The people did NOT vote for Trump

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
buckshot24

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
woolfe9998 said:
Why should only 10 states matter in an election? Why do we have a system where the candidates cater their message to people in close voting states and ignore the rest? The whole concept of "battleground states" is ludicrous. The EC is undemocratic.
Click to expand...
We live in a republic not a democracy.
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,070
10,408
136
D

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
NostaSeronx said:
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

This movement is expected to win. I'm sorry. Popular president-elect Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton might beat Media president-elect Donald John Trump.
Click to expand...

I don't know which is more depressing ... that we had to choose between Hillary and Trump, or that we apparently have close to 3 million people so terminally stupid that they would waste time with worthless and meaningless change.org garbage and are unable to understand that the popular vote number is completely irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OutHouse
MrSquished

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
26,067
24,398
136
Double Trouble said:
I don't know which is more depressing ... that we had to choose between Hillary and Trump, or that we apparently have close to 3 million people so terminally stupid that they would waste time with worthless and meaningless change.org garbage and are unable to understand that the popular vote number is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

it says right there in the link it's a hair over 2 million signers. do you always exaggerate by a rule of 1/3ds?
 
D

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
PixelSquish said:
it says right there in the link it's a hair over 2 million signers. do you always exaggerate by a rule of 1/3ds?
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, over 2 million terminally stupid people, but there's still plenty of time to reach 3 million. I'm sure there are plenty more where those came from.
 
N

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,815
1,294
136
Meanwhile, George Soros is writing checks and making sure his NWO agenda is taken care of. Darn rigged election system that is completely based on merit of pay me politics. Who needs public funding, when you have lobbyists and the true elite/noblesse oblige paying for you.
 
Last edited:
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,665
17,266
136
NostaSeronx said:
Meanwhile, George Soros is writing checks and making sure his NWO agenda is taken care of. Darn rigged election system that is completely based on merit of pay me politics. Who needs public funding, when you have lobbyists and the true elite/noblesse oblige paying for you.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about? Is this yet another example of a bullshit news story you are regurgitating.
 
postmortemIA

postmortemIA

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2006
7,721
40
91
If (with big if) we're doing popular vote, outcome would be different. First, Hillary would not win because she didn't win 50% of votes - you'd expect that we would use two round system.
Second, the voting rules, electoral vs popular, impact the outcome as well.
In short, all these popular votes in CA, IL and NY are useless, that was known ahead of time. What they did though, is made Trump to must win many many other states to make up for these and few other urban states.
 
Puffnstuff

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,255
4,928
136
ivwshane said:
What the fuck are you talking about? Is this yet another example of a bullshit news story you are regurgitating.
Click to expand...
Typical right wing parroting so try not to act surprised when you read it. You can't reason with stupid so don't waste your time trying. They'll get mad and show your their gun collection.:eek:
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,153
55,699
136
buckshot24 said:
We live in a republic not a democracy.
Click to expand...

Republics ARE democracies and our being a republic has nothing to do with the electoral college.

I swear, 'we live in a republic, not a democracy' has to be in the top ten of things stupid people say to feel smart.
 
C

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
flexy said:
220,000 more people voted for Hillary. The Reps (respective Trump) only won because of the Electoral College.
(Second time in a row where the Reps could only win because of the EC)
Click to expand...
So, the difference was a total of 0.07% of the U.S. population

flexy said:
The EC of course exists to make the rural people who are as it happens overwhelmingly conservative equal to the urban people.
Click to expand...
Someone please call the waaambulance, flexy needs help stat!
 
N

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,815
1,294
136
cubby1223 said:
So, the difference was a total of 0.07% of the U.S. population
Click to expand...
- 99,815,122 = Non-applicable
- 60,556,142 = Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton
- 60,116,240 = Donald John Trump
- 4,102,585 = Gary Earl Johnson
- 1,228,862 = Jill Ellen Stein
- 448,339 = David Evan McMullin
- 172,570 = Darrell Lane Castle

Based on popular vote across the United States. The clear winner: "I ain't got no time for that, I got bills to pay, places to be." The air we breath is the 45th president. Praise, be the air we breath being the president-elect. For without thee air we all would be asphyxiated.

It's now the electoral college job to select the best candidate. Of course, the one that is clearly the most corrupt will win. Sorry, air... maybe next time.
 
Last edited:
C

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Brainonska511 said:
They do have extra voting power based simply on numbers. The ratio of electoral votes per person is much higher in smaller states over larger states. The notion that small states are overlooked is kind of mind boggling anyway given that they already have disproportionate representation in the legislature.
Click to expand...
My opinion it's a good thing. Without that fact, small states would be completely ignored by the nation, instead of the current situation where small states are just mostly ignored.
 
Hulk

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,232
3,879
136
flexy said:
Maybe you interpret this as trolling, I don't care. FACT is, less people voted for Trump than for Hillary and the election therefore does not reflect the view of the majority of people.
Click to expand...

Your logic of seriously flawed.

Keep in mind that candidates advertise and stump for the race (and rules therein) they are running. Both Trump and Clinton were going after an electoral college win. If they had been going for a popular vote then it's very likely they would have been in states where they were polling low to try and turn voters to their side even though they couldn't win the state. For example, Trump would have spent time in NY and California because of their enormous populations instead of working to hard for a minuscule number of additional votes in states like North Carolina and New Hampshire.

You see your theory is fatally flawed. They played the game by the rules and now you're saying after the game that if the rules had been different the outcome would have been different. That's putting the cart before the horse.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,153
55,699
136
cubby1223 said:
My opinion it's a good thing. Without that fact, small states would be completely ignored by the nation, instead of the current situation where small states are just mostly ignored.
Click to expand...

The electoral college does not make people pay attention to small states. What states got all the attention here? Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. Those are large states.

What it does do is make people focus on close, large states, and give a bunch of free representation to rural areas for a reason that dates back to slavery.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,153
55,699
136
Hulk said:
Your logic of seriously flawed.

Keep in mind that candidates advertise and stump for the race (and rules therein) they are running. Both Trump and Clinton were going after an electoral college win. If they had been going for a popular vote then it's very likely they would have been in states where they were polling low to try and turn voters to their side even though they couldn't win the state. For example, Trump would have spent time in NY and California because of their enormous populations instead of working to hard for a minuscule number of additional votes in states like North Carolina and New Hampshire.

You see your theory is fatally flawed. They played the game by the rules and now you're saying after the game that if the rules had been different the outcome would have been different. That's putting the cart before the horse.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any metric that indicates Trump was a choice of a majority of Americans. What one are you using? Electoral votes certainly wouldn't be it.
 
buckshot24

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
fskimospy said:
Republics ARE democracies and our being a republic has nothing to do with the electoral college.

I swear, 'we live in a republic, not a democracy' has to be in the top ten of things stupid people say to feel smart.
Click to expand...
It isn't a pure democracy.

Anybody notice how this guy always says something in the first paragraph then comes the insult in the second paragraph?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OutHouse
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom