Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Does Clinton's Popular Vote Victory Reduce Trump's Mandate?
YES. Trump's vote count is too low to be a mandate for sweeping change. 70 27.89%
NO. Trump won, and that's reason enough for a mandate for sweeping change. 125 49.80%
DOESN'T MATTER. The mandate concept is too vague to mean anything. 56 22.31%
Voters: 251. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-27-2016, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
4,550 posts, read 4,094,966 times
Reputation: 3132

Advertisements

If it was popular vote then it'd have to be federally overseen then there'd be strict id laws and hillary would have lost anyways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-27-2016, 06:36 PM
 
9,574 posts, read 7,425,752 times
Reputation: 14006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_Holiday View Post
Trump was elected president by the electoral college. The majority of the people in this country did not want Donald Trump as president. That is a fact that will never be able to be disputed as evidenced by the popular vote.
The majority of people that voted in the election didn't want Hillary Clinton either. You are confusing plurality with majority.

If a candidate gets 50.1% of the vote, they get a MAJORITY. Right now Hillary has 47.97% of popular vote and Donald has 46.43% of the popular vote NEITHER HAS A MAJORITY!

A PLURALITY happens when less than half vote for a candidate because the vote is split among more than two candidates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2016, 09:52 PM
 
Location: H-town, TX.
3,503 posts, read 7,533,179 times
Reputation: 2232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_Holiday View Post
Senators, governors, congressmen, etc are all elected by popular vote. So why not the president? The electoral college is a sham and voter suppression for both democrats and republicans.

Trump was elected president by the electoral college. The majority of the people in this country did not want Donald Trump as president. That is a fact that will never be able to be disputed as evidenced by the popular vote.
If you're not joking, when I vote locally, I'm not worried about dead voters in blue states demeaning my vote and Jew Stein trolling for recounts and running off with six million shekels when that's over with..

Play by the rules. I know ****libs aren't big on that, but turnabout is fair play.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2016, 03:41 AM
 
Location: Maine
3,541 posts, read 2,887,756 times
Reputation: 6858
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
Dude, I'm always right...
SHABAZZ310
Member of House Targaryen
befriend

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Awesome, CA
7,700 posts, read 3,473,337 times
Reputation: 3033

I'm talking about after the election is called and Hillary wins. No one is going to revolt, they're just going to complain for four years..



I beg to differ.



bill
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2016, 06:52 AM
 
9,617 posts, read 6,096,409 times
Reputation: 3884
I am pretty sure you mean DE-legitamize. It fits with the rest of your post. I agree. I have seen at least two, maybe three articles and or clips where a Dem strategist, politico has said we do not want to 'normalize' (President-elect) Trump.

Enough said, strategy and tactics of personal destruction; just happens to be after the fact of President-elect Trump's election. They tried character assassination in the campaign. Did not work.

Hail mary time. You see that? I used the word hail in a sentence. I must be an alt-righter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer View Post
Trying to 'legitimize' trump's presidency and create a rallying point to consolidate wayward dems and dem socialists. nothing like a war to get people together to fight a common enemy. Media support is required.


It would be a disservice to real democrats to keep the democrat name for the party.


Hillary decried the idea of a recount.


Interesting if you google 'hillary decries trump rigged election' hillary decries rigged election' and the first two pages just list Trump calling the election rigged....no mention of hillary's now famous speech where she recoiled at the thought of a recount or rigged election.


You'd have to search creatively to find that video of hillary recoiling at the thought elections are rigged and trump is horrible for saying it.


the media is still at it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2016, 06:53 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,286,970 times
Reputation: 17867
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
No they wouldn't. Didn't you listen to your lord and savior Donald Trump. He said he would have been able to pick up millions more votes if he targeted New York and California...
The Trump team did their homework and knew exactly where they needed to target. My area which is considered the key area in PA that swung the vote in Donald's direction Trump visited the day before the election right before heading to Wisconsin for his last stop. You can take the vote counts in 2008 and 2012 in my area and compare them to this year, the differences make up a very large part of his margin of victory in PA.

If the popular vote wins the campaigns of both candidates would have been completely different. We can only speculate but what I would suggest is in both CA and NY Hillary's margin of victory would have been much less. For starters people that would have voted for Trump would of been coming out in larger numbers because their vote now counts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2016, 07:35 AM
 
Location: The Lakes Region
3,074 posts, read 4,742,310 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic View Post
I wouldn't say that's necessarily quite the reason why. The actual reason is that the founders had a profound and reasoned fear of democracy. They felt allowing popular vote would lead to factions of people, in a modern context sometimes called "they tyranny of the majority" that would overwhelm and take the rights of other citizens. The term "United States" existed when the Declaration of Independence was written and that name stuck. The Article of Confederation was the first government "constitution" and it had no president. There was the president of congress, elected every year, who was in no way similar to the President of the constitution. So I don't think the name "United States" has anything to do with what you're saying.

That said, the popular vote still does not matter.
And as Plato said, democracy is the worst form of government which is being proven
right now by the behavior of the DNC. The founding fathers knew that a democracy
would be the easiest to overthrow and be taken over by a despot and that's why they
created a republic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2016, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,685 posts, read 6,777,590 times
Reputation: 6598
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
But the people didn't. And we are more important than any document.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Don't like the rules of the game? Change them!

Trouble is, you can't change them. Too many states with tiny populations -- states that are routinely ignored in favor of more populated states -- would need to willingly agree to make their voice even tinier. They would have to agree to make themselves less important than they already are. I don't necessarily take issue with the idea that the popular vote should ultimately determine the outcome of any given election. I just don't see how you're ever going pass the needed Constitutional Amendment to make it happen.

Right or wrong, we have a hybrid system. So long as NY, CA and IL overwhelmingly vote Democrat while the rest of the country is closely contested, we're very much at risk of seeing the winner of the popular vote lose the election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2016, 07:42 AM
 
7,270 posts, read 4,247,233 times
Reputation: 5469
why even read the article ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2016, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Paradise
4,943 posts, read 4,283,573 times
Reputation: 7746
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
If you're a Republican then he has a mandate. If you're a Democrat then he doesn't. If you're like me and you're neither, then you just hope that Trump doesn't make too big of a mess of our country.



Or like me...a republican who doesn't think there will ever be another "mandate".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:54 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top