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.
Her lead did not come from one state, unless you are trying to say that California accounted for 65,844,610 votes. Yes, California was the last to be counted because it's on the West Coast, but for you to keep insisting that California alone gave her the lead in the popular vote is BS.
Clinton got 7,362,490 votes in California. What about the other 58,482,120 votes she got from the rest of the country? They don't count?
You are posting nonsense.
'Trump actually carried – in the 49 states outside of California, he had a 1.2 million vote majority. He got killed in California because he never campaigned there,' Gingrich said."
Clinton won California by 4.2 million and took New York by more than 1.6 million. The combined 5.8 million-vote advantage in just those two states was more than twice the size of her overall edge nationwide.
When the dust settled, she lost the rest of the country by 3 million votes.
Maybe reading isn't your strongest subject, but this here is exactly why The Electoral College exists.
'Trump actually carried – in the 49 states outside of California, he had a 1.2 million vote majority. He got killed in California because he never campaigned there,' Gingrich said."
Clinton won California by 4.2 million and took New York by more than 1.6 million. The combined 5.8 million-vote advantage in just those two states was more than twice the size of her overall edge nationwide.
When the dust settled, she lost the rest of the country by 3 million votes.
Maybe reading isn't your strongest subject, but this here is exactly why The Electoral College exists.
So it's your contention that the voters in New York and California are not as legitimate as the voters in flyover country?
People vote. Not empty space, which is what much of the flyover country is, especially in the western part of the country. And some three million more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. And those three million, no matter where they're located, are just as much Americans as the handful of voters in Idaho.
Those are the facts.
You pretending that voters in one region of the country shouldn't count as heavily as voters in another region is just more stupidity from the right.
So it's your contention that the voters in New York and California are not as legitimate as the voters in flyover country?
People vote. Not empty space, which is what much of the flyover country is, especially in the western part of the country. And some three million more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. And those three million, no matter where they're located, are just as much Americans as the handful of voters in Idaho.
Those are the facts.
You pretending that voters in one region of the country shouldn't count as heavily as voters in another region is just more stupidity from the right.
Hope I typed that slow enough for you to grasp.
'
No they are as legitimate. But, CA and NY should not decide who the president is for the rest of the country. People do vote. People live in flyover country as well, just not packed together in the projects in the cities. I know 3 million more people voted for Clinton, and I'm not saying they shouldn't count as heavily, but her vote lead comes from just one state. If you read my previous article, she lost 48 states by 3 million votes. She won the popular vote by getting 4 million more votes in California. Just because someone lives in say Wisconsin, doesn't mean that their vote shouldn't count just to pander to the West and East Coasts. I'm not okay with 2 major populated states deciding who the president is for the 48 others. Civics class was either skipped or failed in high school I see.
No they are as legitimate. But, CA and NY should not decide who the president is for the rest of the country. People do vote. People live in flyover country as well, just not packed together in the projects in the cities. I know 3 million more people voted for Clinton, and I'm not saying they shouldn't count as heavily, but her vote lead comes from just one state. If you read my previous article, she lost 48 states by 3 million votes. She won the popular vote by getting 4 million more votes in California. Just because someone lives in say Wisconsin, doesn't mean that their vote shouldn't count just to pander to the West and East Coasts. I'm not okay with 2 major populated states deciding who the president is for the 48 others.
Once again, New York and California do not decide elections any more than Texas does. The votes Clinton got in California that surpassed Trump is no different than the votes Trump got in Texas that surpassed Clinton. It's just a part of their overall numbers. I don't see you saying that Texas shouldn't be deciding elections.
We have a representative government, meaning it represents the people, not land masses. And there are more people in California than there are in Idaho. That's just the way it is. Their voices--every single one of them--are every bit as deserving of representation as all the voters that come from those huge, mostly empty states in the middle of the country. Which is why your "argument" holds no water.
One impact of the electoral college system is that in some cases, turnout levels are higher in competitive states than in states that are easy wins for one party. For example, Florida had about 9.5 million voters for president in 2018, while Texas had about 9 million. However, Texas' total population is several million larger than Florida's - so turnout rates are clearly considerably different between the two large Southern states. Texas has 38 electoral votes and Florida has 29, so ironically, each Texas voter was actually over-represented relative to Florida voters in 2016.
In the event of a national popular vote, it is likely that this turnout differential before more and less competitive states would diminish, because both Texas and Florida voters would feel equally empowered to influence the national outcome. Basically the popular vote as the sum of 51 independent elections may not be equivalent to the popular vote when there is one huge national election. I don't know if such a system would necessarily benefit one side more than the other, as there are non-competitive states of varying sizes on both sides of the political spectrum. But it is possible that Hillary Clinton in 2016 (or Al Gore in 2000, for that matter) wouldn't have won if there was no electoral college. Or she may have won by more than she actually did, but we will never know. Anyway, under the current system, the national popular vote is an interesting statistical artifact - but it is irrelevant in terms of assessing the outcome of the election.
As far as whether voters in Los Angeles or rural Idaho matter more, the brutal truth at this point is that both are irrelevant as long as their states are non-competitive. Democrats need to win back Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which I think is absolutely possible with the right candidate and emphasis on the right issues. Their 2020 nominee needs to spend significant time in multiple areas of all three states, rather than ignoring Michigan until the last minute, avoiding Wisconsin completely, and periodically making an appearance in the urban centers of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh but staying away from the rest of Pennsylvania. Win back those three at a minimum and hold the Clinton 2016 states, and that will be the end of Trump in the White House even with the steadfast approval of his base.
If he gets help from Russia and all his little friends......he could be "selected," again. Hopefully, he will have resigned or dragged out of the oval office, before another fiasco of an election.
The electoral college should go the way of the Titanic, has about the same effect. Seems like the electoral system is way open to fraud.
Maybe, 2020 could be a trial year. Lets try a popular vote for president and commander in chief. The office of president is just too important to leave it to chance.
At least vet and do a HUGE background check on anyone running for that office.
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.
