It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California

[EvilWasLittle]

lots of american voters live there?

That's one thing. They're mostly Democratic areas, big time. Which is the exact reason for the electoral college.

 

[Gregolian]

LOL! Until two months ago, majorities in both parties supported moving to a national popular vote (and had for a long time), but all of a sudden, support for that plunged among Republicans. It's almost like there's no principled reason to support it.

Personally, given that they almost always went the same way, I didn't care about changing it, but after the first election where the more popular candidate by a large margin lost, that should be revisited.

Not necessarily you but I find it hilarious all the people whining to change to a popular vote don't take into account people in states like say California or New York that may have stayed home because they felt their vote wouldn't matter having to fight the population centers like LA or Manhattan.

 

[Prime Ang]

Huh?



What is the case?

Lmfao, you are such a fucking dumb dildo Jack

 

[JonnyRingo84]

That's one thing. They're mostly Democratic areas, big time. Which is the exact reason for the electoral college.

oh is that right? so youre a political scientist now that trump won via ec lol

its origins are ironically in the notion that the common man is not capable of voting directly on the executive. which is why our founders made it that way. not until jackson did some people start demanding populist votes to win, because theyre the easiest for demagogues to grab up.

 

[Teppodama]

I'll care about the popular vote when we have an absolute guarantee that only legal citizens vote. Can California guarantee that? Can any state guarantee that? Till then it's the EC

 

[EvilWasLittle]

oh is that right? so youre a political scientist now that trump won via ec lol

its origins are ironically in the notion that the common man is not capable of voting directly on the executive. which is why our founders made it that way. not until jackson did some people start demanding populist votes to win, because theyre the easiest for demagogues to grab up.

Do you start any sentence without some asinine sarcasm?

The Electoral College works just like it's designed to.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not necessarily you but I find it hilarious all the people whining to change to a popular vote don't take into account people in states like say California or New York that may have stayed home because they felt their vote wouldn't matter having to fight the population centers like LA or Manhattan.

The outcome of any particular election is (or should be) irrelevant to one's position on the EC. Likewise, whatever you think about who should have won is irrelevant to the idiocy of the OP.

 

[Rational Poster]

LOL! Until two months ago, majorities in both parties supported moving to a national popular vote (and had for a long time), but all of a sudden, support for that plunged among Republicans. It's almost like there's no principled reason to support it.

Personally, given that they almost always went the same way, I didn't care about changing it, but after the first election where the more popular candidate by a large margin lost, that should be revisited.

Electoral votes should be awarded by tax revenue, not population.

That'll solve a lot a whole lot of problems.

If you want more of a say, contribute more to society. Breeding is more of a drain that a boon anymore.

As a side effect, the election will be very exciting each campaign because the number of electors would fluctuate with the markets so things won't even be so predictable.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Do you start any sentence without some asinine sarcasm?

The Electoral College works just like it's designed to.

i trust that you would have said the same thing had clinton won via ec and not popular............................................................lol

 

[EvilWasLittle]

i trust that you would have said the same thing had clinton won via ec and not popular............................................................lol

I wouldn't be bitching as much as you and the rest of your liberals friends on here. I can tell you that much.

 

[Joe]

 

[Rod1]

That's your own opinion.

Where do you draw the line though?

 

[Rod1]

Not necessarily you but I find it hilarious all the people whining to change to a popular vote don't take into account people in states like say California or New York that may have stayed home because they felt their vote wouldn't matter having to fight the population centers like LA or Manhattan.

So? maybe take into account that some people actually care for democracy and not the party they tend to favor.

 

[Rational Poster]

And what do most of those shaded areas have in common?

Economic contribution to our society.

 

[EvilWasLittle]

Economic contribution to our society.

So, we have the Philadelphia area highlighted, right? Can you tell me how much Philadelphia monetarily contributes to the rest of the state? BTW, it's major Democratic there.

Oh, add Camden over in Jersey to that scenario, too.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

That's one thing. They're mostly Democratic areas, big time. Which is the exact reason for the electoral college.

Those areas are the densely populated areas that vote in laws that screw over the rest of the state. All it takes is Los Angeles and San Francisco.

 

[oldshadow]

That makes no sense. It enables regions to control the election even if they have fewer people. A national popular vote would give every vote equal weight, regardless of where they live.

I was discussing this with Denter. If you're distrustful of democracy, the solution would be electing electors on the basis of respect for their judgment rather than electors who are pledged to a candidate. If you believe that we can democratically elect a president, a popular vote makes the most sense. The current system is just a dated relic that isn't intelligently designed to serve any modern purpose.

yea the way we have it working now is silly. i dont think its the downfall of democracy and a call for revolution like trump said, but i would prefer a system like the UK has.

The founders of the U.S. never wanted us to be a pure democracy. We are a nation of states unlike any nation I know of and what makes the U.S. what it is.

No way we should or will change it.

 

[TheStruggle]

Good thing we don't decide elections based on 4 year old tweets

 

[Joe]

Good thing we don't decide elections based on 4 year old tweets

He was a young wet behind the ears 65 year old. He's grown up

 

[D3THRONED]

Holy moly is that dumb. If you don't count a lot of people who voted for Clinton, Trump would have won the popular vote. That's like saying that if you don't count the rounds that Woodley won, Thompson would be the champ. Take both California and Appalachia out of the picture, and Clinton still wins.

Years of reading your post and I've come to the realization that you have no idea what youre talking about. That, or youre clearly trolling. Clinton only won the popular vote because of california, that is a fact. Its also a fact that you can give cali 50 more electoral votes and she still would have lost. Holy fuck.