Electoral College voted Trump

[Dadwen]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ncts/95363314/

But math is hard...

*first response was wrong person my bad,, . but ya if everyone's vote could be tracked it would clear this up, but without that a popular vote would be worthless.

[schwarzkopf]

we need to wait and see if he does anything before getting mad;

He is already breaking laws, and causing disruption - and he isn't even sworn in yet

[Sfinna]

He is already breaking laws, and causing disruption - and he isn't even sworn in yet

How so?

I'm sorry, but that's a genuine question. I haven't exactly been keeping the closest eye on the election debacle. Better to ask questions than to be ignorant.

[Snuke]

Democratic Republic. English is hard...

Except we're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democratic Republic. Civics is as hard as English apparently... And that doesn't negate that we're still a democracy as well. Maybe try a few civics/government classes and come back?

[alexkeren]

And your point makes no fucking sense. See, California only had 8,753,788 votes for Hillary. For what you're saying to be valid, in any way shape or form, every single Hillary vote would have had to come from California. Since that's not what happened your point only makes sense if you have brain damage and live in a fantasy land... Oh, I get it now! Sorry, I'll leave you alone.

- - - Updated - - -



But, they vote Democrat! Clearly they're not real Americans if they vote democrat every 4 years!

/s

And Trump only had about 4 million votes in California.

The point is if you count the popular vote without California then Trump also wins the popular vote as well.

Because in 49 states combined he has the popular vote lead.

But it's moot anyway since the US is a Republic and the EC is part of the constitution that ALL states have ACCEPTED to abide by.

[TheFirstOnes]

Mhm, I agree with the last part. As much as I hate Trump, we need to wait and see if he does anything before getting mad; that is if the EC votes for him.

True. As I always say "Can't judge a book by its cover".

Said that to the few peeps that HATED legion, even though they haven't even played it yet.

[iperson]

Except we're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democratic Republic. Civics is as hard as English apparently... And that doesn't negate that we're still a democracy as well. Maybe try a few civics/government classes and come back?

the guy who doesn't understand how a republic works lecturing on civics. How cute...

[TheFirstOnes]

And Trump only had about 4 million votes in California.

The point is if you count the popular vote without California then Trump also wins the popular vote as well.

Because in 49 states combined he has the popular vote lead.

But it's moot anyway since the US is a Republic and the EC is part of the constitution that ALL states have ACCEPTED to abide by.

*Is buttering popcorn*

Oh shit, the war is starting. :O WAIT FOR MEH! *Watches*

[Renathras]

The electors only have a responsibility to the voters in their STATE not in the COUNTRY. Electors have reported getting thousands of e-mails and phone calls, largely from California and New York (and basically none from the Southern states or from their home states), as well as from other countries like in Europe and Australia.

...but they only represent the people of their state.

Additionally: Hillary Clinton won a plurality (largest minority), not a majority of the popular vote...in an election where the popular vote doesn't matter nationwide (only the popular vote state by state). This means you can't use that outcome to say that Clinton "won" anyway, as she (A) did not win a majority and (B) many people didn't vote in states where "their vote wouldn't matter", so you can't even be sure what the "true" popular vote would have been had the election been about popular vote, unless you have another election for the popular vote only. Until you do that, Clinton didn't "win" anything. The ENTIRE "win margin" for Clinton was from the state of California, where she won by about 4 billion (which is more than her 2-3 billion margin nationwide). That is, if you set aside California, Trump won the plurality of the popular vote across all other 49 states taken together. (While I don't doubt you could play a similar game with other states for Clinton or Trump, no other single state accounts for the ENTIRE popular vote margin between her plurality and his second place vote share).

This last point, by the way, was the reason for the Electoral College - so the largest states (at the time of the Constitution being written, this was Virginia and New York) couldn't dominate the outcome. That Clinton won by a margin of 2 billion due to a margin of 4 billion in California ALONE, yet is losing the Presidency, is the Electoral College working as intended: Preventing a regional candidate from being in charge of the entire country. (Like him or hate him, Trump's victories were across all areas of the country and vastly different groups, from race [winning the vote in large minority states like Arizona, Texas, and Florida] to income [winning among poor and middle-class voters, working class voters, those without college educations, etc.])

.

This isn't to say I like President-elect Trump (which is weird to say or think about), nor do I think he will be a particularly fantastic President. At best, I see him being something like President Bill Clinton after 1994 when he moderated to being a semi-populist, economy President and didn't really touch on social issues that much. Which, in retrospect, if Trump ends up like that, it wouldn't be so bad, I guess.

And the electoral college isn't likely to have a huge upset to the tune of 27 electors. If it was a margin of 1-5? Maybe there'd be a chance. But to put it in perspective, you basically need 2-3 STATES' worth of electors to jump ship, or alternatively, ALL or nearly all of the electors of Florida or Texas, or one of the mid-sized states (like Pennsylvania or Michigan) plus another small state. That's a lot of electors.

.

And finally, think about the fit liberals threw after the election, marching in the streets and all that and talks for California secession.

Consider that conservative states in the past have already talked about it, and some see that long-term, the US will eventually split - Texas for example.

Now consider that unlike liberals, conservatives are more...armed.

If the election outcome, which was decisively for Trump across basically the entire nation, suddenly flips, I'm not saying that Civil War 2 will break out (liberals have already been saying they should start it, but I don't think they realize lattes aren't weapons of war...), but if Clinton somehow won this thing at this point, there would be a lot more talk about secession and splitting the country up. And while people on the right don't seem as violent or prone to marches and riots as the left, they're armed in large part, meaning that things could get messy - even if it's just open carrying unloaded rifles around to rallies causing law enforcement to accidentally shoot people that they didn't realize weren't really threatening.

.

Overall, it's not in the nation's best interest for some kind of Electoral College upset right now. It's bad enough the left has declared war on our institutions - institutions that, just two months ago, they were saying Trump questioning of them was a threat to our very democracy!

[Snuke]

And Trump only had about 4 million votes in California.

The point is if you count the popular vote without California then Trump also wins the popular vote as well.

Because in 49 states combined he has the popular vote lead.

But it's moot anyway since the US is a Republic and the EC is part of the constitution that ALL states have ACCEPTED to abide by.

And if you don't count Texas he didn't win shit. What's your point? Again, the conversation started because someone else said they want the EC to follow the popular mandate. @Vegas82 simply asked if putting Hillary in office is what was meant. Why is this complicated for some of you? Have you never had a conversation in real life or something?

[schwarzkopf]

How so?

1. Foreign influence laws (no - I'm not referring to Russia here). His first case was Argentina ... relating to favour swapping.
2. Disruption - south china sea is heating up in response to Trump's aggro radius.

He doesn't even have any power yet and he is shaking the place to bits.

[Elegiac]

Overall, it's not in the nation's best interest for some kind of Electoral College upset right now. It's bad enough the left has declared war on our institutions - institutions that, just two months ago, they were saying Trump questioning of them was a threat to our very democracy!

Do you have a point besides 'liberuls r bad'?

[Snuke]

The electors only have a responsibility to the voters in their STATE not in the COUNTRY. Electors have reported getting thousands of e-mails and phone calls, largely from California and New York (and basically none from the Southern states or from their home states), as well as from other countries like in Europe and Australia.

...but they only represent the people of their state.

Additionally: Hillary Clinton won a plurality (largest minority), not a majority of the popular vote...in an election where the popular vote doesn't matter nationwide (only the popular vote state by state). This means you can't use that outcome to say that Clinton "won" anyway, as she (A) did not win a majority and (B) many people didn't vote in states where "their vote wouldn't matter", so you can't even be sure what the "true" popular vote would have been had the election been about popular vote, unless you have another election for the popular vote only. Until you do that, Clinton didn't "win" anything. The ENTIRE "win margin" for Clinton was from the state of California, where she won by about 4 billion (which is more than her 2-3 billion margin nationwide). That is, if you set aside California, Trump won the plurality of the popular vote across all other 49 states taken together. (While I don't doubt you could play a similar game with other states for Clinton or Trump, no other single state accounts for the ENTIRE popular vote margin between her plurality and his second place vote share).

This last point, by the way, was the reason for the Electoral College - so the largest states (at the time of the Constitution being written, this was Virginia and New York) couldn't dominate the outcome. That Clinton won by a margin of 2 billion due to a margin of 4 billion in California ALONE, yet is losing the Presidency, is the Electoral College working as intended: Preventing a regional candidate from being in charge of the entire country. (Like him or hate him, Trump's victories were across all areas of the country and vastly different groups, from race [winning the vote in large minority states like Arizona, Texas, and Florida] to income [winning among poor and middle-class voters, working class voters, those without college educations, etc.])

.

This isn't to say I like President-elect Trump (which is weird to say or think about), nor do I think he will be a particularly fantastic President. At best, I see him being something like President Bill Clinton after 1994 when he moderated to being a semi-populist, economy President and didn't really touch on social issues that much. Which, in retrospect, if Trump ends up like that, it wouldn't be so bad, I guess.

And the electoral college isn't likely to have a huge upset to the tune of 27 electors. If it was a margin of 1-5? Maybe there'd be a chance. But to put it in perspective, you basically need 2-3 STATES' worth of electors to jump ship, or alternatively, ALL or nearly all of the electors of Florida or Texas, or one of the mid-sized states (like Pennsylvania or Michigan) plus another small state. That's a lot of electors.

.

And finally, think about the fit liberals threw after the election, marching in the streets and all that and talks for California secession.

Consider that conservative states in the past have already talked about it, and some see that long-term, the US will eventually split - Texas for example.

Now consider that unlike liberals, conservatives are more...armed.

If the election outcome, which was decisively for Trump across basically the entire nation, suddenly flips, I'm not saying that Civil War 2 will break out (liberals have already been saying they should start it, but I don't think they realize lattes aren't weapons of war...), but if Clinton somehow won this thing at this point, there would be a lot more talk about secession and splitting the country up. And while people on the right don't seem as violent or prone to marches and riots as the left, they're armed in large part, meaning that things could get messy - even if it's just open carrying unloaded rifles around to rallies causing law enforcement to accidentally shoot people that they didn't realize weren't really threatening.

.

Overall, it's not in the nation's best interest for some kind of Electoral College upset right now. It's bad enough the left has declared war on our institutions - institutions that, just two months ago, they were saying Trump questioning of them was a threat to our very democracy!

Actually that's incorrect. The Electors have responsibilities with respect to both their State and the rest of the country. See, if they only had responsibilities with respect to their state then they wouldn't be voting for the person who will lead all 50 states. They're responsible for electing the leader of all 50 states, not just theirs.

[alexkeren]

Wow, your reading comprehension is awful. The original comment wasn't about how our system works, it was in response to someone else's statement that the EC should follow the will of the masses. I know this is hard for someone like you, but do your best to grasp basic concepts like conversation.

Also, the US has elected the person who won the popular vote in nearly every single election. So, yeah, good luck with that never statement being true.

Because in all but FIVE elections in 240 years of history the EC has been won, and it's the EC that determines the president. And if nobody gets to 270, then the HoR chooses the pres and the Senate chooses VP.

[Snuke]

Because in all but FIVE elections in 240 years of history the EC has been won, and it's the EC that determines the president. And if nobody gets to 270, then the HoR chooses the pres and the Senate chooses VP.

I know how our system works.

[alexkeren]

Actually that's incorrect. The Electors have responsibilities with respect to both their State and the rest of the country. See, if they only had responsibilities with respect to their state then they wouldn't be voting for the person who will lead all 50 states. They're responsible for electing the leader of all 50 states, not just theirs.

Only your last sentence is correct.

That is why you can't tell when somebody is able to carry on a civil discussion although opposed to you.

- - - Updated - - -

I know how our system works.

Actually you don't.

[Deleted]

Nah - its all over, the fat lady has sung and we now enter a fascist era in the US.

[Dadwen]

Those stories are fake news. It's adorable you bought it though. There is no evidence of our system not working as you indicate. If you have some real evidence, as opposed to fake news that doesn't understand math, please provide it.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ncts/95363314/
http://www.freep.com/story/news/colu...ines/95451122/

and dam time magazine and their fake news...
http://time.com/4599886/detroit-voti...-election-day/

so my story stands the number didn't match up, does not matter what reasons fraud, crap machines, or what the hell have you, a popular vote should not relied on any of this unless it can be track better..

[Kiri]

Sometimes, I just want a time-machine so I can tell the America of a few years and decades back that one day 'we are not a democracy' will be something Americans say proudly, haha.

[schwarzkopf]

That's not a fascist dude...