Clinton won popular vote because of one single state?

[ezgeze]

California and New York are no where near half the US population.

Shouldn't be surprised though. Disenfranchising people you don't like is Republican 101.

I never said they were. They are however so radical left that their over votes together would literally ensure 100% democrat party control akin to the fucking hunger games than a free country. That's what you and other want on this forum obviously.

- - - Updated - - -

You know, it's funny, the candidates ignored most states this election cycle.

However, you are QQing about California's 55 electoral votes?

Wrong. I never was QQing about their 55 votes. I just stated that their large population was already properly reflected by their large presence in the EC.

- - - Updated - - -

See, this is how I know you're just regurgitating shit that you heard on Fox news or something, because zero of that is true, but it's what they keep saying since the election.

She never visited Wisconsin once during the campaign and she lost this state. I should know, I live there. What she did was take the left leaning voters in my state for granted and couldn't give a shit about their issues enough to stop a single time in between her nonstop flights between big city donors of NYC and Hollywood.

Also, I don't watch TV, sorry.

[Deleted]

I get this is still an hot topic in the us, but can you keep your politics into one thread?

[ezgeze]

California contributed nearly as many Republican votes as Texas, which contributed nearly as many Democratic votes as New York. They really aren't as one-sided as people like to make them out to be, especially if you consider that there's a pretty good chance that conservative voters would turn out more if they thought their votes mattered.

Not even close. CA alone had 3.4M more votes for Clinton than Trump while Texas that margin was 800k for Trump over Clinton. This means that the over votes from CA alone would wipe out the over votes from Texas and 2.6M worth of other states, or roughly 2/3 of the rest of the country. If you add in the over votes from New York, its game over, 100% of the time. Hence, why the radical left push for EC to be abolished because it guarantees one party control. All they would need to do is run a NY/CA or CA/NY ticket every 4 years and just walk into power. This is exactly the issues that the EC was meant to avoid however current politicians don't give a shit about the rest of the country if it keeps them in power. The Hunger Games was a perfect comparison as to what would happen.

[ezgeze]

Why is it a problem that more people want a person? Like why is the fact that the more popular candidate might consistently win the core of the argument against the popular vote? There's nothing magical about living in California that makes people liberal. It just happens to have some very large urban centers. If instead of being a single state, CA were three states that still reliably went blue, people wouldn't be bitching about them even though the only difference would be that they'd have more power in the EC. There's no need to select a system that helps keep the two current parties in charge. If the EC isn't serving a legitimate purpose (it's not), then get rid of it and let the two powers adjust. Rural areas are still the majority of this country and that means rural voters still comprise a significant portion of the population, so it would be foolish for everyone to ignore them.

- - - Updated - - -



If every last person in NY and CA voted and voted the same way, that would still not be enough to elect a person president. Not everyone in NY and CA can vote and not all of them vote the same way. CA contributes less to a D victory and more to an R victory under the popular vote than it does under the EC. If you're so scared of CA, then popular vote is the way to suppress their influence, instead of just suppressing R voters in CA.

That entire post is evidence you fail to understand the effect taking EC away would do. The entire post was literally 100% inaccurate. Anyways, I am done trying to convince radical leftists on this topic. Looking forward to Monday though, GL on that EC upset for Hillary.

[Gestopft]

That entire post is evidence you fail to understand the effect taking EC away would do. The entire post was literally 100% inaccurate. Anyways, I am done trying to convince radical leftists on this topic. Looking forward to Monday though, GL on that EC upset for Hillary.

What, that politicians would ignore a bunch of states for NY and California?

He perfectly understands the point, and also understands that it's total bullshit.

For starters, the EC doesn't guarantee that smaller states get attention from candidates: currently, it's 12 or fewer swing states that get the majority of attention to begin with. Candidates already aren't spending much time in Wyoming, the Dakotas, California, or other "safe" states. Also, if a candidate won the 11 most populous states, they would win the electoral college, even if nobody in 39 states voted for them. Winning those 11 states would be unlikely, but "win 11 large states" hardly seems like it's protecting the small states in any way. The EC encourages candidates to focus on states that are large and could go either way, not all states.

But more to the point on the popular vote: it would take those 11 largest (or 10 depending on pop. estimates) states for a candidate to get a majority of the vote, and that's even if they won nearly every vote in those states. They wouldn't, because states aren't hive minds, so candidates would have to broaden well beyond those 11 states to get more voters. No they probably wouldn't visit Wyoming or the Dakotas still, but the idea that they would win while campaigning in or representing just a few large states is ludicrous.

[Wyrt]

I never said they were. They are however so radical left that their over votes together would literally ensure 100% democrat party control akin to the fucking hunger games than a free country. That's what you and other want on this forum obviously.
.

So liberals should have their votes count for less just because you don't like them?

[Deleted]

We really need a the election is over bell

[Machismo]

How is that not devaluing their say?

You're trying to cleverly phrase it differently, thats all.

Lets use California as an example. California is an echo chamber of like minded ideas with a dense population. Regardless of their views, having an echo chamber being able to command such large voting power is dangerous in a strict popularity contest.

In a country as diverse and large as America, I you need to have a majority of electorates so you can have a better representation of the views shared by the majority of states and those people within those states.

Same situation as here in Australia. Having Melbourne decide an election every 4 years would be dangerous. Melbourne (where I live) is nothing but young hipsters and aging greens activists, sprinkled with people on welfare. They are as predictable as the sun rising every morning and if we had a popularity contest this country would be in the stone age. It is an echo chamber of ideas that doesnt reflect the ideals and the interests of Australia as a whole - despite being a large chunk of the voting population.

Could you perhaps set up a situation where you need to meet both requirements? Sure, but that in itself has its own drawbacks and like referendums, would almost always fail.

The electoral college certainly has its failings. But its a far better system than a simple popularity contest.

You are assuming that a "state" should have power, and not the individual person. I would much prefer that the power lie in the hands of the individual. The Electoral College is nothing more than affirmative action, giving some people an advantage, based solely on where they happen to live. If we are going to do that, then there's no reason to not let black people have their votes count for more, in order to make their voices heard more strongly. Is that something you would support? I would assume not, since it undermines the entire principle of equality. We could also do it for libertarians or the Green Party, let their votes count for more, so they can have a stronger say in how things are run. If one is going to base voter strength on state borders, then it seems like it can also be done by race, religion, or political affiliation. That's the problem, all those would create inequality in order to try and create balance.

- - - Updated - - -

So liberals should have their votes count for less just because you don't like them?

That is literally what they are all saying, yes.

[Cyberowl]

How is that not devaluing their say?

He said and carried on with some rant justifying devaluing "hipster" votes. 10/10 kek.

[Draco-Onis]

How is that not devaluing their say?

You're trying to cleverly phrase it differently, thats all.

Lets use California as an example. California is an echo chamber of like minded ideas with a dense population. Regardless of their views, having an echo chamber being able to command such large voting power is dangerous in a strict popularity contest.

In a country as diverse and large as America, I you need to have a majority of electorates so you can have a better representation of the views shared by the majority of states and those people within those states.

Same situation as here in Australia. Having Melbourne decide an election every 4 years would be dangerous. Melbourne (where I live) is nothing but young hipsters and aging greens activists, sprinkled with people on welfare. They are as predictable as the sun rising every morning and if we had a popularity contest this country would be in the stone age. It is an echo chamber of ideas that doesnt reflect the ideals and the interests of Australia as a whole - despite being a large chunk of the voting population.

Could you perhaps set up a situation where you need to meet both requirements? Sure, but that in itself has its own drawbacks and like referendums, would almost always fail.

The electoral college certainly has its failings. But its a far better system than a simple popularity contest.

Your example disproves your point about 40% of California did not vote for Clinton, 31% of the vote went for Trump. I am not sure why conservatives hate California so much especially since even in the most blue states republicans still win elections and hold office. It will be better to just come out and say that you hate people in urban areas and think they are worth less because of your feelings. You have given plenty of hints that you already do hate them, it is wrong but at least honest.

[ItachiZaku]

No, it wouldn't be a "problem" - and the conclusion that "just California picks the president" is one of the more intellectually ridiculous statements I've ever seen in this forum - and that's saying a LOT.

Yeah, but it'd have been 100% true in this case (I have no knowledge of past elections and the vote imbalance there), but to say Trump beat Cunt's face no problem in a popular vote, and then you have the fake lib agenda machine of California that easily has Cunt face beating Little Hands... now we have a problem.

I'm glad we don't let fuck all California tell us what is what. I want those hot little actresses puppets to dance when I tell them to fucking dance. That's all they are good for. Stick too it.

- - - Updated - - -

So liberals should have their votes count for less just because you don't like them?

Yes.

lol It's a bit of a slippery slope, like I wait one party or candidate having the money to just annihilate the opponent, no matter how popular they are (like Cunt over Grampa Bernie), if she didn't have that money, Bernie would have pounded her. If you eliminate super Pacs and even the money battlefield, you would still have those hollywood libs spending money for ad work, which would suck (for either party, up until recently, I was Green).

Candidates should be evaluated on their stance on topics, their agenda, and their moral compass. To which, Trump and Clinton shouldn't have even been considered candidates, but money talks and bullshit runs a fucking marathon.

[fwc577]

Jesus H. Christ. The mental gymnastics in here...

First off, the EC isn't giving more power to any little states. Once in the last 116 years the EC has been close enough for states with 5 or less EVs to actually matter.

And even then, in that Election, it came down to a state with 29 EVs that determined that election

The little states matter jack-all. What matters are what are considered battle-ground states.

The fact our candidates only need to care about a handful if states is a tragedy.

The fact that if you're in a state that is solidly Red or Blue on a presidential ticket (which is most states) means your vote really doesn't count is a tragedy.

People complain about voter turnout and the EC is one of those reasons. How many more Republican Californians or Democrat Texans would turn out if they knew their vote would actually count toward the presidential race?

This is something we don't know, but what we do know, is that if we went with popular votes over EVs, only twice in the last 116 years would it have made a difference in the final result.

Face it, Trump was/is a shit candidate who got propped up by Russians and the FBI.

[Deleted]

I already proved this was a lie.

You think its a lie that 11 million illegals live in the US ? because that was the only declarative statement made.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, illegal immigrants can't vote.

There are proven cases of illegal aliens voting - Individual cases proving its a possibility.

There is literally no evidence that this is a thing.

Yes there is -

Also, undocumented immigrants are, obviously, not counted in determining electoral votes.

Actually they are - They are interested in the population, not the citizenship - See slavery.

[Elegiac]

There are proven cases of illegal aliens voting - Individual cases proving its a possibility.

Case studies are not generalisable.

[Narwal]

See, here's the problem I have with the whole argument that "in this election, the popular vote shows that more people support Hillary, thus Trump shouldn't be President". The problem is that the popular vote was not the game. That's akin to the fans of the team that loses the NBA finals in game 7 (that's basketball if you're unaware), saying "their team should be declared the winner because they scored more total points over the 7 game series than the team that won 4 games". It's changing the rules, making it a different game, a game neither participant played or attempted to win in. You can push to change the rules of the game if you believe it unfair, but you can't use different rules as an argument to deligitimize a game already played.

[Deleted]

Case studies are not generalisable.

perfectly fair assessment - Which is why i asked for the odds of an illegal voting - One in a million would be 11 votes.
but apparently zero illegals voted. we know that for sure,´-

[Elegiac]

perfectly fair assessment - Which is why i asked for the odds of an illegal voting - One in a million would be 11 votes.
but apparently zero illegals voted. we know that for sure,´-

When people say 'voter fraud isn't an issue', it generally means that the instances are so rare as to be negligible.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, as they say. Quite frankly I'd rather we skip the mess and just shift to automatic registration and mail-in voting.

[Deleted]

When people say 'voter fraud isn't an issue', it generally means that the instances are so rare as to be negligible.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, as they say. Quite frankly I'd rather we skip the mess and just shift to automatic registration and mail-in voting.

Oh I agree, I doubt that the Illegals slanted the vote in any meaningful way, lets say 1/10 voted, clearly at the upper end of "plausible" and 8/10 voted for democrats, that's still only 8-900 000 votes spread out over a dozen states, maybe there are scenarios where those matter, but realistically (especially given the implausibly high numbers of illegals voting) they didn't matter, and don't really matter either.

[Zython]

You think its a lie that 11 million illegals live in the US ? because that was the only declarative statement made.

There are about 11 million illegal's in the US.
What are the odds you can vote as one do you think?
More importantly, if there are 4 million illegals in, say, California, California has about 5 more electoral votes than they should have.

Yet another lie.

There are proven cases of illegal aliens voting - Individual cases proving its a possibility.

[citation needed]

[Deleted]

Yet another lie.

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and explicitly repealed the compromise. It provides that "representatives shall be apportioned ... counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." A later provision of the same clause reduced the Congressional representation of states who denied the right to vote to adult male citizens, but this provision was never effectively enforced.
Citation.
Happy being completely wrong?