There is no "Popular Vote" winner.

[fool]

I've seen people citing the "Popular Vote' results of this past election and I felt a need to point out that we don't know what that is because we didn't have one.

The Electoral College Election is a different stimuli than a Popular Vote Election.

Like offering teenagers Pizza and expecting that they'll consume an equal poundage of salad.

Or if you have a contest throwing a ball for distance and then say "this guy won the Accuracy Contest because his balls fell in a tighter pattern". You weren't having an accuracy contest. Your strategy for a distance contest may have caused you to do things that were antithetical to a tight group. You might have thrown the ball in a way to take advantage of the wind each time and the wind changed.

If you had a Popular Vote Election the Campaigns would have been different and the turnout would be different. Polls are always of "Likely Voters" I've never seen a poll of people who don't care, why would you ask someone that doesn't care what they think? So we have no idea what a Popular Vote would bring.

We didn't have that election.

A Popular Vote would bring out Blue People in Red States and Red People in Blue States that never bother because of the winner take all feature of the EC in their State. If peoples vote was weighed nationally you wouldn't have the complacency you saw in Michigan and Wisconsin by people who figured that their state had been their color for six elections and the polls said they had a 4 point lead so why bother?

A Popular Vote would be a completely different landscape. A completely different Stimuli and the result might wind up exactly the same or different but you don't know because we haven't done that.

 

[ok doser]

at least it gives the hillary supporters something to do other than crying :idunno:

 

[fool]

at least it gives the hillary supporters something to do other than crying :idunno:

They can cry and complain at the same time.

 

[ok doser]

 

[fool]

So, if People in The U.S. wanted to have a popular vote they could do it state by state right?

 

[ok doser]

i believe that's how we choose our legislators



how'd that work out for the libs last month? :chuckle:

 

[fool]

i believe that's how we choose our legislators



how'd that work out for the libs last month? :chuckle:

What state would find in their best interest to distribute their EC vote along district lines?
Instead of a swing state you could be a "Nitty Gritty" state.

 

[rocketman]

Bring on the comfort dogs...where is my safe space? :baby:

 

[Alate_One]

There is a popular vote winner. It's the system we use for electing, pretty much every other position you can think of. But for some arcane reason the founders created an electoral college. The states can decide to allocate their electors based on the popular vote. And some of them already have.

Bottom line is you'll tout your "victory" even though you don't actually have the support of the majority of Americans. I'll wait for the overreach to sink in.

 

[ok doser]

.. you don't actually have the support of the majority of Americans.

neither did hillary


only 26.51 % of eligible voters voted for her

 

[Alate_One]

neither did hillary


only 26.51 % of eligible voters voted for her

But more of them voted for her or 3rd party candidates than voted for Trump.

Then there's the problem of most voters do not want Republican policies.

Of course not being aware of that is partly the fault of the media (that's supposedly liberally biased).

 

[ok doser]

But more of them voted for her ....

no, more of them chose not to participate in this abortion of an election

 

[Alate_One]

no, more of them chose not to participate in this abortion of an election

Turnout in this election wasn't especially low.

Many people in the USA don't participate in elections in general. The electoral college doesn't help matters either. What really changed was a lot of people voting third party, which is almost the same as not participating under a winner take all system.

 

[fool]

There is a popular vote winner. It's the system we use for electing, pretty much every other position you can think of. But for some arcane reason the founders created an electoral college. The states can decide to allocate their electors based on the popular vote. And some of them already have.

So it's up to the states to some extent, what's all the complaining about?

Bottom line is you'll tout your "victory" even though you don't actually have the support of the majority of Americans.

Of course I will.

I'll wait for the overreach to sink in.

What's that? Am I supposed to feel bad? Is that what you're waiting for?

 

[ok doser]

Turnout in this election wasn't especially low.

Many people in the USA don't participate in elections in general. The electoral college doesn't help matters either. What really changed was a lot of people voting third party, which is almost the same as not participating under a winner take all system.

that's why i supported trump - to prevent hillary from taking all


and it worked! :banana:



now i'm waiting for january 21st, so we can get started on trump's impeachment

 

[Crucible]

The Electoral College is not unfair, it exists to consider the interests of the states- if you take away the EC, you may as well take away the whole point of even having states.

There is no good, educated opposition to the EC- everyone opposed to it simply favors socialism, which is not what America is. The EC was in put in place to check socialism.

 

[Alate_One]

So it's up to the states to some extent, what's all the complaining about?

It was a flawed system to start off with.

What's that? Am I supposed to feel bad? Is that what you're waiting for?

Oh you won't feel bad for a while yet. :chuckle: Trump is poisonous to the USA in a wide variety of ways. Foreign nations will take our place as leaders and both they and the corporate elite will take advantage of Trump's inexperience and ego.

 

[HisServant]

It was a flawed system to start off with.


Oh you won't feel bad for a while yet. :chuckle: Trump is poisonous to the USA in a wide variety of ways. Foreign nations will take our place as leaders and both they and the corporate elite will take advantage of Trump's inexperience and ego.

They already did under Obama's milquetoast leadership.

 

[Alate_One]

The Electoral College is not unfair, it exists to consider the interests of the states- if you take away the EC, you may as well take away the whole point of even having states.

No, the senate already takes into account the interests of the state. The EC isn't about the states, it was originally about putting a group of wiser men in charge of selecting the president. It also allowed slave states to use their slaves as voting power while not giving them the right to vote. Eventually that system was modified into a hybrid majority vote based on states. Which at this point in world history is nonsensical. Your only support for it is that it allowed your side to win.

There is no good, educated opposition to the EC- everyone opposed to it simply favors socialism, which is not what America is. The EC was in put in place to check socialism.

So in your view Democracy = socialism. That's a new one. :rotfl: "Socialism" as you understand it didn't really exist when the constitution was written anyway. But the constitution does aim to "Promote the general welfare".

 

[Alate_One]

They already did under Obama's milquetoast leadership.

Wait till you see what they do to Trump. Obama will look like he ruled from the Iron Throne.