Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Awww did someones posts get modded because...just like this one, they were designed to do nothing but fight rather then discuss a topic? I dont report things for being off topic generally. I DO report things that are just designed to start fights, etc. And no, even then your nonsense doesn't rise to the reporting level.
Nice find? LOL. Florida was a key state. Trump won it I believe, and just as I indicated once that happened it WAS all over except the crying.
I know, you guys want to make it all about whining instead of having actual discussions. I dont know if that is because you aren't very good at discussions, or if its because as human beings you just aren't good winners, but its truly unfortunate.
It's what people do when they don't have anything actually worth saying.
If the goal was to win the popular vote, Trump would have won the popular vote. If the election was a baseball game, Trump won the most runs over home plate and Hillary got the most hits and base runs.
Most people who follow the elections know that candidates spend their time and money in the states they believe require the most attention. It starts well before the primary elections and caucuses. So how can that be good for all Americans?
In response to Clinton's lead in the popular vote, Trump tweeted that he would have "adjusted his strategy" and campaigned harder in some states. That one remark is very telling. Again, it doesn't matter which party you support to understand that, except for local and state offices, candidates do not campaign to win the national vote.
When one state like Florida, for example, has 29 votes and, in many cases, a candidate absolutely needs it to win, I don't see how that can be fair to anyone, Democrat or Republican. If the EC votes were tied and CA determined the winner, those 55 votes could choose the President even if the other candidate were ahead nationally by millions.
I also believe more people would get involved in the democratic process if they felt their votes made a difference. I lived half my life in deep blue MA and heard many Republicans tell me they always voted for local offices, for Governor and Congress, but often felt it didn't matter which presidential candidate they picked. I've heard the same in Alabama from liberals who had a "what's the point?" attitude.
Although I am not questioning the results of the 2016 election, I have a very strong feeling that had a Democrat won in 2000 and 2016 by the EC and lost the popular vote, the Trump supporters would be expressing a very different opinion.
Last edited by justNancy; 11-19-2016 at 12:54 PM..
Reason: fix typo (win, not will the vote)
If the goal was to win the popular vote, Trump would have won the popular vote. If the election was a baseball game, Trump won the most runs over home plate and Hillary got the most hits and base runs.
I've seen this analogy before and it's a good one. However, I find comparing an election for the leader of the free world to a baseball game a bit disturbing, don't you?
Yes, it was all a big game and the end justifies the means. Fake news, rumors, innuendo and doing or saying whatever it takes to get votes is what our elections have come down to, since people don't bother fact-checking any more.
Now that I think about it, maybe baseball is not a good comparison. 99% of the time we get to see exactly what's going on in real time. Yes, an umpire makes some controversial calls, but that's the problem with your analogy. Fair is a baseball call and applies little to real life.
Last edited by justNancy; 11-19-2016 at 12:39 PM..
Reason: fix typo "end justifies the means"
Alexander Hamilton explained his argument for an electoral college in the Federalist Papers, as a means to ensure that an unqualified and unsuitable man would not become president. How does this apply to our current situation? Should Hamilton's intent be carried-out in 2016?
He was giving the electors a lot of opportunity to deliberate and for the "sense of the people" to be preserved as a main consideration. But he also makes the point that the President is chosen "by men most capable---". He seems to be saying that the electors will have the final responsibility of doing the choosing.
I agree that if the electors were to rebel and choose someone other than the candidate to whom they were pledged, it would cause big trouble. Unless of course, that candidate continued to offend and threaten people and turned a large number of those who voted for him, into a state of buyer's remorse. There's still 27 days from now until the Electoral College meets and plenty of opportunities to lose supporters. Going by what the candidate with the most electoral votes has been saying and doing, he seems on course for that.
Last edited by Steve McDonald; 11-22-2016 at 04:35 PM..
The only thing worse is all the losers whining about the electoral college.
How many sore loser threads are there already?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alexander Hamilton on the Electoral College
