Hillary Clinton is now 1.5 MILLION ahead of Donald Trump in the popular vote count

[cubby]

Please, continue with these tearful threads. It doesn't really matter if some stuck up New yorkers or LAers voted for Hillary. All States decide on this matter, not some "elite states who think their voice means more than everyone elses"
Your crooked hag lost, period, now swallow it already.

Yet another person who doesn't understand the issue at hand. Just fyi: we're discussing the inherent disenfranchisement of the Electoral College.

- - - Updated - - -

No, the irony is that Democrats didn't turn out for the vote - just like they didn't in the 2014 mid-terms - and then they have the audacity to pout about Trump being elected.

Actually, voter turn out across the boards was very low. But the fact that more registered voters didn't vote than did paints a very interesting picture.

[deadman1]

Bannon, Sessions, that 3 star general... etc. Nah nothing to worry about.

Citation needed

Oh and women getting 25y to life for murder if they get an abortion.

Citation needed

Enjoy douchebag.

And here comes the ad hominem. I would say you ran out of useful things to say, but I don't think you ever had any.

[Tonkaden]

Yet another person who doesn't understand the issue at hand. Just fyi: we're discussing the inherent disenfranchisement of the Electoral College.

- - - Updated - - -



Actually, voter turn out across the boards was very low. But the fact that more registered voters didn't vote than did paints a very interesting picture.

If Hillary would have won and Donald had the popular vote, you wouldn't be saying a damned thing though. You would think its working as intended.

[twelvethirty]

irrelevant at this point

[Thagrynor]

What are you talking about? The electors CAN CHOOSE. They are not bound by law to follow the votes of the states. This is already how it works.

Actually, in 24 states, they do BY LAW have to vote how the popular vote in their state goes. For instance, in Michigan, their Faithless Elector law states that if an elector should TRY to vote differently, their vote is voided and they are replaced. On top of that, arguing that an elector would switch their vote (while not unprecedented) is highly unlikely, given that the electors are literally chosen by the party who wins the state, usually for their party loyalty. The party would not choose someone who even had a hint of possibly changing their minds.

More importantly, however, is your grasp on the situation. You have several issues that are invalidating your argument.

1) The federal government is distinctly responsible for 2 groups of individuals: the citizens as individuals and the states as individuals. This specifically is why we have a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives represents the citizens as individuals while the Senate represents the states as individuals.

2) Never since the inception of the Electoral College has the vote in November ever been a vote for the President. No one living has EVER voted for the President who wasn't serving as an Elector. Your vote in that election is not for the President but for the elector you wish to vote in your stead. Those votes are then carried to determine which group of Electors actually go to vote for your state.

3) You keep throwing out this idea that "democracy" is being tread upon, and that Hillary won the "democratic" vote. You seem to fail to realize we do not, repeat, DO NOT live in a democracy. We never have. The United States was founded as a Constitutional Republic. Arguing that Hillary won the "democratic" vote is like arguing that whoever the US Communist party put up won the communist vote. Who cares? That is not our system of government. It never has been. Arguing that she won the popular "democratic" vote has as much weight as saying she won the Miss America pageant. It means literally nothing with regards to our government.

Clinton has a higher chance of getting California to successfully secede from the US than she has of being elected in December. Trying to argue "what if" or that "well she could!" is like trying to say, "well what if I won the Powerball every pull for a year straight?" Sure, you COULD argue it, but why waste the breath?

[Higphriest]

again, this is not a contest to win an ice cream. people will fight. nuff said

regardless what the end result was, one side won and the other side conceded. Protesting is one thing, but continuing the way these children are is just embarrassing. You protest orderly to get your point heard and be taken seriously. The second one devolves into a riot is the second your cause should be laughed at. If as a group you can't treat your cause with respect, why should anyone else.

And honestly, there are really people out there that wanted Hillary as president. Heck if democrats wanted the white house so bad, you should have nominated a candidate that wasn't under federal investigation. I still have no clue how blind half the american public was to just ignore that. Don't even get me started on the FBI investigation, If I did something in kindergarten and was being investigated they would find it. But somehow forgot they could get subpoenas and warrants to find the info relevant to the case. Oh they destroyed almost HALF the emails, "Oh Well". I thought that was like Hillary admitting that she destroyed evidence, which in itself is a crime.

[cubby]

If Hillary would have won and Donald had the popular vote, you wouldn't be saying a damned thing though. You would think its working as intended.

No, I would be saying the same thing - because it's a fact, not an opinion. I certainly wouldn't by crying about the result though, to be honest.

[The Emperor]

Yet another person who doesn't understand the issue at hand. Just fyi: we're discussing the inherent disenfranchisement of the Electoral College.

Oh I get it very well, and I'm sick(and tired) of it. the constitution is very clear on this matter. So if you wish to change it, I suggest petitioning your representative(that wouldn't mean ofcourse that the results of this election would be somehow revised, no, it's been set in stone). And then wait for some 5-10 years for it to actually be passed in Congress, which is doubtful. There is a reason you know the electoral college exists, a reason which I pointed out, but you had to try to look smart didn't ya?

[lockedout]

That makes absolutely no sense, just fyi.

Not to someone who lost I guess.

[Tonkaden]

Curious, if against all odds, the EC voted in Hillary, would you feel the same way? "Donald isn't President. Hillary is. Get over it?"

Yes, as a matter of fact, I would. Regardless of my likes or dislikes, who got elected is who got elected. All of the arm chair politicing and bashing of people is pointless. There is jack shit you can do about it. There isn't anything anyone can do about it... except vote in 4 years.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely not.

Hell, I complained about the EC even before the Bush/Gore situation happened.

I just don't find it to be a system of much value in the modern age.

I say that about certain constitution amendments as well.

[ipaq]

Citation needed

Citation needed

And here comes the ad hominem. I would say you ran out of useful things to say, but I don't think you ever had any.

How much a closeted racist are you?

Bannon: Google

Sessions: Google

3 star general: Google

Women prison term for abortion: Google -> Indiana

[Tonkaden]

And that's ok, you can do that.

Not only is holding such opinions a cornerstone of our freedoms to begin with, even the founders themselves knew that they weren't flawless beings and that not every single thing they said or thought in the 1700's would apply for eternity.

I know. I was agreeing with ya

[A dot Ham]

The Electoral College was set up based on slavery, to make sure southern states had their "fair" say in the presidential election process. That position is no longer valid. You are entirely incorrect when you say that the Federal Government places states rights over individual - the fact is most law is based on the Federal Government protecting individuals from state laws that harm (which is why Federal Law trumps State Law). That is a basic example, but the point is there for you to see.

You couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions and idea of what the EC is for. The EC disenfranchises votes from people in larger populous states. Period. Not an opinion or something to be debated. It's a fact - and yes, it was set up that way. But it's still an unfair system. Which has been our entire point.

No you only think it is because it supports your rhetoric. It has nothing to do with Slavery. If that was truly the case, then the electoral college would have been dissolved with the resolution of the Civil War. Try again.

There are many times that Supreme Court upholds a State's right to govern. Don't pretend otherwise. On issues surrounding the Bill of Rights yes, quite often the Supreme Court will rule against states trying to impose laws on the individual which take away, or impede unalienable civil rights.

But again... a Californian... talking about voter disenfranchisement is just fucking (Hilary)ous *see what I did there*

Especially when you consider that 3.84 milion people voted for Trump. Which, is 7.5 times bigger than Wyoming (your favorite reference point) and we didn't see a single electoral vote for those people. You want to talk about disenfranchisement... please, sit down. While Wyoming had 107% voter turnout (registration allowed on voting day) California only had 72.3% turnout. I wonder how that other 27.7% if they felt like their vote actually mattered. You say its because they are under-represented in electoral votes, I say that perhaps we'd be a red State. You don't know because your entire position here is based on supposition.

[cubby]

Oh I get it very well, and I'm sick(and tired) of it. the constitution is very clear on this matter. So if you wish to change it, I suggest petitioning your representative(that wouldn't mean ofcourse that the results of this election would be somehow revised, no, it's been set in stone). And then wait for some 5-10 years for it to actually be passed in Congress, which is doubtful. There is a reason you know the electoral college exists, a reason which I pointed out, but you had to try to look smart didn't ya?

All evidence to the contrary. We're talking about how the current system is flawed because it disenfranchises the individual vote. You pointed out that the EC exists because of slavery, which is just super, but as a country we're passed that now.

I do wish to change it, and I have petitioned by congressman. Do you have anything constructive to point out or are you just going to continually state the obvious?

- - - Updated - - -

Not to someone who lost I guess.

No, to everyone - you're not making any sense, but go ahead and clarify if you want.

[purebalance]

What are you talking about? The electors CAN CHOOSE. They are not bound by law to follow the votes of the states. This is already how it works.

And don't fucking try to project your own intellectual dishonesty onto me. I will disparage the electoral college system whatever the outcome. If Clinton is elected in December, I will disagree with her election on that premise as I disagree with Trump's election on the premise of the votes cast by states and not people.

Actually most of them are bound because the SC said that it is up to the states to decide if the EC must vote with the state or not and many states made laws saying they must. So yes most of them must.

[deadman1]

How much a closeted racist are you?

I voted for Hilary, you are so blinded by the conspiracy theory laden world you live in you don't even know what you are saying.

Shameless

Bannon: Google

Sessions: Google

3 star general: Google

If you believe the things you are saying provide a source, don't tell me to look it up. PROVE IT.

Women prison term for abortion: Google -> Indiana

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us...rtion-law.html

http://www.irtl.org/act/indiana-abortion-law/
https://www.google.com/search?q=indi...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[cubby]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I would. Regardless of my likes or dislikes, who got elected is who got elected. All of the arm chair politicing and bashing of people is pointless. There is jack shit you can do about it. There isn't anything anyone can do about it... except vote in 4 years.

There is one thing we can do about it. We can discuss it.

[A dot Ham]

This really isn't why the electoral college exists (or at least not the primary reason).

Nor does it make any sense, as it basically says, "Why should a place with a lot of voters decide things? We should let places without a lot of people do it instead."

Uh you don't California has 55 electoral votes. So of the 270 needed for a win, California is a guaranteed 1/5 of those votes. Please tell me more how California's vote doesn't matter.

[cubby]

No you only think it is because it supports your rhetoric. It has nothing to do with Slavery. If that was truly the case, then the electoral college would have been dissolved with the resolution of the Civil War. Try again.

There are many times that Supreme Court upholds a State's right to govern. Don't pretend otherwise. On issues surrounding the Bill of Rights yes, quite often the Supreme Court will rule against states trying to impose laws on the individual which take away, or impede unalienable civil rights.

But again... a Californian... talking about voter disenfranchisement is just fucking (Hilary)ous *see what I did there*

Especially when you consider that 3.84 milion people voted for Trump. Which, is 7.5 times bigger than Wyoming (your favorite reference point) and we didn't see a single electoral vote for those people. You want to talk about disenfranchisement... please, sit down. While Wyoming had 107% voter turnout (registration allowed on voting day) California only had 72.3% turnout. I wonder how that other 27.7% if they felt like their vote actually mattered. You say its because they are under-represented in electoral votes, I say that perhaps we'd be a red State. You don't know because your entire position here is based on supposition.

You're doing that thing where you obfuscate the larger point with irrelevant minutiae. Let' simplify:

You tell me why a voter in CA should have theirs count 4 times less than a voter in WY.

[God Save The King]

We should probably abolish the EC system, convert to a Single-Transferable Vote for Federal Elections, make Election Day a National Holiday, instate compulsory voting, send physical ballots to every registered voter (like in Oregon), and open a polling location on election day for every 2.5k voters.