It does address a concern of mine, that it pits rural voices against urban voices. But there are a few problems. First, I live in a grey area and I vote with the blue areas. There are many like me. You can't just assume all rural voices will be the same. Second, why should grey area voices be given extra weight simply due to their geographical density? Shouldn't each voice count the same, no matter where it's from?
The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.
Absolutely true.
I don't know where to stand on the issue. With a popular vote everyone has a vote that is weighted exactly the same. Idealistically this is best. In practice, that means that the elections become a match-up of urban vs rural as half the population lives in a few 10's of the thousands of counties. City folk already think their way of life is universal and I wouldn't want that to get any worse, but I'm the first to bash the backwards, neandethal hillbillies for their political and social opinions. This leaves me undecided.
I'm with Gambs here, for the reasons he listed. Also,direct democracy scares the shit out of me because, well, look around at who votes. I'm not happy with the results this time around, but it isn't the electoral college that created President Trump. Blame the non-voters, blame the two major parties, blame backlash against establishment politics with no good options.
I'm neither a defender of the electoral college nor am I calling for its abolishment. I just don't blame the electoral college for the results of this election. Clinton's team knew full well how to game the system and did so during the primaries. The candidate just couldn't pull in the votes in the right places for the general.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.
Absolutely true.
I don't know where to stand on the issue. With a popular vote everyone has a vote that is weighted exactly the same. Idealistically this is best. In practice, that means that the elections become a match-up of urban vs rural as half the population lives in a few 10's of the thousands of counties. City folk already think their way of life is universal and I wouldn't want that to get any worse, but I'm the first to bash the backwards, neandethal hillbillies for their political and social opinions. This leaves me undecided.
I'm with Gambs here, for the reasons he listed. Also,direct democracy scares the shit out of me because, well, look around at who votes. I'm not happy with the results this time around, but it isn't the electoral college that created President Trump. Blame the non-voters, blame the two major parties, blame backlash against establishment politics with no good options.
I'm neither a defender of the electoral college nor am I calling for its abolishment. I just don't blame the electoral college for the results of this election. Clinton's team knew full well how to game the system and did so during the primaries. The candidate just couldn't pull in the votes in the right places for the general.
you my friend nailed it...trust me im not happy with what was left for options to vote and it wasn't a vote for Trump, it was a vote against the establishment and Hillary that i knew would matter the most rather than a 3rd party...i've taken tons of backlash and i accept that i just hope that this changes things moving forward and the government listens to the people
,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.
Absolutely true.
I don't know where to stand on the issue. With a popular vote everyone has a vote that is weighted exactly the same. Idealistically this is best. In practice, that means that the elections become a match-up of urban vs rural as half the population lives in a few 10's of the thousands of counties. City folk already think their way of life is universal and I wouldn't want that to get any worse, but I'm the first to bash the backwards, neandethal hillbillies for their political and social opinions. This leaves me undecided.
I'm with Gambs here, for the reasons he listed. Also,direct democracy scares the shit out of me because, well, look around at who votes. I'm not happy with the results this time around, but it isn't the electoral college that created President Trump. Blame the non-voters, blame the two major parties, blame backlash against establishment politics with no good options.
I'm neither a defender of the electoral college nor am I calling for its abolishment. I just don't blame the electoral college for the results of this election. Clinton's team knew full well how to game the system and did so during the primaries. The candidate just couldn't pull in the votes in the right places for the general.
I agree with parts of what you say, especially about the non-voters. How can you complain about lack of representation when you did not vote...hell, write in your dog for all I care, but go vote. It's one of the only voices you have.
,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
I think we have entered this scenario.
He isnt the first....
Probably not the first but by far the least qualified
,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
I think we have entered this scenario.
He isnt the first....
Probably not the first but by far the least qualified
I agree who would have thought there would be someone less qualified than Chester Arthur
i think it might be a bigger deal if it allowed for a winner with a much wider margin of the vote. it is so close, i don't see how anyone can really cry foul.
I agree. She won the popular vote but it wasn't like she won by 10%. The popular vote was basically a tie and people are acting like she got this mandate by winning the popular vote by .1% of the nation.
Exactly. And when about 50% of eligible voters vote, it's a bit more of a specious argument. The Electoral College works. We are a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
i think it might be a bigger deal if it allowed for a winner with a much wider margin of the vote. it is so close, i don't see how anyone can really cry foul.
I agree. She won the popular vote but it wasn't like she won by 10%. The popular vote was basically a tie and people are acting like she got this mandate by winning the popular vote by .1% of the nation.
Exactly. And when about 50% of eligible voters vote, it's a bit more of a specious argument. The Electoral College works. We are a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy.
We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is mob rule. You are right on the Representative and therefore the electoral college exists.
All talk here and everywhere else leading up to the election was 270...270...270. Period.
Not one person was on here, or on the internet hoping for a popular vote result and had the shoe been on the other foot liberals would be screaming about using electoral college.
Look at what getting participation trophies does to a young person. They can't handle defeat.
the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote
I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go
did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???
You're asking the wrong question. "Did anyone take civics in college or read anything...?" Yes. Lots of us did. Stop acting like you get it and the rest of us are uninformed. Restating the reasons for it (a bit incorrectly) does not show that you know what's going on and those of us in disagreement don't. We're not arguing over what the EC is, we're arguing if it should be. The point of the electoral college was not to prevent a state like CA from dominating the vote. There was no California, or anything like it. California was Mexico, most states were similar in size, the West hadn't been explored, and it's hard to imagine Madison and Hamilton could even conceive of the kind of population differences that might arise between a California and a North Dakota.
The problem was they didn't trust the common person to vote. They wanted the EC to be able to override the will of the people. This is shown in how they set up the branches of government as well. Because they didn't trust the common people, they gave them the House of Reps. Let the "mob" throw the bums out every two years. It's why the Senate is still viewed as the more "prestigious" arm of congress with longer terms not as easily changed by the mob. The executive and judicial also have firewalls against the general population. The problem now is the EC is a rubber stamp based on popular vote by state, so it doesn't really serve the purpose as intended.
Two arguments I want to address (these come up in some of the posts since the one I'm quoting). First, the map of population distribution. The key portion of the graphic's title for me is "half the population..." Just because people are spread out in some places doesn't mean their vote should count more or less. If it truly is half the population in the map that live in cities, then the other half doesn't and it's a huge and influential block of voters in its own right. Any candidate who ignored them for the cities would be a fool.
Second argument: if the popular vote seems unfair, how is the EC any different on a state level? A few on here have stated how worthless their vote feels when their state is overwhelmingly made up of the other party. If you look at a state that doesn't have a really large city, then the rural vote (presumably conservative) will overwhelm the semi-urban (possibly progressive) vote, and candidates could ignore the smaller group of urban voters. It's not any more fair, it's simply split into states.
And it's not like states have a real commonality among their populations like they did when the EC was created. In states the size of Texas or California, it's unlikely people feel a common bond that suggests a particular president is good for "our state." The frequency with which people move across state lines (unlike the founders would likely have done or wanted to) makes populations transient in a sense, and the ability to connect via the internet means tribes come together with no regard for state borders.
Again, the arguments here are not necessarily about how the EC started, they're about whether it still make sense.
the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote
I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go
did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???
You're asking the wrong question. "Did anyone take civics in college or read anything...?" Yes. Lots of us did. Stop acting like you get it and the rest of us are uninformed. Restating the reasons for it (a bit incorrectly) does not show that you know what's going on and those of us in disagreement don't. We're not arguing over what the EC is, we're arguing if it should be. The point of the electoral college was not to prevent a state like CA from dominating the vote. There was no California, or anything like it. California was Mexico, most states were similar in size, the West hadn't been explored, and it's hard to imagine Madison and Hamilton could even conceive of the kind of population differences that might arise between a California and a North Dakota.
The problem was they didn't trust the common person to vote. They wanted the EC to be able to override the will of the people. This is shown in how they set up the branches of government as well. Because they didn't trust the common people, they gave them the House of Reps. Let the "mob" throw the bums out every two years. It's why the Senate is still viewed as the more "prestigious" arm of congress with longer terms not as easily changed by the mob. The executive and judicial also have firewalls against the general population. The problem now is the EC is a rubber stamp based on popular vote by state, so it doesn't really serve the purpose as intended.
Two arguments I want to address (these come up in some of the posts since the one I'm quoting). First, the map of population distribution. The key portion of the graphic's title for me is "half the population..." Just because people are spread out in some places doesn't mean their vote should count more or less. If it truly is half the population in the map that live in cities, then the other half doesn't and it's a huge and influential block of voters in its own right. Any candidate who ignored them for the cities would be a fool.
Second argument: if the popular vote seems unfair, how is the EC any different on a state level? A few on here have stated how worthless their vote feels when their state is overwhelmingly made up of the other party. If you look at a state that doesn't have a really large city, then the rural vote (presumably conservative) will overwhelm the semi-urban (possibly progressive) vote, and candidates could ignore the smaller group of urban voters. It's not any more fair, it's simply split into states.
And it's not like states have a real commonality among their populations like they did when the EC was created. In states the size of Texas or California, it's unlikely people feel a common bond that suggests a particular president is good for "our state." The frequency with which people move across state lines (unlike the founders would likely have done or wanted to) makes populations transient in a sense, and the ability to connect via the internet means tribes come together with no regard for state borders.
Again, the arguments here are not necessarily about how the EC started, they're about whether it still make sense.
The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.
Bingo
No, not bingo...he is completely wrong...please once again has anyone besides me taken a Civics class or studied the electoral college? It was meant to serve the purpose that it did even in this election
and you say the founders were misguided? they are smarter than most people in Washington right now with the exception of people like Rand Paul
Are you seriously arguing that? Do yiu think because you took a semester of civics that makes the statement false? "The electoral college consists of 538 electors, and of those, a candidate needs 270 votes to become president. Although the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have a say, there was concern that a charismatic tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come into power. Alexander Hamilton briefly addressed these concerns in the Federalist Papers. The idea was that the electors would be a group of people who would ensure that a qualified person would become president. The first design of the electoral college allowed each state the same number of electors as senators, which was always two, plus the same number of its U.S. Representatives. Each elector met within its own state rather than one large meeting altogether. The founding fathers believed this would prevent bribery, corruption and secret dealings. The candidate with the most electoral votes, provided it was the majority, became president. The candidate with the second most electoral votes became vice president. This lasted through the first four presidential elections when the powers that be realized ties were inevitable. The process was changed to include one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president, but still required a majority vote in order for a candidate to take office."
Did you miss that day in civics class?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
For everyone who said the EC was established exactly to prevent someone like Trump from becoming president, who exactly decides who is or is not fit to run? This was one of the closest elections in history, with virtually exactly half the votes going to each, so clearly half the country feels he is fit (or half that care enough to vote for those that try to argue all the non-voters are against Trump) Just because you think he isn't fit to run that makes him not fit when half the country voted for him? For the EC to go rogue and elect someone other than Trump (the will of the people) is a scarier thought to me than having Trump for 4 years.
The question you should be asking yourself original topic starter and all those now suddenly opposed to the electoral college process is this: Would you have wanted to eliminate the electoral college if Hilary had won? just curious. I mean i heard no such argument the last two elections when Obama crushed it.
I get the frustration with your candidate not winning but at this point it is starting to look bad. Sometimes you lose. It's up to you to get up, stop making excuses and find a better path.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
The question you should be asking yourself original topic starter and all those now suddenly opposed to the electoral college process is this: Would you have wanted to eliminate the electoral college if Hilary had won? just curious. I mean i heard no such argument the last two elections when Obama crushed it.
I get the frustration with your candidate not winning but at this point it is starting to look bad. Sometimes you lose. It's up to you to get up, stop making excuses and find a better path.
ABSOLUTELY, and I've been saying it since before 2000.
Yes the overall vote is close to 50/50 or rather 48/47, but there is a majority of people that view Trump as unfit to serve. Even a percentage of people that voted for him feel this way (based on polls) and in not exactly sure how they reconcile that with themselves. And you don't even have to like Clinton but I think a majority would feel she is fit to serve.
The winner of the popular vote has lost the election 5 times. We all know the 2000 and 2016 elections well. But let's take a look back at the first three.
1824: Andrew Jackson wins the popular vote AND the electoral college vote. But because there were four candidates, he didn't reach the "threshold" number of electoral votes. It went to the House of Representatives...who voted John Q. Adams, the runner-up in popular and electoral votes, president. Jackson faces of with Adams in a rematch in 1828 and annihilates him to be elected the 7th president. If only Al Gore had that sort of intestinal fortitude.
1876: Can we have a moment of silence for this man: Samuel Tilden?
Tilden won the popular vote 50% to 47%. but lost the electoral college 185-184. ONE ELECTORAL VOTE! Poor guy.
1888: We all know that Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th president, losing his reelection bid to Benjamin Harrison but running four years later and defeating him. But I bet not everyone knows that Cleveland won the popular vote when he lost the reelection bid to Harrison. So Cleveland won three consecutive popular votes. Dude's a boss.
Again, ya gotta feel for Tilden. At least Jackson and Cleveland ended up being president. And Gore (Vice-President) and Hillary (First-Lady) have each been as close to the president as one can be without actually being the president.
Also noteworthy that in 4 of these 5 instances, it was the Republican that lost the popular vote and won the White House. The only exception being 1824...when the Republican Party as we know it today wasn't yet established.
I just don't know how Tilden, Gore, and Hillary could live with knowing they got the most votes and never became president. Rules are rules. They all knew that coming in. And we've never once heard Gore or Hillary complain about it (though Gore certainly had other gripes about that election). But if it was me, man, I wouldn't be able to live with it.
"I'm not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. you know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There's a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play"
"I'm not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. you know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There's a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play"
- Donald Trump
Nice. President-elect Trump also said But, in trying to calm fears that his Supreme Court would toss last year’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, Trump argued, “it’s done,” adding “these cases have gone to the Supreme Court, they’ve been decided. And I’m fine with that,” adding that his views on the subject are “irrelevant.” http://deadline.com/2016/11/donald-trump-same-sex-marriage-okay-roe-v-wade-james-comey-1201853781/
The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.
Absolutely true.
I don't know where to stand on the issue. With a popular vote everyone has a vote that is weighted exactly the same. Idealistically this is best. In practice, that means that the elections become a match-up of urban vs rural as half the population lives in a few 10's of the thousands of counties. City folk already think their way of life is universal and I wouldn't want that to get any worse, but I'm the first to bash the backwards, neandethal hillbillies for their political and social opinions. This leaves me undecided.
I'm with Gambs here, for the reasons he listed. Also,direct democracy scares the shit out of me because, well, look around at who votes. I'm not happy with the results this time around, but it isn't the electoral college that created President Trump. Blame the non-voters, blame the two major parties, blame backlash against establishment politics with no good options.
I'm neither a defender of the electoral college nor am I calling for its abolishment. I just don't blame the electoral college for the results of this election. Clinton's team knew full well how to game the system and did so during the primaries. The candidate just couldn't pull in the votes in the right places for the general.
you my friend nailed it...trust me im not happy with what was left for options to vote and it wasn't a vote for Trump, it was a vote against the establishment and Hillary that i knew would matter the most rather than a 3rd party...i've taken tons of backlash and i accept that i just hope that this changes things moving forward and the government listens to the people
how do you feel that everyone Trump has hired and seems to be looking at for his cabinet is an insider and in the establishment? 6 days later do you feel duped yet?
as for the Electoral college, as i mentioned before, maybe it's time to tweak it so not all votes from a state go to one candidate. if a candidate wins by 1 vote in a large state like PA should they really get all 22 electoral college votes?
The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.
Absolutely true.
I don't know where to stand on the issue. With a popular vote everyone has a vote that is weighted exactly the same. Idealistically this is best. In practice, that means that the elections become a match-up of urban vs rural as half the population lives in a few 10's of the thousands of counties. City folk already think their way of life is universal and I wouldn't want that to get any worse, but I'm the first to bash the backwards, neandethal hillbillies for their political and social opinions. This leaves me undecided.
I'm with Gambs here, for the reasons he listed. Also,direct democracy scares the shit out of me because, well, look around at who votes. I'm not happy with the results this time around, but it isn't the electoral college that created President Trump. Blame the non-voters, blame the two major parties, blame backlash against establishment politics with no good options.
I'm neither a defender of the electoral college nor am I calling for its abolishment. I just don't blame the electoral college for the results of this election. Clinton's team knew full well how to game the system and did so during the primaries. The candidate just couldn't pull in the votes in the right places for the general.
you my friend nailed it...trust me im not happy with what was left for options to vote and it wasn't a vote for Trump, it was a vote against the establishment and Hillary that i knew would matter the most rather than a 3rd party...i've taken tons of backlash and i accept that i just hope that this changes things moving forward and the government listens to the people
how do you feel that everyone Trump has hired and seems to be looking at for his cabinet is an insider and in the establishment? 6 days later do you feel duped yet?
as for the Electoral college, as i mentioned before, maybe it's time to tweak it so not all votes from a state go to one candidate. if a candidate wins by 1 vote in a large state like PA should they really get all 22 electoral college votes?
I felt duped when I learned Citigroup exec Frohman chose Obama's cabinet
the fervour by which americans will defend archaic institutions like the constitution and the electoral college is mind boggling to me ... it was written in the 1700's for crying out loud ... the rationale for it's continued existence on here is pure cut and paste, indoctrinated thinking ... no other "democracy" in the free world uses anything like this because it's about as anti-democratic a system as it gets ... it's created a two-party system which created partisanship ... no one can rationalize the benefits of partisanship ...
the ONLY way the electoral colleges make sense if each state was uniform in its position and values ... that means like 75%+ would support a candidate ... that is clearly not the case in the US ... this system has elected george w bush and donald trump in the past 2 decades ... which means any clown with money can be president of the US ... is that a system people actually support on here!??
the fervour by which americans will defend archaic institutions like the constitution and the electoral college is mind boggling to me ... it was written in the 1700's for crying out loud ... the rationale for it's continued existence on here is pure cut and paste, indoctrinated thinking ... no other "democracy" in the free world uses anything like this because it's about as anti-democratic a system as it gets ... it's created a two-party system which created partisanship ... no one can rationalize the benefits of partisanship ...
the ONLY way the electoral colleges make sense if each state was uniform in its position and values ... that means like 75%+ would support a candidate ... that is clearly not the case in the US ... this system has elected george w bush and donald trump in the past 2 decades ... which means any clown with money can be president of the US ... is that a system people actually support on here!??
how would you change it? what standards for getting on the ballot would you like to see? i mean when people write-in a dead gorilla for president we aren't exactly all starting from the same position on voting.
Comments
It does address a concern of mine, that it pits rural voices against urban voices.
But there are a few problems.
First, I live in a grey area and I vote with the blue areas. There are many like me. You can't just assume all rural voices will be the same.
Second, why should grey area voices be given extra weight simply due to their geographical density?
Shouldn't each voice count the same, no matter where it's from?
Then again, factions.
It's tough lol
I'm neither a defender of the electoral college nor am I calling for its abolishment. I just don't blame the electoral college for the results of this election. Clinton's team knew full well how to game the system and did so during the primaries. The candidate just couldn't pull in the votes in the right places for the general.
Sign the petition: Abolish the Electoral College
All talk here and everywhere else leading up to the election was 270...270...270. Period.
Not one person was on here, or on the internet hoping for a popular vote result and had the shoe been on the other foot liberals would be screaming about using electoral college.
Look at what getting participation trophies does to a young person. They can't handle defeat.
The problem was they didn't trust the common person to vote. They wanted the EC to be able to override the will of the people. This is shown in how they set up the branches of government as well. Because they didn't trust the common people, they gave them the House of Reps. Let the "mob" throw the bums out every two years. It's why the Senate is still viewed as the more "prestigious" arm of congress with longer terms not as easily changed by the mob. The executive and judicial also have firewalls against the general population. The problem now is the EC is a rubber stamp based on popular vote by state, so it doesn't really serve the purpose as intended.
Two arguments I want to address (these come up in some of the posts since the one I'm quoting). First, the map of population distribution. The key portion of the graphic's title for me is "half the population..." Just because people are spread out in some places doesn't mean their vote should count more or less. If it truly is half the population in the map that live in cities, then the other half doesn't and it's a huge and influential block of voters in its own right. Any candidate who ignored them for the cities would be a fool.
Second argument: if the popular vote seems unfair, how is the EC any different on a state level? A few on here have stated how worthless their vote feels when their state is overwhelmingly made up of the other party. If you look at a state that doesn't have a really large city, then the rural vote (presumably conservative) will overwhelm the semi-urban (possibly progressive) vote, and candidates could ignore the smaller group of urban voters. It's not any more fair, it's simply split into states.
And it's not like states have a real commonality among their populations like they did when the EC was created. In states the size of Texas or California, it's unlikely people feel a common bond that suggests a particular president is good for "our state." The frequency with which people move across state lines (unlike the founders would likely have done or wanted to) makes populations transient in a sense, and the ability to connect via the internet means tribes come together with no regard for state borders.
Again, the arguments here are not necessarily about how the EC started, they're about whether it still make sense.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-electoral-college-1.3846924
According to this article the electoral college would be hard to do away with....
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"The electoral college consists of 538 electors, and of those, a candidate needs 270 votes to become president. Although the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have a say, there was concern that a charismatic tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come into power. Alexander Hamilton briefly addressed these concerns in the Federalist Papers. The idea was that the electors would be a group of people who would ensure that a qualified person would become president.
The first design of the electoral college allowed each state the same number of electors as senators, which was always two, plus the same number of its U.S. Representatives. Each elector met within its own state rather than one large meeting altogether. The founding fathers believed this would prevent bribery, corruption and secret dealings. The candidate with the most electoral votes, provided it was the majority, became president. The candidate with the second most electoral votes became vice president. This lasted through the first four presidential elections when the powers that be realized ties were inevitable. The process was changed to include one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president, but still required a majority vote in order for a candidate to take office."
Did you miss that day in civics class?
we will find a way, we will find our place
Just because you think he isn't fit to run that makes him not fit when half the country voted for him?
For the EC to go rogue and elect someone other than Trump (the will of the people) is a scarier thought to me than having Trump for 4 years.
The question you should be asking yourself original topic starter and all those now suddenly opposed to the electoral college process is this: Would you have wanted to eliminate the electoral college if Hilary had won? just curious. I mean i heard no such argument the last two elections when Obama crushed it.
I get the frustration with your candidate not winning but at this point it is starting to look bad.
Sometimes you lose. It's up to you to get up, stop making excuses and find a better path.
Yes the overall vote is close to 50/50 or rather 48/47, but there is a majority of people that view Trump as unfit to serve. Even a percentage of people that voted for him feel this way (based on polls) and in not exactly sure how they reconcile that with themselves. And you don't even have to like Clinton but I think a majority would feel she is fit to serve.
1824: Andrew Jackson wins the popular vote AND the electoral college vote. But because there were four candidates, he didn't reach the "threshold" number of electoral votes. It went to the House of Representatives...who voted John Q. Adams, the runner-up in popular and electoral votes, president. Jackson faces of with Adams in a rematch in 1828 and annihilates him to be elected the 7th president. If only Al Gore had that sort of intestinal fortitude.
1876: Can we have a moment of silence for this man: Samuel Tilden?
Tilden won the popular vote 50% to 47%. but lost the electoral college 185-184. ONE ELECTORAL VOTE! Poor guy.
1888: We all know that Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th president, losing his reelection bid to Benjamin Harrison but running four years later and defeating him. But I bet not everyone knows that Cleveland won the popular vote when he lost the reelection bid to Harrison. So Cleveland won three consecutive popular votes. Dude's a boss.
Again, ya gotta feel for Tilden. At least Jackson and Cleveland ended up being president. And Gore (Vice-President) and Hillary (First-Lady) have each been as close to the president as one can be without actually being the president.
Also noteworthy that in 4 of these 5 instances, it was the Republican that lost the popular vote and won the White House. The only exception being 1824...when the Republican Party as we know it today wasn't yet established.
I just don't know how Tilden, Gore, and Hillary could live with knowing they got the most votes and never became president. Rules are rules. They all knew that coming in. And we've never once heard Gore or Hillary complain about it (though Gore certainly had other gripes about that election). But if it was me, man, I wouldn't be able to live with it.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
The Election was Stolen – Here’s How…
"I'm not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. you know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There's a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play"
- Donald Trump
President-elect Trump also said
But, in trying to calm fears that his Supreme Court would toss last year’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, Trump argued, “it’s done,” adding “these cases have gone to the Supreme Court, they’ve been decided. And I’m fine with that,” adding that his views on the subject are “irrelevant.”
http://deadline.com/2016/11/donald-trump-same-sex-marriage-okay-roe-v-wade-james-comey-1201853781/
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Godfather.
Electoral college format discourages voting on both sides in dead red states and true blue states.
Clinton won California with 5,931,283 to Trump’s 3,184,721.
Trump won Texas with 4,681,590 to Clinton’s 3,867,816.
Why bother voting for Trump in Cal or Hilliary in Tex?
as for the Electoral college, as i mentioned before, maybe it's time to tweak it so not all votes from a state go to one candidate. if a candidate wins by 1 vote in a large state like PA should they really get all 22 electoral college votes?
the ONLY way the electoral colleges make sense if each state was uniform in its position and values ... that means like 75%+ would support a candidate ... that is clearly not the case in the US ... this system has elected george w bush and donald trump in the past 2 decades ... which means any clown with money can be president of the US ... is that a system people actually support on here!??