The people did NOT vote for Trump

[OutHouse]

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.

you are kidding right? are you saying trump should not have won due to you not seeing any metrics saying he was in the lead? there were plenty dude, it ebbed and flowed for over a year. but to suggest he should not be president because you saw no metrics is stupid as fuck.

the EC is a very valid metric. get over it

wow you libs have lost your fucking minds. are you trying to destroy our system of government because you dont like the results?

 

[OutHouse]

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.

fail

 

[momeNt]

Can't we all agree that if it had been a popular vote, Trump would have campaigned differently and our Dear Leader elect would have likely won the popular vote?

You build strategy based on the winning conditions that are actually present, not those that are circumstantial.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I find it to be extremely moronic and juvenile to say "but my candidate won the popular vote!" First of all, 220k out of 120 MILLION is measurement noise. There's a real possibility that a recount would produce a number different by that amount or more. The salient point is that the country was split right down the middle, so the popular vote is a completely stupid metric and it doesn't help your case at all. If she won by 10 million and still lost, that might be significant, but 0.2% is nothing.

I'm not sure if the current system is good or not, but it does strike me as odd that, without the EC, big population centers would practically always determine the outcome and that doesn't seem logical at all. The country is more diverse than that and we need a system that takes that diversity into account. Maybe that's the EC and maybe it isn't, but strictly basing the outcome on the popular vote doesn't seem like the right way to do it.

 

[Kazukian]

LOL, I was stoned during most of HS, IIRC, civics was my first afternoon class and I usually toked up at lunch, still got an A and respect the hell out of my teacher to this day.

And I still remember the lecture on the EC, again, nearly 250 years old, and with literally centuries to "fix" it, people are bitching.

Were the POTUS election about winning the popular vote, the campaigns would have been vastly different.

 

[Hulk]

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.

Hmm. I apologize I'm not explaining this clearly. Trump and Clinton weren't trying to win the votes of a majority of Americans. They were trying to win the majority of votes in enough states to win the electoral college, which is how the election is won. That's why they were campaigning in the close "battleground" states.

If, in order to win the election you had to win a majority of votes they would have campaigned differently.

 

[NostaSeronx]

The sad part is that the liberal party(Democrats, Libertarians, Green) won majority.

Arizona;
1,038,724 for Liberals
1,017,166 for Conservatives

Florida;
4,755,771 for Liberals
4,630,979 for Conservatives

Michigan;
2,493,316 for Liberals
2,296,134 for Conservatives

Pennsylvania;
3,036,270 for Liberals
2,933,837 for Conservatives

Wisconsin;
1,521,413 for Liberals
1,423,207 for Conservatives

United States - National;
65,593,654 for Liberals
60,561,727 for Conservatives

Instead, seceding to the idea that your third party vote is spoiler. It should be used in a way hey I still helped the great liberal agenda. Instead, of oh no I ruined the election and got the person I didn't want to get elected.. darn my vote was a spoiler.

Don't worry Bernie lost fair and square to the better candidate via popular vote;
16,849,779 - Hillary Clinton
13,167,848 - Bernie Sanders

 

[Brainonska511]

The sad part is that the liberal party(Democrats, Libertarians, Green) won majority.

Arizona;
1,038,724 for Liberals
1,017,166 for Conservatives

Florida;
4,755,771 for Liberals
4,630,979 for Conservatives

Michigan;
2,493,316 for Liberals
2,296,134 for Conservatives

Pennsylvania;
3,036,270 for Liberals
2,933,837 for Conservatives

Wisconsin;
1,521,413 for Liberals
1,423,207 for Conservatives

United States - National;
65,593,654 for Liberals
60,561,727 for Conservatives

Who's to say those libertarian and green voters would have exclusively voted for Clinton or that they are 'liberal'? The only thing you could say is that a majority (who voted) voted for someone other than Trump.

 

[Hulk]

The sad part is that the liberal party(Democrats, Libertarians, Green) won majority.

Arizona;
1,038,724 for Liberals
1,017,166 for Conservatives

Florida;
4,755,771 for Liberals
4,630,979 for Conservatives

Michigan;
2,493,316 for Liberals
2,296,134 for Conservatives

Pennsylvania;
3,036,270 for Liberals
2,933,837 for Conservatives

Wisconsin;
1,521,413 for Liberals
1,423,207 for Conservatives

United States - National;
65,593,654 for Liberals
60,561,727 for Conservatives

Instead, seceding to the idea that your third party vote is spoiler. It should be used in a way hey I still helped the great liberal agenda. Instead, of oh no I ruined the election and got the person I didn't want to get elected.. darn my vote was a spoiler.

Huh? My libertarian friends prefer the candidate of smaller government, which is a conservative vote.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Huh? My libertarian friends prefer the candidate of smaller government, which is a conservative vote.

Hillary Clinton is democratic for the majority of social equality. While she is in private a conservative on government. Which happens to be an awkward mix of Goldwater neo-conserativeism and Liberalistic social open-ness. Don't confuse her with her husband who is the definition of the democratic party.

*sigh* No one researches actual policy matching. (Like the stuff hidden in books, like who reads books?)

Who's to say those libertarian and green voters would have exclusively voted for Clinton or that they are 'liberal'? The only thing you could say is that a majority (who voted) voted for someone other than Trump.

The parties policy defined by the executive vote outweighs the individual voters perceived policy of that party or person. Basically, people should really research who and what they are voting for. This would solve pretty much every your vote doesn't count issue.

 

[Victorian Gray]

We live in a republic not a democracy.

No, you live in a democratic national state that has a republican form of government.

 

[werepossum]

Yep, agree. Thank god my kid won't be a pussy snowflake. In fact, he'll be grabbing a lot of pussy I bet.

Dude, I realize you added a winkie but please don't raise your son to be a dick.

Nope, just a grizzled Gen Xer who seeks the truth. Who wouldn't want their daughter to marry an alpha who protects and loves her? Shit. Wait, let me adjust my wish for you liberals. I hope she marries an alpha tranny who is the lead singer on Broadway for CATS and who, by the way, owns 8 cats because he (she's) a compassionate animal advocate. They will hope to adopt 2 black babies and 1 asian just like BRANGELINA. lol

Okay, I laughed out loud. Guess I'm going to proggie Hell.

That's, like, Kansas, right?

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.

Which is why the United States of America is not a democracy, but a democratic republic.

So is this the United Counties Of the States of America?

lol +1

 

[Puffnstuff]

Irrespective of how we all might feel the election process did its job, we have a president-elect and now we have time to accept it before the inauguration. Gentlemen if you understand psychology there's a reason for the timeframe between the election and the inauguration. Right now everyone is expressing themselves in different ways, some of which are quite illegal and destructive but it will calm down in a short while and people will accept the outcome.

 

[buckshot24]

No, you live in a democratic national state that has a republican form of government.

We live in a republic of sovereign states. We do not live in a full on mob rule democracy.

 

[werepossum]

That's like bragging that your team had more passing yards when you lost the game by 14.

lol Our team gained more total yardage, so we demand to be declared the winner in spite of the other team scoring more points. And we shall hold our breath and kick our heels until the rules are change to make it so.

 

[werepossum]

Irrespective of how we all might feel the election process did its job, we have a president-elect and now we have time to accept it before the inauguration. Gentlemen if you understand psychology there's a reason for the timeframe between the election and the inauguration. Right now everyone is expressing themselves in different ways, some of which are quite illegal and destructive but it will calm down in a short while and people will accept the outcome.

In a short while, or when George Soros cuts off the bus rental and walking around money.

 

[SP33Demon]

Can't we all agree that if it had been a popular vote, Trump would have campaigned differently and our Dear Leader elect would have likely won the popular vote?

You build strategy based on the winning conditions that are actually present, not those that are circumstantial.

Amen to that.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

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.

It's hard to believe that a human being could be that stupid and still be able to operate a computer.

Every state matters zippy. Certain states are almost always red and others are almost always blue. There's nothing Donald could say or do that would win NY or California, so why bother? There's nothing Hilary could do to win Texas or Oklahoma, so what's the point of spending time or money there? Those states matter, they're just not winnable for the opposing party. So anyone with a brain (sorry this leaves you out) would understand that 100% of a candidates resources must be used where they will have an influence and where the outcome is in doubt.

If you were running for village idiot would you need to convince your parents, friends and relatives to vote for you? No, they know you're qualified. Would you try to convince your opponents parents, friends and relatives to vote for you? Of course not, not matter how big an idiot you are they'd still vote for their own personal idiot. So you'd spend all your time working on the votes that would swing the balance. You'd have to convince perfect strangers, the ones whose minds were not already made up, that you were the best idiot for the job. And in this case, it worked. We're now all convinced that you're the #1 idiot.

You think any other political system is any different? If you do you truly are the most monumental idiot on earth and should get the Village Idiot Emeritus title for life. Whether the system is EC or popular vote, the candidates are still going to completely ignore the votes that can't be swung either way and focus 100% of their efforts on the voters who are not committed to one candidate already.

 

[SP33Demon]

Irrespective of how we all might feel the election process did its job, we have a president-elect and now we have time to accept it before the inauguration. Gentlemen if you understand psychology there's a reason for the timeframe between the election and the inauguration. Right now everyone is expressing themselves in different ways, some of which are quite illegal and destructive but it will calm down in a short while and people will accept the outcome.

I agree with you. I'm just wondering where and when you became a Trump turncoat and I'm betting it was because of the bought-out media or libtard echo chamber in this forum. Out of curiosity, what really changed your mind. You were full bore Trump with the rest of us and then switched sides.

 

[First]

She's going to end up winning the popular vote by upwards of 1M votes when the last 30% of CA precincts report, so this discussion definitely has some salience if the goal is to have every vote count. But in a closely divided electorate it's more likely the popular vote can switch to the electoral college loser, which sucks if it's your team but ultimately doesn't make a difference except in the closest of elections (which 2016 and 2000 were). Intuitively it definitely makes sense to elect a leader that wins the most votes, as has occurred in other successful democracies around the world, both older ones (UK, France) and newer ones (Israel, Taiwan).

Also, the argument here that Trump or Clinton would have "campaigned differently" should be an obvious, especially ridiculous argument given this election may have just proved for the first time that you don't need infrastructure or ground game to become POTUS in a social media age. To say Trump would have done things differently if popular vote elected him literally defies the documented history of the past 6 months of general election campaigning that occurred, where his lack of get-out-the-vote didn't hurt him from attaining the ultimate prize. If anything, HRC would likely get more votes if she's trying to juice the CA and NY results.

 

[NesuD]

The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent densely populated regions of the country from riding roughshod over the sparsely populated regions. It is pretty tough to edge out the popular vote but lose the electoral unless you failed miserably at speaking to a broad cross section of the entire countries voters. Losing this way is a failure of the candidate not the system. Basically all HRCs wins were in the east/northeast and the west coast. There is a hella lot of America in between. With the electoral college the candidates can't just dismiss whole geographical regions of the country. If Hillary had appealed to a broader base she wouldn't have lost but you know the deplorables thing well that pretty much told the middle of the country what she thought of them. If she had been more receptive to other points of view on just one of any number of issues it could easily have been enough to win. As close as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were she had a great opportunity to lock them in with a pro second amendment position. That one issue could have literally locked those states in for her. Sadly for her she took them for granted and well you see what happened.

 

[NostaSeronx]

we have a president-elect

We don't in fact have a president-elect yet.

November 8, 2016—Election Day
Registered voters cast their votes for President and Vice President. By doing so, they also help choose the electors who will represent their state in the Electoral College.

December 19, 2016
The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots.

January 6, 2017
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

Popular vote by the people -> Super delegates vote, except not sort of in 24 states -> Counting -> Then the president-elect is confirmed.

 

[flexy]

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.

You and some others are completely missing the point.

Should I again dig out the countless ranting tweets from 2012 where TRUMP HIMSELF called for a "March on Washington", "Revolution!!"" etc. because of exactly this, the discrepancy between the PV and EC. It is THIS very same system that Trump, back in 2012, called rigged.

Fact 1)
If the shoes were on the other foot right now, ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED all hell would be lose now with Trump and millions of his supporters screaming fraud and "March on Washington" and claiming the election rigged because of the EC/PV discrepancy. This is 100% a given. We had lawsuits going on and a raving lunatic ranting on TV right now. YOU KNOW THIS.

Fact 2)
Whether you call the system good and "working well" is irrelevant. What it relevant is that the outcome of the election is now freely interpreted as either "valid" or "incorrect", SIMPLY BASED ON WHO WON: Had Hillary won, the system is flawed, incorrect, rigged. If the "correct" party won, the system is good and "well our founding fathers knew what they did".

The EC, respective the discrepancy of the PV/EC has now literally help destroy the remaining democracy you had. Because all this system is/was good for..is that someone who wanted to get into power used it and freely bent it and freely interpreted it, and now took advantage of it to get ONE party in power...yet, while at the same time, using this SAME system to question the legitimacy of the outcome. (Which he did 4 years back and 100% guaranteed would have done if he lost now). With a PV system, THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED since there is no such discrepancy in the first place.

The system is not just "working well", JUST and only just because your party won. It either works right, or it doesn't.

It should, however, not make it possible to provide someone the opportunity to question the validity of elections, and the outcome freely be interpreted depending how you like the results.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Exactly this! But you can't explain that to the generation that got a trophy just for showing up and got rules changed just so they wouldn't cry.

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.

 

[Brainonska511]

The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent densely populated regions of the country from riding roughshod over the sparsely populated regions.

That's a bit of a distortion of what it was really designed for. It seems more like it was designed to keep each state from voting for a 'favored son', which would favor large states or lead to a lack of a majority (and inability to choose a president). Hence, you get electors together to make an informed choice. The electoral college didn't even operate the same way it does now for the first sets of elections. The current model of winner-take-all model adopted by most states after the 1820s maintains the problem you outlined, except it is now localized to each individual state: large population centers of states run roughshod over the lower population parts.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Brainonska511/presidentialelectors-01.png