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

[mickybrighteyes]

Hillary was America's second choice, by democratic vote. Get over that.

the first choice got canned in a rigged election.

[Barnabas]

the first choice got canned in a rigged election.

they were afraid of his tax increases

[The Emperor]

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 - - -



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

Just fyi, College exists so that opinions of all the states matter, not those privileged to be populated more. That was my point, not slavery or anything else.

[Vash The Stampede]

Just fyi, College exists so that opinions of all the states matter, not those privileged to be populated more. That was my point, not slavery or anything else.

In a democracy it is the people and not the state that matters. If your state has more people, then their voice matters more.

[Dryade]

How about using a system where the overall votes is what matters, not the majority of votes in a state? With the current system, if 52% vote Republican then the remaining 48% votes in the state are completely useless. It makes no sense.

Because the USA is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy... Basically what you want is for the most populace cities in the country to have a voice, and for much smaller states and cities to be silenced.

- - - Updated - - -

In a democracy it is the people and not the state that matters. If your state has more people, then their voice matters more.

That's why we are a Republic and not a Democracy. Otherwise, the entire Midwest and other outlining states with smaller populations have no say.

[Gestopft]

Just fyi, College exists so that opinions of all the states matter, not those privileged to be populated more. That was my point, not slavery or anything else.

Many E.C proponents point this out- to say that all of the states matter- instead of just the big population centers if it was a popular vote- but take a look at where candidates actually campaign and spend money. It's not like candidates spend much time in Alabama, California, Oklahoma, Montana, Illinois, New York, Idaho, etc. I mean, all states matter, but some states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, etc.) just "matter" more than others. We already have a system where candidates focus on a relatively small number of states.

Also, you can win the E.C by taking only the 11 most populous states- and losing the other 39. "All states matter."

Also also, maybe the party that keeps losing the popular vote should focus on getting better ideas. If they could actually compete in urban areas, both parties would value rural outreach more.

[Chrno]

Not going to argue against the merit of the EC but what your just saying sounds more like whining because your going to lose potentially a bit of attention or even influence.

Right now Politicians in western europe/US are actively ignoring minorities (Canada is maybe the exception),they are actively running against their own citizens because they can get away with their racist rhetoric. This is what's wrong and not potentially you losing a little bit of attention you get during campaign season.

O_o
what did you smoke ... we don't have a silly system where 1 party rules the entire country and dicide what is best for 4 bloody years ... thank god.

[Floopa]

'member when the left was super happy cus they said theyd never lose elections due to the electoral college? i 'member!

[Logwyn]

How about using a system where the overall votes is what matters, not the majority of votes in a state? With the current system, if 52% vote Republican then the remaining 48% votes in the state are completely useless. It makes no sense.

What would you change it to? Straight majority vote wins? Then you'd have 52% vote for X then the remaining 48% didn't matter country wide.

[Orlong]

Because Burma and Pakistan are great examples of well ordered and functioning republics.

Most countries arent composed of multiple states (and are much smaller and dont have vastly diverse lifestyles, cultures, traditions) and therefore popular vote makes sense. The US has 50 states and each state has different cultures and needs (Texas is all about cowboys and dude ranches, California is all hippies, gays, and illegal aliens, Montana is full of doomsday preppers, hunters, and wilderness aficionados, Pennsylvania is mostly farmers and Amish, Florida is full of old people and surfers etc....) you cant have 2 states deciding what every other state will do. The way youre talking, the EU should have one president and citizens of all member states should vote using popular vote rather than each country vote for their own president.

- - - Updated - - -

We'll see about that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rstate_Compact

Funny how the only states involved with it are the handful of historically deep blue states that are butthurt over this election

[GennGreymane]

'member when the left was super happy cus they said theyd never lose elections due to the electoral college? i 'member!

When was this? Because I dont memeber.... because Gore was not that long ago.

[Vash The Stampede]

That's why we are a Republic and not a Democracy. Otherwise, the entire Midwest and other outlining states with smaller populations have no say.

If you counted it by vote, and not by electoral vote, everyone would have equal say. Why do states need to have a say when it's the people that matter more?

[zenkai]

People who are capable of analysing politics beyond what they hear on Fox News or MSNBC.

Wrong, it's people who are intelligent enough to know that voting turn out would be a lot different if it was based on popular vote.

[Helgrimm]

Liberals are so loud I'm having to start wearing ear muffs on a daily basis.

That's funny, because it's only conservatives who I see type in all caps raging in the comments on news websites.

[Orlong]

Possibly. I mean there are 165 votes between current signatories. If Michigan and Pennsylvania pass it, that will put it up to 201. At that point it could go into effect with just Texas, Florida, and any third state. While those are potentially unlikely participants (especially Texas), it doesn't necessarily require the smaller states to do much of anything, depending on exactly how legal it is in its current state.

Pennsylvania will never pass it. We have a vetoproof republican majority in the senate and a republican majority in the house. The only reason we even have a Democrat governor is because of Philadelphia and Eerie, the rest of the state is blood red. Really doubt Texas would pass it either

[Deleted]

1.5 million doesn't sound like that many really considering the population of the US, still Sucks though

[GennGreymane]

Before I begin this post, understand I am not trying to belittle you, but it will sound like I am because there is a popular argument I see as very childish in nature and I will call it out when I get to it. Too many people have an incredibly childish view of the EC. I have seen all the misleading images. "These small locations would control all of the land oh no!" Its a lie and here is why;

1) More people live in those smaller areas. Most of that land people are crying over is empty.

2) Even though more people live there, they will not 100% vote for one candidate over another. It would be split.

Let me go into more detail. How many people actually live in some of the states people look at? How many live in suburbs/urban areas compared to rural areas? New York City, the big apple, Manhattan, would literally be the 12th largest state in the Union if it was on its own.
Now what I will call, a childish image ("look at these tiny areas dominating the rest of the country!") I will tell you the issue I have with it. It's a lie. It's using the electoral college set up with a popular vote mind set. What do I mean? Well.... it's clearly just saying these places go "A" via electoral college, thus will be 100% "A" in the popular vote. I don't think I have to really express why this is a mistake and needs to stop being linked as an argument. These images are clearly flawed.
Now for my personal take on the EC. Percentages will go for "a" and "b." These places are not monoliths, just like how the other areas are also not monoliths.

The EC does not protect people, stop lying. The EC is meant to protect state interests (and let's face it, it hardly does), and for me personally, fuck state interests. I don't particularly care about states interests, especially since states interests matter much more in the legislative branch than the executive branch.
The EC and Senate appointments used to have a similar purpose. However, the Senate in Amendment 17 became directly electable by the people. The senate is a device used to ensure equal representation for the states. It was not directly electable because it was about the states interests, not the peoples interests, just like the electoral college.

The argument I see for the EC is that it makes the voices of those in less populated states heard. This ignores that even in a popular vote system, there voice is heard equally among the rest. Especially in their senate and house votes.

The argument I see for the EC is that now the candidates will go to only a few states if for the popular vote, which is a non issues, because under the EC that is what we have now. There are only a few swing states that are only swing states because of how the EC functions. These are where candidates go. The only change here would really be which states they go to. Heck, they may have to go to more states without the EC.

Now let's talk about why the popular vote would be better. Firstly, the state rights issues would be moot, because the legislature is what matters most when it comes to what states want domestically. Each state gets 2 senators, and a particular number of representatives based on population, all those states with low
populations with similar interests would still dominate the house of representatives and the senate and will ensure the interests of those states. Which is why we have so many favorable subsidies to those states that many claim would suffer in a popular vote system.

I can easily imagine states totally switching how they normally vote. Why vote for a republican federally in NY or Cali? Why vote for a democrat federally in Texas? What if you took away the EC? Would more people find purpose in voting? Would more people be emboldened to vote now that the status quo is gone?

Wanna fuck up the establishment? Change the rules.

[TZucchini]

Wrong, it's people who are intelligent enough to know that voting turn out would be a lot different if it was based on popular vote.

Why? What evidence do you have that suggests voting turnout would be "a lot different"?

Voting turnout in this country is always abysmal. We have a popular vote for gubernatorial races, and turnout is always low. Why would it be different for a Presidential election?

The people that voted are the people who are most likely to vote. If someone sat it out because "their vote didn't matter", I'm sure they'd just find some other excuse not to vote.

[RobertMugabe]

I mean this doesn't even matter. Donald won. Hilary supporters need to get over it.

I agree with you, but to be fair if it was the opposite or even if hillary would've won the election by a big margin, Trump (and his supporters) would call the election rigged.

[Masoner]

I agree with you, but to be fair if it was the opposite or even if hillary would've won the election by a big margin, Trump (and his supporters) would call the election rigged.

If you subtracted the votes via illegals he would win the popular vote too.