Everyone should know how a popular vote election would be done.

[WaldoKitty]

All of you know that if Hillary had won the election, there would be absolutely no talk of the popular vote. Instead they would still be crowing about the "Trump Had No Path to 270" or the "Blue Wall".

i.e. The losers can continue to cry in their little boy pants. It will all be forgotten by the next election and the EC will determine the next President too.

[oberon_1]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

All of you know that if Hillary had won the election, there would be absolutely no talk of the popular vote. Instead they would still be crowing about the "Trump Had No Path to 270" or the "Blue Wall".

i.e. The losers can continue to cry in their little boy pants. It will all be forgotten by the next election and the EC will determine the next President too.

You may be right, but since 2000 it happend twice already, (that a president was elected by the minority).
The only argument I find in favor of the current system, is that these rules were known (to democrats) before the elections began. You can't change the rules in the middle of the race. But it is legitimate to change them for future elections.
As things are, tomorrow, a president that most Americans oppose, will be sworn in.

[vision33r]

Liberals all over the media still refuse to learn the lesson and just keep blaming the game rules.

How are they gonna eliminate the Electoral College system? They got no majority at any chamber of power. Neither could the President.

An Amendment is impossible to create in this day and age to pass. And I doubt the GOP are willing to do so freely.

Everyday there's a Liberal calling for the EC to be changed. Can't wait for next week.

[t206]

Originally Posted by oberon_1

You may be right, but since 2000 it happend twice already, (that a president was elected by the minority).
The only argument I find in favor of the current system, is that these rules were known (to democrats) before the elections began. You can't change the rules in the middle of the race. But it is legitimate to change them for future elections.
As things are, tomorrow, a president that most Americans oppose, will be sworn in.

43% of Americans didn't even vote, that is more than the 26% that voted for Hillary and the 24% that voted for Trump. So "most Americans" opposed both.

I know that upsets the popular vote crowd, sorry the truth hurts.

[Sharks With Lasers]

Originally Posted by bobisinthehouse

All the presidential candidates would spend most of the time, in states like

1. California
2. New York
3. Texas
4. Florida

Those are the States with the highest populations.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnKgpYCXBqE

It would be more diffuse. Candidates would spend time in places in proportion to their population. So while they would on average spend the most time in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, they'd go other places too. It wouldn't make sense not to.

Keep in mind that of the 12 states with the highest population, 7 voted for Trump and 5 voted for Clinton. It's just that California is that much larger than the rest.

[bobisinthehouse]

The popular vote came from California and New York. Those extra votes dont mean a thing.