Elections President Trump could still lose the 2020 popular votes by over 5 million and would still win

[Deleted member 499399]

Why would any president give a flying fuck what people in some small podunk town in a low population state needs? Why would they give a flying fuck what a small population STATE needs?

Focus on New York City and its 10+ million people and you win more votes than 3-4 of the smallest states combined.

Cave in to wack-job California's needs, and you can ignore the bottom 15 populated states.

You have been proven wrong by world history buddy, you can form no arguments to support what you say because it wont hold up.

Do the candidates give a flying fuck about anyone outside of MI WI PA FL ? You might not think so from the way they campaign now.
I’m in IL and haven’t voted for a Democrat for president since Bill Clinton. But my electorates keep casting my vote for Dems. I should get as much say as some cheesehead.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Do the candidates give a flying fuck about anyone outside of MI WI PA FL ? You might not think so from the way they campaign now.
I’m in IL and haven’t voted for a Democrat for president since Bill Clinton. But my electorates keep casting my vote for Dems. I should get as much say as some cheesehead.

Well, here is proof of what I am talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rallies_for_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign

Trump took so many more counties than Clinton, because he went EVERYWHERE there was a chance he would not win.

But it isnt just about "candidates" as in those running. Its what they do when in office.

Ask yourself this question. Why did Trump do anything for black people when in office when most of them did not vote for him? He had no need to do any kind of prison reform, or pass a bill for inner city reform.

The only reason to do it other than actually caring, is to try to get even more votes for re-election. Its also why he gave what was it, 16 billion in aid to farmers...for the same reason, they matter. their electorate counts.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I don't know what to think about that other than it's a good move for students struggling in debt who were overcharged on a education that isn't valued by contemporary society proportionally.

Do you realize how many people have banking investments with their 401s?

Sure college aged kids that borrowed 60+k to get s 35k job will be thrilled. The 50 yr old worker with a 401 about to lose 30%? Not so much.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Land mass doesn't have voting rights.

But the people living there do.

Btw, why do illegals count toward a states number of electoral votes?

 

[carlos cadona]

The EU and UN are the same way. I'll repost my point:

Let's have majority rule at the UN, true majority rule. India and China get like 5 times the votes of Europe. Happy? Countries like New Zealand may as well not even bother showing up. Kinda like how states like Vermont would never join the US just to get rolled over.

How can you support the UN and such things when England gets as many votes as China? It is an inherently undemocratic system that benefits the West and small countries.

The 5 permanent members of the UN security council already hold inordinate amounts of power. You could just as easily ask why increasingly irrelevant former super powers like France and the UK still get to hold sway over the rest of the world, similar to how smaller states still get more proportional representation per vote in the electoral college.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

No. That is not what it is.

Thats exactly what it is, because like gerrymandering, it allows platforms who wouldnt normally get enough votes to win in a true democratic election victory by giving more weight to certain areas allowing them to tip the scales. Its why the Republicans are feverishly defending it because they are fighting in court for their ability to rig and cheat elections through gerrymandering at a local level to remain legal. So its just natural for them to support the EC(gerrymandering on a national level)

The Electoral College allows all states, with their diverse populations, views, and cultures to have real, but weighted consideration in the election of the President of the United States. It also allows the states to remain in a union as they all have input into the Presidency. Without the EC, we are not a country in a decade's time.

Thats a nice spin to put on it but doesnt change the fact that its blatantly anti-democratic.

Democracy= 1 man: 1 vote

Democracy ≠ State A: 1 man: 1 vote
State B: 1 man: 4 votes yay!

You are basically denying the residents of State A the right to a fair vote for some perceived reason that the residents of State B are somehow better or more important to the Union.

"But if the residents of State A have a fair vote and State B has to play fair, then the politics of State B will be crushed and theyll have no voice!"

Well maybe State B shouldnt have entered into a Union with State A if they feel they need to have special status as an electorate? Perhaps State B should attract more residents so they can have a bigger voice instead of competing in a rigged election? Nobody is really articulating why Wyoming, a state of not even a million people, needs a special protected status to vote in an election with other states. Is Murka a country or is it still just a loose confederation of fake kingdoms called 'states'?


Basically a lot of people in this thread are anti-democracy but cant really articulate why.

 

[AngryPorto]

Why? You’re vote doesn’t count. You’d have to secede by your own admission. So you’ve just conceded the argument. I’ll admit you lasted more posts than most but you just stated my opening argument.

Uh, no, I conceded that comparing apartment issues with a roommate and the electoral college are apples and oranges.

And you didn't answer my question by the way. It doesn't bother me but it's a thing you said I didn't do earlier so I figured it's something that's important to you.

 

[AngryPorto]

Look at the population density map and then get back to me

Why do you think everyone in California, Texas, Illinois, New York, etc, are all going to vote the same way? You're okay with literally suppressing their votes while making sure your precious small states get over-represented. We already have that, it's called the Senate.

 

[cincymma79]

Maybe because, unlike CNN fed drones, they can think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
I know that must be a hard concept for you to mentally digest, but there you go.

I’ve already answered it, you just don’t like the answer

 

[cincymma79]

Why do you think everyone in California, Texas, Illinois, New York, etc, are all going to vote the same way? You're okay with literally suppressing their votes while making sure your precious small states get over-represented. We already have that, it's called the Senate.

And you have the house

It’s like they thought of this already

 

[AngryPorto]

Popular vote is a fine idea if you are good with the break up of the United States. That will be the result as 3/5 on the states will no longer have a say and are enough to crack our union. It's the reason why the Founders created it. They knew without it, there is no nation. The U.S.A. would not have been created without it, and it will not stay together without it. Those populace states own the House of Representatives as it was intended. The rest have the say in the Senate. The Presidency will be decided by the Electoral College so that all states have some play.

I suppose from a pragmatic viewpoint I get where you're coming from. My issue is the millions of essentially uncounted votes in states that go one way or another historically, and I don't like the framing of the Electoral College almost as a 'game'. The president should be chosen by having the most votes, period, not winning this obtuse 'game' where unelected delegates choose them. If we can find a way to address the winner-take-all issue while retaining the Electoral College I'm open to it.

 

[AngryPorto]

And you have the house

It’s like they thought of this already

Listen if you just say you're okay with the votes of millions of people essentially going in the trashcan then we can agree to disagree and move on, but you seem to be defending the current system by essentially saying 'that's what the framer's wanted' as though they are gods and the constitution the bible and shame on us for questioning their 250 year old wisdom.

 

[cincymma79]

Listen if you just say you're okay with the votes of millions of people essentially going in the trashcan then we can agree to disagree and move on, but you seem to be defending the current system by essentially saying 'that's what the framer's wanted' as though they are gods and the constitution the bible and shame on us for questioning their 250 year old wisdom.

It’s worked out pretty damned well. You’re just being a child because you didn’t get what you want

 

[Deleted member 499399]

Well, here is proof of what I am talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rallies_for_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign

Trump took so many more counties than Clinton, because he went EVERYWHERE there was a chance he would not win.

But it isnt just about "candidates" as in those running. Its what they do when in office.

Ask yourself this question. Why did Trump do anything for black people when in office when most of them did not vote for him? He had no need to do any kind of prison reform, or pass a bill for inner city reform.

The only reason to do it other than actually caring, is to try to get even more votes for re-election. Its also why he gave what was it, 16 billion in aid to farmers...for the same reason, they matter. their electorate counts.

The point I would like to make is that in November of 2016 I got off of my comfy couch left my warm living room and drove to the village hall. I cast a vote for Jill Stein for president but my representatives cast all of their votes for Hillary. I knew this was going to happen 100 percent before I left the house but it was a protest vote and there are other things on the ballet and civic duty yada yada.....
I’m not happy with a system that says I’m allowed to pick state comptroller but can’t be trusted to pick the president.
In my opinion the reason the forefathers gave us the college is to make sure the ignorant populace wouldn’t elect Vince McMahon for president. Then the college put him in despite the fact that he didn’t even win the popular vote. I think the system has proven to be a failure.

 

[cincymma79]

Do the candidates give a flying fuck about anyone outside of MI WI PA FL ? You might not think so from the way they campaign now.
I’m in IL and haven’t voted for a Democrat for president since Bill Clinton. But my electorates keep casting my vote for Dems. I should get as much say as some cheesehead.

There are 15 battleground states
Get rid of the college and you’ve got florida left for states that matter basically.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

The point I would like to make is that in November of 2016 I got off of my comfy couch left my warm living room and drove to the village hall. I cast a vote for Jill Stein for president but my representatives cast all of their votes for Hillary. I knew this was going to happen 100 percent before I left the house but it was a protest vote and there are other things on the ballet and civic duty yada yada.....
I’m not happy with a system that says I’m allowed to pick state comptroller but can’t be trusted to pick the president.
In my opinion the reason the forefathers gave us the college is to make sure the ignorant populace wouldn’t elect Vince McMahon for president. Then the college put him in despite the fact that he didn’t even win the popular vote. I think the system has proven to be a failure.

So you believe that without the electoral college, your vote for Stein would have counted?!?

She got 1.457.218 votes total, just over 1% of the votes. Your vote would not have mattered no matter what process is being used.

Trump took over 500 more counties than Clinton, giving him the vast majority of the percentage of the country. You do not understand even the basics of the process and why it was created. You are much like the guy in the current homeless thread that is going that is arguing that building large tents helps homeless people more than housing...gob-smacking.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Thats exactly what it is, because like gerrymandering, it allows platforms who wouldnt normally get enough votes to win in a true democratic election victory by giving more weight to certain areas allowing them to tip the scales. Its why the Republicans are feverishly defending it because they are fighting in court for their ability to rig and cheat elections through gerrymandering at a local level to remain legal. So its just natural for them to support the EC(gerrymandering on a national level)





Thats a nice spin to put on it but doesnt change the fact that its blatantly anti-democratic.

Democracy= 1 man: 1 vote

Democracy ≠ State A: 1 man: 1 vote
State B: 1 man: 4 votes yay!

You are basically denying the residents of State A the right to a fair vote for some perceived reason that the residents of State B are somehow better or more important to the Union.

"But if the residents of State A have a fair vote and State B has to play fair, then the politics of State B will be crushed and theyll have no voice!"

Well maybe State B shouldnt have entered into a Union with State A if they feel they need to have special status as an electorate? Perhaps State B should attract more residents so they can have a bigger voice instead of competing in a rigged election? Nobody is really articulating why Wyoming, a state of not even a million people, needs a special protected status to vote in an election with other states. Is Murka a country or is it still just a loose confederation of fake kingdoms called 'states'?


Basically a lot of people in this thread are anti-democracy but cant really articulate why.

We are a Democratic Republic. The Founders knew the dangers of a pure Democracy, which apparently you do not.

 

[Deleted member 499399]

So you believe that without the electoral college, your vote for Stein would have counted?!?

She got 1.457.218 votes total, just over 1% of the votes. Your vote would not have mattered no matter what process is being used.

Trump took over 500 more counties than Clinton, giving him the vast majority of the percentage of the country. You do not understand even the basics of the process and why it was created.

She would not have won but my vote would have been counted.
When Ross Perot ran he received 20 % of the popular vote but got 0 electoral college votes.
Trump beat Hillary in many more counties in IL but she received all of the votes in the college just like everyone knew she would. How many people stayed home rather than waste their time voting on something that was already determined? I’m not saying the elections aren’t about districts and swing states. I’m saying it shouldn’t be that way.

You are much like the guy in the current homeless thread that is going that is arguing that building large tents helps homeless people more than housing...gob-smacking.

Is that what I’m like? Thanks for the info

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

We are a Democratic Republic. The Founders knew the dangers of a pure Democracy, which apparently you do not.

Not even that. Murka is an oligarchy.

 

[AngryPorto]

It’s worked out pretty damned well. You’re just being a child because you didn’t get what you want

I get that you're probably shit-posting at this point, but I'm curious which behavior of mine you think is childish, because the only childish behavior I've seen between the two of us so far is you calling me childish.

And just to re-iterate, you're totally okay with literally millions of votes going into the trashcan, correct? I'm trying not to strawman you but this is the sense I'm getting.