Hillary lost the popular vote.

[oldjones]

And that's why they have the electoral college, so the majority of "states" aren't ruled by the minority. (California, Illinois & New York primarily)

Since the number of electors is assigned by population, that's malarkey. Nothing prevents the winner being elected by a small number of states with a large total number of Electors.

What encourages gaming the system i.e. playing the rigged game, is states awarding their Electoral votes on a winner take all basis. When the real vote is as evenly split as it was, that 'rewards' the guy who got a mere 50%+1 with twice as many votes as he actually 'earned'. And disenfranchises the other 50% of the voters, who might as well have stayed home.

And Americans wonder why their turnouts are so low.

 

[oldjones]

A lesson for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIPt0oZuYFU

Life is too short to watch another video to discover it's just more amateurish BS. If you can't tell me convincingly why I should bother, I won't.

Even better: You offer the lesson, and we can all reap the reward of your generosity. Post away.

 

[FAST]

And that's why they have the electoral college, so the majority of "states" aren't ruled by the minority. (California, Illinois & New York primarily)

YEP,...looks like the leaders who created the electoral college were more interested in what was beneficial for their country, than the current crop who are only interested in their personal benefit.

It worked when they created it, and it worked now.

FAST

 

[SkyRider]

And Americans wonder why their turnouts are so low.

If the split is 50-50 one would think that the voter turnout would be higher because every vote is important.

 

[basketcase]

And that's why they have the electoral college, so the majority of "states" aren't ruled by the minority. (California, Illinois & New York primarily)

So the minority of people get their choice over the majority? That's a pretty screwed up argument.


200 years ago when the only way votes could be handled was by sending electors to a convention the electoral college made sense. In the modern world where national votes can be tallied almost immediately there is no need for it.

 

[OnTheWayOut]

That's 'repeatedly' in my dictionary. And it's happened twice in this still very young century. For some voters that's more often than not.

For any country so proud of its democracy even once would seem too many.

you need a new dictionary.

 

[Moviefan-2]

In the extremely limited and artificial world of election law, it may be meaningless who got the most votes. As you said, but I never would.

In the real world of how functioning democracies are ruled by their people, most caring folks believe who, or what, gets the most votes is hugely important. Indeed essential.

I quite agree, "There is no way to know how strategies and budget decisions would have affected the outcome if the goal were to win the popular vote. We don't know what the outcome would have been." which is why I didn't address that stillborn issue or it's conjoined twin: "The goal was to win a minimum of 270 electoral college seats. Both parties had strategies, operations and budgets aimed at that goal." Argue them with someone who raises objections.

Whatever you have come up with as your undefined "popular vote conclusions", my point and my conclusion is that the result is not democratic. As the President-Elect said more than once before he won, "…the election is rigged". It clearly was and is, when the winner was not the candidate most people chose.

What's his plan for fixing it? Or yours? Or tell us how Winner Take All is a democratic way of assigning Electoral votes when the people's choice was split almost evenly?

The fact that Hillary got more votes is meaningless in terms of the 2016 election, since both sides knew that the outcome wouldn't be based on the popular vote.

Whether the U.S. should base its presidential elections on the popular vote count is another matter. I don't have a recommendation because it isn't something I have looked at in any great detail.

 

[Frankfooter]

The fact that Hillary got more votes is meaningless .

Tell that to the half of the US who fears their voices will no longer be heard.

 

[Smallcock]

Tell that to the half of the US who fears their voices will no longer be heard.

Where do you get your stats from?

Very few people are fearfu of their voice not being heard. The protestors certainly aren't. They want to break things, steal, and cause trouble. Most Clinton supporters don't support that behaviour nor are they afraid of having "their voice no longer heard". LOL

There is rule of law to protect everybody.

 

[fuji]

Once again fuji,...the popular vote was tied,...the electoral college mechanism then made a decision,...the CORRECT decision.

The electoral college was created so no one faction would over rule, simply by numbers,...as in the US after the civil war.

Let me explain this to you,...if either the North or the South immediately after the civil war ended,...had a larger population, the resulting vote would not be representative of the country,...I know you have a problem understanding that,...but I can't simplify it any further for you fuji.

In the current US population per state, Californian could have an unrepresentative effect on the out come.

FAST

The popular vote was not tied, liar.

 

[fuji]

The fact that Hillary got more votes is meaningless in terms of the 2016 election, since both sides knew that the outcome wouldn't be based on the popular vote.

Whether the U.S. should base its presidential elections on the popular vote count is another matter. I don't have a recommendation because it isn't something I have looked at in any great detail.

It depends on the topic. It's meaningful in response to people who claim Clinton was unpopular or who say Trump won a resounding victory. Clearly Clinton is more popular and winning the EC while losing the popular vote is just barely squeaking by.

It also signifies that over half of Americans believed in the platform Clinton advanced which should mean something to any American president who claims to care what Americans want.

And finally it does seriously undermine any claim by Trump that he has a strong mandate. The reality is he was the less popular candidate and even worse many of those who voted for him actually dislike him--they just disliked the other candidate even more.

Expect to see it mean something to congressmen and senators as they approach midterm elections. Expect Trump to have a very short honeymoon as new President owing to his lack of a mandate from the people. Expect senators and congressmen to push back against a President whose best attribute is that he was seen as the lesser evil by his party.

 

[LickingGravity]

Trump never argued that the electoral college was rigged. He said the election coverage was rigged, and it was.

You have a really short memory. He said voting was rigged period. He cited illegal voters has the main problem. It was a cornerstone of strategy incite the uneducated white male vote. Obviouslt it worked with you..

 

[oldjones]

If the split is 50-50 one would think that the voter turnout would be higher because every vote is important.

When people believe the system's rigged, some will go to the barricades and some to the shelters. What you won't get is more participation.

 

[oldjones]

The fact that Hillary got more votes is meaningless in terms of the 2016 election, since both sides knew that the outcome wouldn't be based on the popular vote.

Whether the U.S. should base its presidential elections on the popular vote count is another matter. I don't have a recommendation because it isn't something I have looked at in any great detail.

Since that last has been precisely my point all along I fail to see why you've been wasting your time and mine replying to it with inaccurate and irrelevant observations about another issue. Thanks for clearing up your non-interest in this one, and best of luck arguing the election now past.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Since that last has been precisely my point all along I fail to see why you've been wasting your time and mine replying to it with inaccurate and irrelevant observations about another issue.

Whether my point was irrelevant or not is a matter of some debate (there are plenty of people yammering about Hillary having "won" the popular vote).

"Inaccurate" is, in fact, an inaccurate statement. Nothing I posted was inaccurate.

 

[Bud Plug]

You have a really short memory. He said voting was rigged period. He cited illegal voters has the main problem. It was a cornerstone of strategy incite the uneducated white male vote. Obviouslt it worked with you..

When someone makes a statement like "the election is rigged" they may mean a variety of things. Trump articulated some of those things: a) voter fraud, b) media bias, c) campaigning by the sitting president, d) manufacturing of a voter base by use of immigration policy, e) the necessity of raising huge amounts of money in order to run for office (and the indebtedness to donors that inevitably entails from that), and f) primary rules and behaviour by parties that favour establishment candidates. It would be illogical to assume that he mentioned EVERYTHING he thought could be encompassed by the word "rigged". It would also be illogical to impute to him opinions about whether certain issues are part of "rigging" (like the electoral college system) unless he tied that, himself, to his comments.

Trump does not talk like a politician. He does not choose his words carefully like a lawyer. The best description of the error that the media and his other opponents make, time and again, is that they take him literally, but not seriously, instead of how they should take him - seriously, but not literally. I think that's the mistake you're making.

 

[eznutz]

So the minority of people get their choice over the majority? That's a pretty screwed up argument.


200 years ago when the only way votes could be handled was by sending electors to a convention the electoral college made sense. In the modern world where national votes can be tallied almost immediately there is no need for it.

Trump won the state level popular vote (31 states - 21 states) and in doing so picked up the most electoral college votes.
The fact that the population of LA, NYC & Chicago vote democrat and tipped the national popular vote in Hillary's favour is irrelevant.

 

[oldjones]

Whether my point was irrelevant or not is a matter of some debate (there are plenty of people yammering about Hillary having "won" the popular vote).

"Inaccurate" is, in fact, an inaccurate statement. Nothing I posted was inaccurate.

It is inaccurate to claim the vote count is meaningless, either in the context of an actual election or as amatter of democratic theory. If it was meaningless, there would be no count at all.

If your posts are relevant to "plenty of people" they should be so directed; they were replies to me, and are irrelevant to any point I'm interested in.

 

[FAST]

+/ -

The popular vote was not tied, liar.

If you don't understand why the vote is a "tie",...nobody can help you.

Has to do with simple math, and simple logic,...not my problem you have problems with both.

I gave you an example using digital thermometers to help you understand,...but you couldn't even comprehend that.

And again fuji,...its OK that you insulted me AGAIN,...we all know how that works.

FAST

 

[Smallcock]

You have a really short memory. He said voting was rigged period. He cited illegal voters has the main problem. It was a cornerstone of strategy incite the uneducated white male vote. Obviouslt it worked with you..

Again, Trump never argued that the electoral college was rigged.

See Bud Plug's addendum above for a complete explanation of why your reply is incomplete and frankly, absurd.