Broken system: Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

They feared the democracy, and really were only giving lip service to it. In all honesty, that is correct. A democracy is 3 wolves voting to eat the sheep. Great if you're a wolf....terrible if you're a sheep. And this was seen as an intrinsic "wrench in the works" of our Republic.

This go round perhaps since our beginning for the first time.

The 'sheep' ate both wolves

a reply to: neo96

maybe if the electoral college was divvy'd up based on the states GDP, it would level things out a bit more? Its not really fair that heavy oil producing states give up their minerals for the good of the republic, only to have their voices muted by bloated cesspools like seen on the east coast.

Terrible idea, i know....but just a thought.

originally posted by: warpig69
I just posted this in another post, but the popular vote still has not been decided. Not all of the votes has been reported and some news channels have not called two states yet. If you go over to CNN and look at the popular vote tab on the map, you will see they project Trump as the winner of the popular vote as well. Popular Vote CNN

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Nah shouldn't have anything to do with money.

Should be set up like the populate vote is.

Everyone has an equal vote. Therefore every state should have an equal say.

They didn't have a problem with the EC the last two times though.
'

I strongly disagree that the EC is fair in it's representation. It absolutely is not. I love how the excuse was used that "how is it fair for one area to decide for the rest?" You just watched that happen Tuesday. The minority (who would have lost in a popular vote election) won.

This system is antithetical to everything people claim to stand for in the US, i.e freedom and less government meddling. Yet here we have people supporting something that does the exact same thing they do not want -- let's the few override the desires of the many.

I don't give a fat rat's ass why the EC system exists still and how well it runs. The point isn't it's long-running existence, the point is the merit. It has none anymore. In a reverse win election, you exact same folks supporting it now would be lamenting it. I bet if one were to comb over post histories from 4 & 8 years ago, some would have been singing a completely different tune back then. In which case, consider this -- if it was unfair to you then, it's unfair now. Get rid of the political slants and look at it for what it is -- a way to override us --me,you, all of us -- no matter which side wins a popular vote. That should get you steamed as hell.

a reply to: Nyiah

As someone who lives in a very sparsely populated area (which also happens to produce the majority of my states annual GDP), i could not disagree with you more.

If we do not address the complete lack of representation the rural public is facing, our problems will only get worse. Folks live in the country for a reason....and we see Washington as a constant toe stepping moron.

Folks can hole up in cities all they want. But that just means the rest of us have to manage everything else, like ensuring the roads and railways still work when east coast wants to ship to west coast. We have a purpose here in the middle of the country....and it seems that the city folks out on the coasts forget this.

a reply to: Nyiah

I strongly disagree that the EC is fair in it's representation. It absolutely is not. I love how the excuse was used that "how is it fair for one area to decide for the rest?" You just watched that happen Tuesday. The minority (who would have lost in a popular vote election) won

The MAJORITY won.

Because electoral votes are the 'popular' vote because whoever gets the most votes per state gets the EC vote.

Trump was the majority winner.

That is how the game has ALWAYS been played since it was created.

And now because its Trump some people are 'crying' foul.

FIgures.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Then we're going to disagree, obviously. Even if it were a Democrat who won, I'm not changing my opinion on this. Of those who vote, when that majority threshold is crossed, they win by the numbers. End of discussion, in my blunt opinion. Not by another pseudo-representative vote from the EC.

a reply to: neo96

I'm not arguing for parties, period. Pay attention.

a reply to: Nyiah

Team Clinton already threw in the towel because she, and they KNOW there is NO legal ground to challenge the outcome.

Feel free to continue beating a dead horse though.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Nyiah

Team Clinton already threw in the towel because she, and they KNOW there is NO legal ground to challenge the outcome.

Feel free to continue beating a dead horse though.

I really don't care, I voted Johnson. I love how you're so quick to assume Dem, though.

a reply to: Nyiah

Then states rights are being trampled, along with individual rights. We are not a democracy....popular vote is wholly irrelevant.

You can take it up with your specific state legislature. How you guys handle the votes in your state are mostly determined by them.

a reply to: sprtpilot

true but on the other hand now we have a bunch of sparsely populated rural states dictating to the rest of the country.

a reply to: neo96

trump would have protested if he had lost. i thought he would be the one to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. had that happened i guarantee trump supporters would have been up in arms over it.

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: sprtpilot

true but on the other hand now we have a bunch of sparsely populated rural states dictating to the rest of the country.

You do realize that these "sparsely populated" areas are where the middle class used to reside? Agenda 22, and stuff in action. And this EC now has folks clammoring for it to speed up?

So my only way to be equally represented is to mob up? How does this protect my individual rights?

a reply to: conspiracy nut

And the point is what ?

Trump critics have been crying for the last 16 years how Gore lost.

I Guess we only live in a 'democracy' when the left wins.

I read somewhere that the original idea was to have each county inside a state to have one vote. The state would then tally up all of the votes from the counties and determine who the state was voting for. Looking at the map, it appears over 92 percent of the counties in the U.S. for Trump. If they would have kept that system, Clinton would have only won Hawaii. Think about that for a while.

a reply to: gladtobehere

The reason for this is

Let's say 1,000,000 people lived in California and they all voted democrat and it was worth 8 points

And 200,000 people lived in Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma, and they all voted republican. And they were each worth 3 points.

If we went off of popular vote alone, then California would of won the election

If we went by electorate, the smaller states would of won 9 to 8 even though more people live in California.

Do you understand why it is better the way we do it?

The fact of trump winning shows the system works as designed. She may have gotten more of the votes by a hundred thousand or so but she had way less than half of the 57 states. Take away the dead voters and the illegals she might have lost the popular vote too.

a reply to: gladtobehere


Do you people never learn about a republic vs a democracy? We don't really have a democracy and you better be glad.