't rely on conspiracy to make my predictions (that turned out to be wrong).

 

[First]

I had no reason to doubt it

Your first, easily preventable mistake.

and didn't check for myself, wasn't all that important to me.

Yes we know your posts here aren't very important to you, no wonder you keep posting shitty nonsense. lol.

You did not get her popular vote correct, keep lying to yourself, nobody else is buying it. President Hillary Clinton ain't walking through that door.

I did, cry moar.

 

[buckshot24]

Your first, easily preventable mistake.



Yes we know your posts here aren't very important to you, no wonder you keep posting shitty nonsense. lol.



I did, cry moar.

I'll leave you to play on the monkey bars by yourself. Take it easy.

 

[First]

Good, maybe you'll not respond at all.

Let me put it this way. I didn't rely on conspiracy to make my predictions (that turned out to be wrong).

Sure you did. All documented right here on P&N. Don't make me embarrass you again with your old, shitty posts.

 

[First]

I'll leave you to play on the monkey bars by yourself. Take it easy.

Thanks buck, we know your record of cutting and running.

 

[buckshot24]

Thanks buck, we know your record of cutting and running.

You're acting like a child, nothing of value coming from our interactions. I'm out.

 

[First]

You're acting like a child, nothing of value coming from our interactions. I'm out.

If you can't come to terms with your shit posting, yes it's best you take off. When you attempt to argue policy and politics, maybe someone intelligent here will take you seriously.

 

[buckshot24]

If you can't come to terms with your shit posting, yes it's best you take off. When you attempt to argue policy and politics, maybe someone intelligent here will take you seriously.

Just you buttercup.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I've notice that most conservative of above minimal intellect are fully aware trump is a pathological liar, but chose to propagate those lies as a means to a desirable end.

I'm curious which of the conservatives here would admit to this.

You sound jealous that the Republicans stole the Democrats idealogy...."The ends justify the means".

 

[JockoJohnson]

Not sure if it has been discussed in this thread or not because I don't care to try and find any relevant posts hidden within all the macho man bravado presented by both sides.

But...did anyone point out and wake the others up to the fact that it doesn't matter what the popular vote turned out to be. That isn't how the campaigns had to be run. The candidates had to go to swing states to get the votes so California, NY, Missouri, whatever solid blue or red state didn't have to be visited.

Who is to say that more voters wouldn't have come out for either candidate if it was popular vote.

This next statement I am saying is mostly in jest but I know a good bit of people might agree.....with all of the polling that goes on in this election who is to say that Trump voters weren't "suppressed" into thinking that he had no chance and didn't bother going out to vote. The same could be true of Hillary as well..people thought she had it in the bag and didn't come out. Either method of thinking is flawed as everyone should vote.

So please, drop the stupid argument about the popular vote. Get the rules changed for the next presidential cycle but no use crying about the rules of the game for this election. There are too many variables and NO ONE could predict what the outcome would have been based off of this popular vote. The campaigns weren't run to respond to most popular votes.

 

[ivwshane]

When the claim is made "The people did NOT vote for Trump", it is interesting to define what "The people" means.

Donald Trump has received a greater percentage of votes (26% of voting-age public) than 2-term president Bill Clinton ever got (topped out at 24.8% of V.A.P.).

I'm sure you think you have some point you are trying to make but because I'm pretty positive you are simply regurgitating something you've heard, you won't be able to actually articulate that point.

 

[werepossum]

Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets. Of course, the results may not be the ones you intend, and your intentions may not be good.

In this case, we can try to answer a few things:
1. What were the intents behind the EC system we have?
2. Are those intents the right ones (anymore)?
3. Is the system producing results in line with thous intents?

My (incomplete) answers to these questions:
1. Clearly there were some intents behind the EC beyond enhancing representation to the little guys for fear of them being left out of our national agenda (from an executive branch side of things), but that to me seems to be the most important intent that is relevant today. I think it's easy to approximate why the founding fathers chose to set up government the way they have if we merely look at the fact that they were trying to inject as many protections they could against the tyranny they faced from Britain, and among this strongly is being a tiny piece of the whole with no representation. Among it also is the desire for the people to have power to resist government if it gets tyrranical.

2. I think the intents I outline in 1 are, at worst, minimally bad. Personally, I think the intent is actually pretty good, but that is merely my opinion based on my values. I do think that our government today has far outgrown the capacities to radically change it regardless of it being or becoming tyrranical, and not that it is merely that our system of meeting this intent is not good enough. I (personally) don't envision a way to give people sufficient enough power against our government to radically change it without this being very dangerous. I imagine in the 18th century this was very different.

3. We are electing a president through EC that wins the popular vote unless the race is very close, so for this argument we ought pay more attention to the fact that our races are very close instead. So, mostly, passionate calls for popular vote are IMO butt-hurt driven, and although I prefer a different system, I also think that popular vote deciding the presidency would be an absolutely fine thing to do. Statistically, we are doing only minimally different than that anyway.

Also, the system does largely fail in practice with the intent of adding representation to smaller states. Simply put, the discrepancies between EC and popular vote of late is due to medium-large swing states being so impacting, not small states.

It does, however, make candidates campaign in and consider the interests of smaller states, which I find important, although it's only partially beneficial in this. Generally, though, despite being over-represented, their interests will never change a platform if it puts a candidate in worse standing elsewhere.

I do think, though that the fact that EC votes are for almost every state winner-take-all, medium-large swing states not only have more sway in the general election, they have more sway in policy as well. Politicians will alter their platforms and make deals to get more votes in certain areas outside of the general interest of America and even to a party's base, and this is bad.

Well said. What most people forget (especially when it's their team losing) is that without the electoral college structured as it is, with one elector per Senator and one per Representative, we would have no union, period. Less populous states would have been stupid beyond measure to form a union with highly populated states, as they would have zero power and effectively cede sovereignty to those states. Instead of a union of states, we'd still be limping along as a confederacy, and almost certainly would be only a minor world power.

 

[soundforbjt]

Would it be then be a good idea to extend it to state elections as well? Some/Most states have the same problem if you zoom in.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well said. What most people forget (especially when it's their team losing) is that without the electoral college structured as it is, with one elector per Senator and one per Representative, we would have no union, period. Less populous states would have been stupid beyond measure to form a union with highly populated states, as they would have zero power and effectively cede sovereignty to those states. Instead of a union of states, we'd still be limping along as a confederacy, and almost certainly would be only a minor world power.

What's missing is that there is this myth that the electoral college has operated as it does since the start of the country, when in fact this is not true. The winner-take-all did not become the dominant standard until the late 1820s. Some of the founders actually envisioned electors being chosen by region, becoming informed on the possible candidates, then making an informed vote - which makes quite a lot of sense: think about New York - upstate NY is much more conservative than NYC, but thanks to the existing model, they're basically ignored. The current model does away with what was originally intended and leaves us with a system that actually drowns out the minority voices in safe states, leaving people to campaign in just a handful of swing states (that don't happen to be that small to start with).

 

[agent00f]

You sound jealous that the Republicans stole the Democrats idealogy...."The ends justify the means".

Case in point.

 

[agent00f]

You're acting like a child, nothing of value coming from our interactions. I'm out.

Can you point to any discussion where your comments added something of value other than as an incentive for someone else to post something illuminating? Like this here?

 

[NostaSeronx]

My distant connections have concluded that enough electors will vote in two ways;
In majority favor: The nationwide popular vote, Hillary Clinton.
In minority favor: Some other Republican to wash out the vote.
The particular movement is being called by, electors to electors, as being a "Moral elector," rather than being a "Faithless elector."

Allowing a Hillary Clinton win, which breaks away from previous trends of the Electoral College.

 

[umbrella39]

Would it be then be a good idea to extend it to state elections as well? Some/Most states have the same problem if you zoom in.

I've been saying this for 30+ years. In states like Michigan, the 3 counties (Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne) in the metro Detroit area basically decide who wins the Governor's race every time. The UP is terribly unrepresented. If the EC is such a brilliant idea to promote fairness, why not extend it to state elections.

 

[buckshot24]

My distant connections have concluded that enough electors will vote in two ways;
In majority favor: The nationwide popular vote, Hillary Clinton.
In minority favor: Some other Republican to wash out the vote.
The particular movement is being called by, electors to electors, as being a "Moral elector," rather than being a "Faithless elector."

Allowing a Hillary Clinton win, which breaks away from previous trends of the Electoral College.

This isn't going to happen. If it did there would be no way for her to govern.

 

[buckshot24]

I've been saying this for 30+ years. In states like Michigan, the 3 counties (Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne) in the metro Detroit area basically decide who wins the Governor's race every time. The UP is terribly unrepresented. If the EC is such a brilliant idea to promote fairness, why not extend it to state elections.

I don't think anything is stopping them. I would definitely entertain this.

 

[NostaSeronx]

This isn't going to happen. If it did there would be no way for her to govern.

Other than the electors, it could be moved as more votes come in post-election day.

Trump leads;
Michigan;
15,611 lead became 11,837 lead.
Florida;
131,472 lead became 119,770 lead.
Pennsylvania;
75,018 lead became 68,236 lead.
Wisconsin;
73,706 lead became 27,257 lead.

 

[buckshot24]

Other than the electors, it could be moved as more votes come in post-election day.

Trump leads;
Michigan;
15,611 lead became 11,837 lead.
Florida;
131,472 lead became 119,770 lead.
Pennsylvania;
75,018 lead became 68,236 lead.
Wisconsin;
73,706 lead became 27,257 lead.

Yeah, that isn't happening either. No way they are going to find enough votes for Hillary in Florida. Pennsylvania AND Michigan can flip and he'd still have enough. Both aren't going to flip.