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

There are bigger things on my priority list. As silly as I think the EC is it isn't my most pressing issue, especially since the results usually match the popular vote.
Bigger things like crying about Trump on an Internet forum and making avatars of trump.

Can't wait till wimps like you go extinct
 
in other words, trump destroyed clinton .. it was a landslide .. won pv out of 49 states combined .. total ass woopin .. no mercy .. and then you have that county win disparity .. this graphic says it all ..


C0HkfOIUoAAFmRF.jpg

C0HkitSUkAEPwXy.jpg

Land doesn't vote - people do.
 

Trump won, 305 is a respectable score. Its like winning a UD in MMA. Ronald Reagan though, he layed out two of the most epic ass kickings of all time, defeating Jimmy Carter in 1980 by an electoral score of 489 to 49 and then in 1984 he beat Mondale by a score of 525 to 13. Those are beat downs.
 
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

I brought this up before. There are something like 10-15 million illegals in the U.S. If only 10% of them vote then you are talking over a million illegal votes, most of which go to the Democrats. Of course when I bring this up the left starts screaming prove it! prove it or gtfo! I dunno, I think common sense proves it.
 
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.
What I took from it is that the electoral college is a good safeguard against a candidate from a large state that could win by a landslide there but lose in most of the rest of the country and still win. Say a popular CA governor winning by 10MM votes. They wouldn't need to carry a single other state to win necessarily.
 
The system works fine and it works exactly as it was designed to work. I see no issue.

Easy to say for a Republican voter - this is the second election in less than 20 years the GOP won while losing the popular vote.
 
I brought this up before. There are something like 10-15 million illegals in the U.S. If only 10% of them vote then you are talking over a million illegal votes, most of which go to the Democrats. Of course when I bring this up the left starts screaming prove it! prove it or gtfo! I dunno, I think common sense proves it.
It's in the best interest of illegals to vote for candidates that support keeping them in the country and providing them services. If they happen to be located in areas that don't enforce voter ID's or hold some form of verifiable accountability of legal status to vote why won't they vote when its in their best interest to do so. To believe they wouldn't is ludicrous and completely unsupportable if they are provided the opportunity to do so.
 
I happened to watch a video about Swiss democracy because it's often mentioned as an example of a more direct democracy. Turns out cantons receive a set number of delegates, and a number of delegates based on population. In other words there are still safeguards to prevent a tyranny of the majority. If delegates were only given out based on population, rural areas would never have a say in anything.
 
Minus illegal, hacked, dead, double, triple, quadruple voting, trump won the popular vote. If you disagree then pull your head out of your ass.
 
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.

Crazy how easily this gets overlooked. The federal government is there to represent the states. Makes sense that each state votes as a unit. The # of EC votes allotted is a nice compromise between a straight-up popular vote and each state having 1 vote out of 50.
 
And what do most of those shaded areas have in common?
What those shaded areas have in common is that they financially, socially and culturally support all of the areas that aren't shaded.
 
Ex-fucking-actly

The college is weighted so you don't have one or two populous states controlling the whole country
 
Trump won, 305 is a respectable score. Its like winning a UD in MMA. Ronald Reagan though, he layed out two of the most epic ass kickings of all time, defeating Jimmy Carter in 1980 by an electoral score of 489 to 49 and then in 1984 he beat Mondale by a score of 525 to 13. Those are beat downs.

respectable score for sure. but "landslide" like we keep seeing?

compared to what, i guess would be my question. i wouldnt feel comfortable claiming landslide if i lost the popular by millions. no honest person would.
 
Ex-fucking-actly

The college is weighted so you don't have one or two populous states controlling the whole country

and thats mostly a good thing imo.

but whats hilarious is how most trumpites have had to change their tune. if trump wins by ec, you see all these high minded political scientists in here explaining why its the way it should be. had hillary won in the same fashion, this place would be F'ing swamped with more conspiracy theories.
 
Minus illegal, hacked, dead, double, triple, quadruple voting, trump won the popular vote. If you disagree then pull your head out of your ass.

lmfao

so you truly believe that millions of people illegally voted?
 
All the more reason California should separate.


Like literally separate from the rest of the continent, and fall into the ocean.
 
Back
Top