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 12-02-2016, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Free From The Oppressive State
30,253 posts, read 23,729,935 times
Reputation: 38634

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
It's a fake map, anyone with half a brain would know that, it shows northern Nevada as red lol, where'd you get it, infowars?

Here's a real one
Boy you sure showed me!

Looks pretty blazing red all across the country to me. Just as I said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2016, 10:28 PM
 
32,060 posts, read 15,055,077 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee View Post
The Founding Fathers were so smart to create the electoral votes as otherwise 3 cities would decide everything for an entire country as just the inner cities are democrats and most of the map is republican.
The people should decide who they want as president don't you think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2016, 10:35 PM
 
34,037 posts, read 17,056,322 times
Reputation: 17197
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
The people should decide who they want as president don't you think.

They do, in what are truly 51 individual POTUS races, as DC counts also.


The founders were brilliant devising a system where larger states get more electoral votes, but not enough to individually decide a POTUS race.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2016, 10:36 PM
 
32,060 posts, read 15,055,077 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
They do, in what are truly 51 individual POTUS races, as DC counts also.


The founders were brilliant devising a system where larger states get more electoral votes, but not enough to individually decide a POTUS race.
No they don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2016, 06:02 AM
 
9,617 posts, read 6,062,579 times
Reputation: 3884
And used very poor judgement in deciding where to focus her efforts, given our system of electing presidents. You get that? She was not wise enough, cogent enough, smart enough to know where the electoral votes counted the most.

Don't glorify an incompetent, self-entitled, now done politician.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Hillary Clinton has now received more votes than any other president accept Obama.

And we have to put up with this idiotic joker Trump as president.

Something is wrong here.

#trumphasnomandate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2016, 11:31 AM
 
3,221 posts, read 1,737,076 times
Reputation: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Yeah, it's a damned shame every state gets at least one Representative (California has 55) and two Senators. What were they thinking back then?

And Trump still won a majority in the rest of the country

I didnt vote for him, nor Clinton, but it's past time you guys suck it up and stop complaining.
We can have intellectual discussions about whatever we damn well please, so maybe you should suck it up and stop being so sensitive to the conversations of other people. You don't have to participate ya know? But oh yeah...you do it because it makes you feel good to reprimand people online, even when no one is "complaining" or doing the thing you're scolding for. What a nice life you must have...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2016, 12:28 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,359 posts, read 60,546,019 times
Reputation: 60944
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK508 View Post
We can have intellectual discussions about whatever we damn well please, so maybe you should suck it up and stop being so sensitive to the conversations of other people. You don't have to participate ya know? But oh yeah...you do it because it makes you feel good to reprimand people online, even when no one is "complaining" or doing the thing you're scolding for. What a nice life you must have...
Intellectual? I'll start when you do. You were whining that voters in Wyoming have 3.8 times the influence as those in California.

Really, if you don't understand how Congressional seats are allotted just say so. I'll start by telling you that each one represents roughly 800K people. Yes, there are states which have less than that but they're guaranteed at least one seat in Congress.

Back out the Senatorial Electoral votes (a majority of 438 instead of 538) and Trump still wins and your vote counts the same as everyone else's.

I notice you're not complaining about the District of Columbia Electoral votes counting more than California's.

You want to tweak the Electoral College? Make the vote proportional to popular vote in each state. Clinton loses three or four in Maryland, more in Virginia but Trump gets twenty plus in California. He still wins the election based on Electors.

If you think states are going to ditch the EC and let California determine the President every election you need to think again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2016, 12:37 PM
 
3,221 posts, read 1,737,076 times
Reputation: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Intellectual? I'll start when you do. You were whining that voters in Wyoming have 3.8 times the influence as those in California.

Really, if you don't understand how Congressional seats are allotted just say so. I'll start by telling you that each one represents roughly 800K people. Yes, there are states which have less than that but they're guaranteed at least one seat in Congress.

Back out the Senatorial Electoral votes (a majority of 438 instead of 538) and Trump still wins and your vote counts the same as everyone else's.

I notice you're not complaining about the District of Columbia Electoral votes counting more than California's.

You want to tweak the Electoral College? Make the vote proportional to popular vote in each state. Clinton loses three or four in Maryland, more in Virginia but Trump gets twenty plus in California. He still wins the election based on Electors.

If you think states are going to ditch the EC and let California determine the President every election you need to think again.
Where was the whining? I don't hate the electoral college. I said I thought it should be "tweaked." However, if it was replaced by popular vote...I wouldn't be opposed. And yes, it is ridiculous that a Wyomingan is worth 3.8 Californians. There just isn't a logical reason for it in modern times. I picked that as an example solely because it's the least populous state, not for red/blue reasons.

I'm fully on board with a possible proportional representation like you suggested actually, I think that's fair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2016, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
18,058 posts, read 10,344,025 times
Reputation: 8828
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK508 View Post
Where was the whining? I don't hate the electoral college. I said I thought it should be "tweaked." However, if it was replaced by popular vote...I wouldn't be opposed. And yes, it is ridiculous that a Wyomingan is worth 3.8 Californians. There just isn't a logical reason for it in modern times. I picked that as an example solely because it's the least populous state, not for red/blue reasons.

I'm fully on board with a possible proportional representation like you suggested actually, I think that's fair.
Proportional voting changes nothing. You still have a situation where a small number of voters can dominate the will of the majority.

Fair is the wrong criteria. The EC is "fair" for some value of "fair". It is however hopelessly undemocratic. Some people are more equal than others.

The Presidency needs to go the the winner of the popular vote. Simple as that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2016, 02:13 PM
 
4,423 posts, read 7,365,861 times
Reputation: 10940
Trumpo reduces his own mandate. Every time he opens his mouth or tweets. It's gotten that he's a caricature of himself.
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.

© 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