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.
If there's ever an election where the GOP candidate wins the PV but loses the EC, you can bet there will be some serious effort to change it.
Wrong. Roughly 800,000 people that flipped their states from blue to red (rust belt states plus Florida) put him over the 270 EV threshold.
I doubt it. Before the election results started coming in, many if not most Republicans as well as Democrats believed Trump would win the popular vote but lose the EC. I don't remember much outrage over this by Republicans when this was the popular thought.
Republicans tend to be Constitutionalists more than Democrats where Republicans aren't trying to change the Constitution every time something doesn't go their way.
I'll tell you why. The last time was in 2000 when Bush was selected by the Supreme Court while Republicans fought a vote count. They fought a vote count. Who does that? And the Supreme Court gave a ruling and in that ruling they said "this ruling should not be used as future precedent". The Supreme Court knew they were selecting a president and George Bush lost the popular vote.
We were told, this never happens, this is unique, the president typically wins the popular vote and the Electoral College, it's only happened three other times in history and they were 1824, 1876 and 1888 respectively. We are not likely to see this happen again anytime soon.
Now it's happened again and again it's a Republican taking the presidency and it's only 16 years later. If this becomes a common occurrence, where a minority of voters control a majority of voters, I see it changing at some point. Larger states will just not sit by letting rural voters control them and take their tax dollars.
Bush wasn't "selected by the Supreme Court." The court ruled that the Democrats couldn't cherry pick the counties they wanted recounted, but had to recount all fairly and using the same standards. That wasn't what the Democrats wanted.
You're making up your own narrative, but that's what you always do. You should apply for a job as a Democrat reporter for one of the Democrat Controlled networks. Maybe you should go to Media Matters (funded by George Soros).
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 11-29-2016 at 09:01 AM..
Bush wasn't "selected by the Supreme Court." The court ruled that if the Democrats couldn't cherry pick the counties they wanted recounted, but had to recount all fairly and using the same standards. That wasn't what the Democrats wanted.
You're making up your own narrative, but that's what you always do. You should apply for a job as a Democrat reporter for one of the Democrat Controlled networks. Maybe you should go to Media Matters (funded by George Soros).
Thank you for pointing this out because liberals once again want to change history and make up their own narrative. Bush was never selected by the Supreme Court.
Thank you for pointing this out because liberals once again want to change history and make up their own narrative. Bush was never selected by the Supreme Court.
We have to keep pointing out their error, because they will keep saying it if we don't.
before the election they said Hillary had an easy path to 270 electoral votes and Trump had no chance
On Nov 10, 2000 Hillary gave a speech..... Hillary Calls For End To Electoral College
Quote:
"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."
I'll tell you why. The last time was in 2000 when Bush was selected by the Supreme Court while Republicans fought a vote count. They fought a vote count. Who does that? And the Supreme Court gave a ruling and in that ruling they said "this ruling should not be used as future precedent". The Supreme Court knew they were selecting a president and George Bush lost the popular vote.
We were told, this never happens, this is unique, the president typically wins the popular vote and the Electoral College, it's only happened three other times in history and they were 1824, 1876 and 1888 respectively. We are not likely to see this happen again anytime soon.
Now it's happened again and again it's a Republican taking the presidency and it's only 16 years later. If this becomes a common occurrence, where a minority of voters control a majority of voters, I see it changing at some point. Larger states will just not sit by letting rural voters control them and take their tax dollars.
They didn't fight a recount in FL, they fought a recount, of a recount. The initial recount, required by the close margin IAW Florida law, had been completed and certified. Gore challenged the recount. The Supreme Court did not select a president. The court was smart to include that language because the situation was so unusual, and precisely to avoid the appearance of selecting a president.
do a Google search. The electoral college was the reason they were saying Trump couldn't win, saying he had no chance at flipping enough states to get the votes needed to win
Look up National Popular Vote. Then come back and tell us how everybody was oh so happy with the electoral college until Trump won.
funny, when the Democrats had a majority in the house and senate and the WH with Obama from 2009 to 2011, they NEVER push a bill to change the E.C.........I guess when they have full power they could care less and are all double talk.
Hillary didn't think Russia would hack the ballots in the swing states!
While I'm certainly not a Trump supporter, I'm extremely puzzled by that claim. Fears of hacking and tampering were the driving force behind Michigan making its voting system 100% paper and optical scan and 100% off of the Internet. So how did the Russians hack it?
Since that one can't be hacked and since Michigan was so meticulously careful in their count -- shouldn't Jill Stein be calling for a recount in Florida or Arizona or North Carolina -- states where the "hacking" claim might have so substance to it?
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.
