The people did NOT vote for Trump

[buckshot24]

Too bad. I heard that Trump needs his swamp drained again and Texashiker wasn't around to give him a hand. Thought that might be where you were heading.

Is he off the forums? Maybe he's helping out.

 

[fskimospy]

Do even bother to read what other people write, or do you just see the username and post canned responses to feed your overgrown ego?

Have you ever considered applying to be a moderator here? You seem to have lots of opinions about posters here and I'm sure they could use a helping hand. Maybe you could even revoke my elite status that you seem to preoccupied with. That would teach me!

 

[fskimospy]

Which is why only truly colossal morons try to use the popular vote as an ex post facto metric for who should have won. It most certainly does cause voter disengagement and the final popular vote number has as much meaning as the IQ of people who think it matters: hovering somewhere around zero. The campaigns are conducted differently and the voting patterns are different using the EC which is why the popular vote means jack shit and only sore losers try to claim otherwise when they don't get the result they want.

Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but neither is any other system. If you replace the EC with the popular vote you marginalize everyone that isn't in a major city as everything will be geared towards where the population density is highest. Everything will be Costco campaigning, promises made in bulk. The people who don't live in NY, LA and Chicago won't get addressed at all, won't have their concerns discussed and won't have any candidates paying attention to them which in turn causes their disengagement. What part of that don't you understand?

I think the part that people understand is that your post seems to be based entirely on bullshit. Even if you're counting the MSA instead of just the city those three areas combined account for somewhere around 15% of the US population. Any person who just paid attention to those areas would lose in a landslide. This is just math.

All that aside let's assume you're totally right and the campaigns will only concentrate on city areas. Can you explain why this is worse than them concentrating on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania?

People seem very concerned that campaigns will concentrate on convincing the majority of the population instead of trying to convince people based on zip code. I can't help but think this might be some motivated reasoning.

 

[buckshot24]

All that aside let's assume you're totally right and the campaigns will only concentrate on city areas. Can you explain why this is worse than them concentrating on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania?

Because there are rural and urban areas in those states.

Just as an aside. Top 100 cities only has 63,485,588 of the population. These are within the city limits, if you assume half of these people vote that means the Democrats are going to have around 20 million votes. (assuming a 2-1 Dem split) So yeah, you're going to need more.

But city limit populations aren't telling the whole story. If you take the top 100 counties (2010 census) you have 129,698,607 population. If Half of them vote and 2 to 1 go to Democrats then you're sitting at 40 million votes. These areas can be worked to turn out the vote so you're not going to need much more than these areas to win the popular vote.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I think the part that people understand is that your post seems to be based entirely on bullshit. Even if you're counting the MSA instead of just the city those three areas combined account for somewhere around 15% of the US population. Any person who just paid attention to those areas would lose in a landslide. This is just math.

All that aside let's assume you're totally right and the campaigns will only concentrate on city areas. Can you explain why this is worse than them concentrating on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania?

People seem very concerned that campaigns will concentrate on convincing the majority of the population instead of trying to convince people based on zip code. I can't help but think this might be some motivated reasoning.

No, what people understand is that you're monumentally stupid. You start with a faulty premise and then try to toss in made up stats to prove it.

The EC was started to make everyone matter. Without it the major population centers carry far too much weight. When there are 5 million voters in Chicago and 500,000 or less in entire states, where the fuck do you think the candidates are going to spend their time. The ENTIRE campaign will be "Gee, if I give another speech in Chicago or LA or NYC and can change the minds of 5% of the people there that gets me more votes than 100% of Idaho."

So what incentive is there to campaign to Idaho or Montana or anywhere else where there are not a million plus voters in a single city? And if there's no incentive to campaign anywhere, no incentive to address the needs of those people, no incentive to even claim to understand those people or what they want there's no incentive for those people to give a shit about either candidate because neither will speak for them, neither will speak to them, neither will even acknowledge their existence as they fly over on their way back to Dallas and Miami.

Are you truly too stupid to understand that? In a tight race, as this was expected to be, EVERY state matters because any state could have tipped the balance. The candidates were forced to visit smaller states because 4 or 8 electoral votes could have made the difference. If popular vote was all that mattered those states would be ignored because in a tight race there are more votes to be gained by skipping them and carpet bombing the areas with greater population density.

 

[dud]

When will people just let go of this madness and move on with their lives? No amount of protesting "Not my president" is going to change reality. Some forum members should consider getting a life and going on with their lives instead of continually whining ...


... and NO, I did not vote for Mr. Trump.

 

[NostaSeronx]

They can protest all they want DJT isn't president-elect yet, that is January 7th. Of course, he'll need to grope a book of faith and repeat words, then he is president.

As a president, he can move on all the foreign dignitaries like a bitch. If Russia, China, or Iran does something #NukesAway. That is only if he actually gets elected which he hasn't yet.

 

[BUTCH1]

he stated a simple fact, the majority of the people voted for the nasty woman. the popular vote not jiving with the electoral vote has only happened 5 times ever. And only twice since the late 1800's. Gore in 2000, Hillary in 2016. So two times in 16 years. It's enough to question the system a little bit.

Yea, it needs to be DUMPED. Whoever gets the most votes wins, PERIOD. No, I wasn't thrilled with HC as the Dem nominee at all and I remain hopeful Trump will figure out what changes need to be made, getting rid of the EC system should be high on that list.

 

[BUTCH1]

When will people just let go of this madness and move on with their lives? No amount of protesting "Not my president" is going to change reality. Some forum members should consider getting a life and going on with their lives instead of continually whining ...


... and NO, I did not vote for Mr. Trump.

Agree, it's pathetic, yes, he IS your president weather you like it or not. STFU and go home now and that goes to the idiots who now think it's "open-game" season to any minority as well.

 

[MrSquished]

btw we will eventually all be living in cities in the not too far future. rural america will become a system of the past. agrarian ways of living will be condensed into agribusiness. there will be little left. manufacturing is not coming magically back. but for now we are stuck with the system we have. where rural america has a slight unequal say on the election results. because both election results in our modern history that went popular vote blue but EC vote red were both very close. there is no domination going on by popular vote - just a slight un-even handedness going EC. In cases where there was a lopsided win it was the EC vs the popular vote that was the culprit - not the domination of the popular vote masses.:

"Even in the vast majority of U.S. elections, in which the same candidate won both the popular and the electoral vote, the system usually makes the winner’s victory margin in the former a lot wider than in the latter. In 2012, for example, Barack Obama won 51% of the nationwide popular vote but nearly 62% of the electoral votes, or 332 out of 538. Looking back at all presidential elections since 1828 (when presidential campaigns began to resemble those of today), the winner’s electoral vote share has, on average, been 1.36 times his popular vote share – what we’ll call the electoral vote (EV) inflation factor."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...des-are-easier-to-win-than-popular-vote-ones/

 

[Torn Mind]

Yes satisfied. I don't really care what you say about who you like or don't like or say you did. You stated:

"In this case, the current system was better. In another case, it could go the other way."

Something about this election has convinced you it turned out for the better. Yes you. You state that this result 'WAS BETTER' vs any other result judged by a different system, aka you are the judge jury and executioner. Aka this is your opinion.

But another election could possibly go another way, according to you and be ok, this time if it was a popular vote win. Again, you are the judge jury and executioner. Aka your political leanings are the deciding factor. However they move about. So really at the end of the day we are talking about your personal preferences. Which is fine. Just admit that since this is a better result, to you, on some level you are satisfied.

If you want to continue calumniate me, be my guest, but know that it is reprehensible behavior. It is quite clear that your party creates your political paradigm, and hence any arguments to the contrary necessarily means support for the enemy(Republicans). You cannot comprehend being apolitical.

Three reliably blue states flipped to Trump. Three states that would have won it for Hillary by providing her with 46 votes total. Since the Federal Government is about the collective and has to balance. A simple majority snuffs out those DEMOCRATIC states who didn't show up for their political party.

That is why in this election, the Electoral College is better. The collective "will" of the people is far more accurately shown by the Electoral votes in this election.

Whereas, the 2000 election was so close that the popular vote might have been the better representation of the actual collective will of the people, since the 25 votes that went to Bush doesn't represent the beyond-razor thin margin he won in that state. The election going to Gore, would have made sense, since Florida the margin to break the tie was in the hundreds.

There is nothing vague here about what I think is better. It is based on the "what happened" in the states, not because I'm a closet Republican putting on airs of being apolitical. Indeed, you deliberately discard the specifics and accuse me of preferring the results because "Trump won". No that is not the case. It is because three traditionally blue states flipped for the first in many elections and made themselves heard, whereas they wouldn't have been in a straight popular vote system.

States flipping, margins of victory, are not determined by me nor are they bound to a political party.

Opinons are not of equal worth, and those based on non-reality or shoddy reasoning are opinions that be deemed stupid, poorly thought out, or even incorrect. Your counterargument is a very simple ad hominem. That due to my alleged political leanings, I am satisfied with the results. Ripping a single statement out of context, and asserting implicitly that it is about my mental state and not the reasons I stated before and restated again in this post.

Perhaps if the Dems did a better job, they wouldn't have lost states that normally go to them. Michigan and Pennsylvania have spoken that their leadership has not done enough for them. Their voice would not have mattered in a popular vote system. In this case, the current system was better. In another case, it could go the other way.

If you only could understand a conditional, perhaps you could figure out what conditions made me "satisfied".
If P, then Q.
P
Therefore Q.
So, where are the two following conditionals?
If the Republican candidate has won, then the Electoral college is good.
and the contrapositive:
If the Electoral College is bad, then the Democrat has won.
Nowhere to be see of course. A matter of states with significant influence with a history of one party flipping their vote majority doesn't have to be Republican or Democrat.

By placing myself on the side of the Electoral College, should a similar matter happen with a Democrat landing a president, it would make sense to agree with the process even if I have disagreements about whether the presidency will be good or bad.

You make a terrible Devil's Advocate because rather than providing a logical rebuttal, you resort to personal attacks.

 

[fskimospy]

No, what people understand is that you're monumentally stupid. You start with a faulty premise and then try to toss in made up stats to prove it.

The EC was started to make everyone matter. Without it the major population centers carry far too much weight. When there are 5 million voters in Chicago and 500,000 or less in entire states, where the fuck do you think the candidates are going to spend their time. The ENTIRE campaign will be "Gee, if I give another speech in Chicago or LA or NYC and can change the minds of 5% of the people there that gets me more votes than 100% of Idaho."

It's funny you say that as the electoral college was actually made to ensure that slave states got extra representation. I.e.: to ensure that some people continued to not matter. Haha.

While I appreciate you pulling electoral tactics out of your ass based on nothing, as I already said those areas don't cover enough of the population to do that.

So what incentive is there to campaign to Idaho or Montana or anywhere else where there are not a million plus voters in a single city? And if there's no incentive to campaign anywhere, no incentive to address the needs of those people, no incentive to even claim to understand those people or what they want there's no incentive for those people to give a shit about either candidate because neither will speak for them, neither will speak to them, neither will even acknowledge their existence as they fly over on their way back to Dallas and Miami.

People don't campaign in Idaho or Montana now, in case you didn't notice, haha.

Are you truly too stupid to understand that? In a tight race, as this was expected to be, EVERY state matters because any state could have tipped the balance. The candidates were forced to visit smaller states because 4 or 8 electoral votes could have made the difference. If popular vote was all that mattered those states would be ignored because in a tight race there are more votes to be gained by skipping them and carpet bombing the areas with greater population density.

Yeah every state mattered which is why they spent almost all their resources in a small handful of states. It's amusing that your argument for the EC is based on the fact of it doing something that it obviously does not do. One of us is too stupid here, that's for sure.

 

[fskimospy]

If you want to continue calumniate me, be my guest, but know that it is reprehensible behavior. It is quite clear that your party creates your political paradigm, and hence any arguments to the contrary necessarily means support for the enemy(Republicans). You cannot comprehend being apolitical.

Three reliably blue states flipped to Trump. Three states that would have won it for Hillary by providing her with 46 votes total. Since the Federal Government is about the collective and has to balance. A simple majority snuffs out those DEMOCRATIC states who didn't show up for their political party.

That is why in this election, the Electoral College is better. The collective "will" of the people is far more accurately shown by the Electoral votes in this election.

Whereas, the 2000 election was so close that the popular vote might have been the better representation of the actual collective will of the people, since the 25 votes that went to Bush doesn't represent the beyond-razor thin margin he won in that state. The election going to Gore, would have made sense, since Florida the margin to break the tie was in the hundreds.

There is nothing vague here about what I think is better. It is based on the "what happened" in the states, not because I'm a closet Republican putting on airs of being apolitical. Indeed, you deliberately discard the specifics and accuse me of preferring the results because "Trump won". No that is not the case. It is because three traditionally blue states flipped for the first in many elections and made themselves heard, whereas they wouldn't have been in a straight popular vote system.

States flipping, margins of victory, are not determined by me nor are they bound to a political party.

Opinons are not of equal worth, and those based on non-reality or shoddy reasoning are opinions that be deemed stupid, poorly thought out, or even incorrect. Your counterargument is a very simple ad hominem. That due to my alleged political leanings, I am satisfied with the results. Ripping a single statement out of context, and asserting implicitly that it is about my mental state and not the reasons I stated before and restated again in this post.


If you only could understand a conditional, perhaps you could figure out what conditions made me "satisfied".
If P, then Q.
P
Therefore Q.
So, where are the two following conditionals?
If the Republican candidate has won, then the Electoral college is good.
and the contrapositive:
If the Electoral College is bad, then the Democrat has won.
Nowhere to be see of course. A matter of states with significant influence with a history of one party flipping their vote majority doesn't have to be Republican or Democrat.

By placing myself on the side of the Electoral College, should a similar matter happen with a Democrat landing a president, it would make sense to agree with the process even if I have disagreements about whether the presidency will be good or bad.

You make a terrible Devil's Advocate because rather than providing a logical rebuttal, you resort to personal attacks.

So to be clear you think the collective will of the country was represented by giving power to the person that got fewer votes because some states flipped?

That would seem to imply leadership based on trend line instead of the stated preference of the electorate.

 

[NostaSeronx]

That would seem to imply leadership based on trend line instead of the stated preference of the electorate.

Well the electoral college was built to give the candidate with merit the office. Essentially, ignoring the statewide popular vote and voting for the nationwide popular vote or abstaining or selecting someone else. George W. Bush and Al Gore both served America before the election. George W. Bush was more liked by the electors so boom.

Russia's Favorite Son or a person who worked since the beginning to be the people's president.

 

[buckshot24]

Yea, it needs to be DUMPED. Whoever gets the most votes wins, PERIOD. No, I wasn't thrilled with HC as the Dem nominee at all and I remain hopeful Trump will figure out what changes need to be made, getting rid of the EC system should be high on that list.

You're going to look like papa Smurf if you hold your breath waiting on that.

 

[flexy]

When will people just let go of this madness and move on with their lives? No amount of protesting "Not my president" is going to change reality

Let's speculate that ANY time Trump, the president of the United States, would appear in public, someone throws a huge piece of SHIT right into his face. A real, genuine very stinky piece of the most disgusting piece of crap, like having just the right consistency, not too hard but also not too runny, covering his face, hair etc...dripping down from his face down onto his clothes etc.

That would TOTALLY change reality, in some way

 

[HTFOff]

Is hillary president elect yet? She got more votes!

Wake up amerikkka!!!11!21!

 

[Puffnstuff]

It won't take long for us all to get back to the important things like "my farts smell better than yours" and other worthwhile subjects here at AT.

 

[Torn Mind]

So to be clear you think the collective will of the country was represented by giving power to the person that got fewer votes because some states flipped?

That would seem to imply leadership based on trend line instead of the stated preference of the electorate.

Strawman by omitting the why they flipped and the history of those states.

Three states with a significant Democratic history flipped.

The government does not merely govern "heads in a room". It governs areas. The area of the U.S is nothing like a city-state, where the area is small and concentrated. Since the game of politics is all about buying votes, not neglecting the hands that fed you in certain areas is something the Electoral system does better in preventing complacency. The previous trend in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan has been Democrat ever since the end of Reagan and Clinton victory would have been assured.

Likewise, the Republicans have work to do now in states like Virginia and North Carolina due to changing demographics. Conquering ol' Virginny is true feather Democrats can put in their cap.

 

[fskimospy]

Strawman by omitting the why they flipped and the history of those states.

Three states with a significant Democratic history flipped.

The government does not merely govern "heads in a room". It governs areas. The area of the U.S is nothing like a city-state, where the area is small and concentrated. Since the game of politics is all about buying votes, not neglecting the hands that fed you in certain areas is something the Electoral system does better in preventing complacency. The previous trend in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan has been Democrat ever since the end of Reagan and Clinton victory would have been assured.

Likewise, the Republicans have work to do now in states like Virginia and North Carolina due to changing demographics. Conquering ol' Virginny is true feather Democrats can put in their cap.

That is not what a straw man is. It's odd that you would accuse me of misrepresenting your argument while then repeating what I said.

You appear to have repeated that you believe the will of the electorate is best measured by trend lines instead of the actual stated preferences of the voters. Why is this?

If you aren't saying this then can you articulate more concisely exactly what you're saying?

 

[buckshot24]

So to be clear you think the collective will of the country was represented by giving power to the person that got fewer votes because some states flipped?

That would seem to imply leadership based on trend line instead of the stated preference of the electorate.

If the popular vote was what was important and both parties knew ahead of time you may have a point. The popular vote means nothing when nobody was trying to attain it. Both parties were trying to get to 270 EC votes, one party did so and the other didn't. Only losers care about this kind of moral victory crap. You lost, the popular vote means absolutely nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

If the popular vote was what was important and both parties knew ahead of time you may have a point. The popular vote means nothing when nobody was trying to attain it. Both parties were trying to get to 270 EC votes, one party did so and the other didn't. Only losers care about this kind of moral victory crap. You lost, the popular vote means absolutely nothing.

You clearly didn't read my post. Please do that before replying in the future.

 

[NostaSeronx]

The absentee ballots with bar codes have yet to be fully counted. These ballots can take up to 45 whole days after November 8th to be counted. Even though, they were shipped to ballot counting stations before then.

Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin can all switch in the coming 45 days. Most of these ballots were released shortly, before the second email happening occurred. Which by poll standards is when Rodham-Clinton could not lose.

Even Texas, North Carolina? might switch;
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/21/for-many-americans-election-day-is-already-here/

These votes are counted after election day. They tend to follow the victor of the polls to the extreme. As these voters are given time to research.

No-excuse Absentee & Absentee with Excuse & Etc.

 

[pcgeek11]

Let's speculate that ANY time Trump, the president of the United States, would appear in public, someone throws a huge piece of SHIT right into his face. A real, genuine very stinky piece of the most disgusting piece of crap, like having just the right consistency, not too hard but also not too runny, covering his face, hair etc...dripping down from his face down onto his clothes etc.

That would TOTALLY change reality, in some way

OK, You go first! I'll look for you on the news.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The absentee ballots with bar codes have yet to be fully counted. These ballots can take up to 45 whole days after November 8th to be counted. Even though, they were shipped to ballot counting stations before then.

Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin can all switch in the coming 45 days. Most of these ballots were released shortly, before the second email happening occurred. Which by poll standards is when Rodham-Clinton could not lose.

Even Texas, North Carolina? might switch;
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/21/for-many-americans-election-day-is-already-here/

These votes are counted after election day. They tend to follow the victor of the polls to the extreme. As these voters are given time to research.

No-excuse Absentee & Absentee with Excuse & Etc.

LOL, the states know how many absentee ballots that were requested and received by the cut off date/time when they report the election results from their respective states. Trump will be sworn in as President in January.