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.
That is also the only time a Republican has won the popular vote in the last six presidential elections. That means Bush is the only GOP candidate to win the popular vote since 1988, and Bush only did it once.
That's crazy.
In 30 years (32 by the time the next presidential election is held), only once has the GOP candidate won the popular vote.
That just shows that a majority of the country is stupid.
Well, it's OK to ignore the popular vote when the millions of voters being ignored are Californians. Their votes shouldn't determine the election because something something rural states something something.
When the exact opposite occurs, then it's totally OK that millions of people are being completely disenfranchised because, well, hell if I know. It isn't OK for a majority to win, but it's absolutely fine if a majority loses to a minority in this democracy as long as they voted Republican.
Especially as loads of those voting are even Californians but Mexicans enjoying the sanctuary state. Heck, if I had my way, CA would get a bit fat ZERO electoral votes until they got rid of that sanctuary state thing.
Well, it's OK to ignore the popular vote when the millions of voters being ignored are Californians. Their votes shouldn't determine the election because something something rural states something something.
When the exact opposite occurs, then it's totally OK that millions of people are being completely disenfranchised because, well, hell if I know. It isn't OK for a majority to win, but it's absolutely fine if a majority loses to a minority in this democracy as long as they voted Republican.
Clearly you did not pay attention in HS American history class, or take college level classes on our constitutional republic.
Rather than suggesting you do so now (which would likely fall on deaf ears, just watch this short and easy to understand video to fill in the gaps of what you are missing regarding why we have the EC system;
I did not vote for Trump but his campaign understood the EC much better than Hillary. The sore losers on the left are so pathetic. Its been more than a year and this nonsense never ends.
I did not vote for Trump and I can't stand Trump. But I agree...he ran a better campaign than Hillary in 2016. He was in the right places at the right time. Hillary was in the wrong places at the wrong time, etc. End of story for this cycle.
That doesn't mean one can't take a principled stand and say the Electoral College as currently practiced is antiquated and should be replaced....in the future with a system that awards the presidency to he/she who wins the popular vote.
The U.S. Constitution has provided a great blueprint for many other countries who have sought self-governance....however, ZERO have chosen to adopt this aspect of our system. There is a reason for that...
As I noted in a prior post, the winner-take-all system is not federally mandated; states are free to allocate their electoral votes as they wish.
The Electoral College was not the only Constitutional limitation on direct democracy, though we have discarded most of those limitations. For example, U.S. Senators were initially appointed by state legislatures. We ditched that a long time ago.
Mob rule is a pejorative term used by right wingers and plutocrats to avoid direct democracy. The public has been duped and brainwashed by this effective propaganda that pictures direct democracy as a lynch mob.
A rational direct democracy that uses a deliberative process protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is totally plausible and preferable.
Preferable by someone like yourself who lives in a politically homogenous area like LA or the Bay Area. Not so much for people in other parts of your state but they’re subjected to a near permanent majority rule because of the numbers of people condensed into that area. Just talking with people in other parts of the state who love California but really despise being ruled over by smug authoritarian types like yourself who feel their was is always the “preferable” and only way is why the system exists. And here is why:
“Yet when Chen and Rodden drew hundreds of random district maps using a nonpartisan computer algorithm, they found that their maps were biased in favor of Republicans too, sometimes as much as the official map. Democratic voters in the early 2000s, they found, were clustering into highly homogeneous neighborhoods in big cities like Miami and spreading out their remaining support in suburbs and small towns that got swallowed up inside Republican-leaning districts. They were packing and cracking themselves.
...
Democratic cartographers have a tougher job than Republican ones, who “can do strikingly well by literally choosing precincts at random.“
Thankfully reality keeps the system balanced whereas a popular vote mechanism would have large swaths of the country left without a voice even as those densely populalated area rely almost completely on them for survival.
“Should significant parts of the electrical power infra- structure be lost for any substantial period of time, the Commission believes that the con- sequences are likely to be catastrophic, and many people may ultimately die for lack of the basic elements necessary to sustain life in dense urban and suburban communities. In fact, the Commission is deeply concerned that such impacts are likely in the event of an EMP attack unless practical steps are taken to provide protection for critical elements of the electric system and for rapid restoration of electric power, particularly to essential services.
...
Egg farms and poultry farms typically sustain dense populations in carefully controlled environments using automated feeding, watering, and air conditioning systems.”
I bring that last quote up because people like yourself have to constantly be reminded that there are other people in the world besides themselves and that they, too, play an important role in the grand scheme of things. Cities are important to bring people together for advancements and economic power but they are worthless slaughter houses without the “flyover” country that so many of the people in cities despise once they fester in their pathological bubble. The reverse isn’t true because “flyover” country knows where the resources they provide goes. The people in cities haven’t a clue about supply chains for the most part and are completely clueless where their nearly packaged food comes from.
So you might want to keep that in mind because parasites are helplessly devoid of life without a host to feed off of.
I did not vote for Trump and I can't stand Trump. But I agree...he ran a better campaign than Hillary in 2016. He was in the right places at the right time. Hillary was in the wrong places at the wrong time, etc. End of story for this cycle.
That doesn't mean one can't take a principled stand and say the Electoral College as currently practiced is antiquated and should be replaced....in the future with a system that awards the presidency to he/she who wins the popular vote.
The U.S. Constitution has provided a great blueprint for many other countries who have sought self-governance....however, ZERO have chosen to adopt this aspect of our system. There is a reason for that...
I’m sorry, are you referring to the European Union or something? How about you make clear who you’re comparing the United States to so that everyonce can make a judgement for themselves if it’s an apples to apples comparison or if it’s a logical fallacy used to push a political agenda.
Constitutional Amendment not required. Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral college votes based on the popular vote. There is NOTHING in the constitution requiring the winner take all system used by most states.
You are correct. But Trump would have still won. I'm sure he, or any candidate from either party, would be willing to trade 1 EC vote from Montana for 15 from California.
Popular vote doesn't mean squat for a few simple reasons starting with only 58% of eligable voters actually voted. Not to mention Hillary's 2.86 million lead is nothing compared to the 7.8 million that went 3rd party.
If you want popular vote then the entire system needs to be designed to lead require either a 50.01%+ take or a second round of voting between the top two like they do in other countries, 3rd parties hurt HRC more than they did Trump. Until then stop with the crying that HRC "won" (couldn't even break 50%) the popular vote.
Import Third World Animals. Get Socialist and Communist Voters.
The absolute, ironic thing is, is that they come here to escape the s**t holes they come from and then they vote to make this country the communist, socialist s**t holes they come from.
It's called low I.Q.
Tons of information on that to any one who's not brainwashed and wants to learn.
Import people from a S**t Hole. Get a S**t Hole.
Not hard math to do!!!
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.
