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.
Right, that proves my point exactly. I don't hate liberals, everyone has their own opinion. What I am saying is that why should we let two of the most liberal states in the country, speak for the whole entire country on who gets to be president? And only one state, California, put Hillary over the top in the popular vote. So, you are cool with California deciding who our president is?
Nice strawman. No one is saying two cities or even two states should unilaterally decide elections. If California ends up putting a candidate over the top, it's because millions and millions of other Americans NOT in California also voted that way.
Nice strawman. No one is saying two cities or even two states should unilaterally decide elections. If California ends up putting a candidate over the top, it's because millions and millions of other Americans NOT in California also voted that way.
That doesn't change anything I said. There were still 55 million people outside of California that voted for Clinton.
But, that isn't my point. My point is that California decided the popular vote, and if we went based on that system, California would decide the election, leaving the other 49 states out.
If you removed only California’s popular votes from the total, this is the result you would get, as of November 16:
Clinton: 55,889,446
Trump: 57,760,819
Trump also leads in the swing states as a whole:
Trump: 22,056,165
Clinton: 21,182,086
Trump swing state popular vote lead: 874,079
But, that isn't my point. My point is that California decided the popular vote, and if we went based on that system, California would decide the election, leaving the other 49 states out.
If you removed only California’s popular votes from the total, this is the result you would get, as of November 16:
Clinton: 55,889,446
Trump: 57,760,819
Trump also leads in the swing states as a whole:
Trump: 22,056,165
Clinton: 21,182,086
Trump swing state popular vote lead: 874,079
You're not leaving the other 49 states out. The other 49 states cast 112 million votes.
You're not leaving the other 49 states out. The other 49 states cast 112 million votes.
You are not getting my point. My point was that if the election was based on POPULAR VOTE, then California would be the deciding factor, making the other 49 states irrelevant. The article states that outside of California, Trump has a 2 million vote lead.
I agree that if it were not for the millions of Dems in California and New York that voted Hillary she would have lost the popular too.
I know I know that CA and NY are part of the country and they get a vote but the EC was set up so densely populated states like CA and NY would not be deciding elections for the rest of the country.
Some here have said that they are over the past and looking toward the future. I wish that were the case of the media too that just keep pounding on Trump. He is not near as bad as the gloomy predicted. He is no slick Willy Clinton and he is certainly not Obama but then again that is why he was so popular.
I agree that if it were not for the millions of Dems in California and New York that voted Hillary she would have lost the popular too.
I know I know that CA and NY are part of the country and they get a vote but the EC was set up so densely populated states like CA and NY would not be deciding elections for the rest of the country.
Some here have said that they are over the past and looking toward the future. I wish that were the case of the media too that just keep pounding on Trump. He is not near as bad as the gloomy predicted. He is no slick Willy Clinton and he is certainly not Obama but then again that is why he was so popular.
Outside of California, Trump has a 2 million vote lead. Not fair to let one state make the decision for 49 others.
You are not getting my point. My point was that if the election was based on POPULAR VOTE, then California would be the deciding factor, making the other 49 states irrelevant. The article states that outside of California, Trump has a 2 million vote lead.
The other 49 states are not irrelevant. If every other state voted for Trump, California's vote wouldn't matter. It would only impact races where the vote tallies are close, and if the vote tallies are that close, then why SHOULDN'T the 40 million people have as much of a say as everyone else?
The other 49 states are not irrelevant. If every other state voted for Trump, California's vote wouldn't matter. It would only impact races where the vote tallies are close, and if the vote tallies are that close, then why SHOULDN'T the 40 million people have as much of a say as everyone else?
Right, okay, so Hillary has a 3 million vote lead over trump, right? That is correct. (As far as we know). But, if you based elections on the popular vote, California would put Hillary over the top with the popular vote, even though Trump has a 2 million vote lead outside of California, so California would ultimately make Hillary win. In CA they do have a say, But they aren't the ones running the country electing far left politicians either.
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.
