Popular Vote vs Electoral College: Trump Won The Country, While Clinton Won The Major Cities

I think people forget that the United States is united States, each with it's own government and differing needs and wants. The Electoral College worked as it should.

Life is very different for people who are not in overpopulated cities having to deal with the the inner-city madness. Needs are different for farmer's or rural communities and to give all the power to the large cities would be absurd IMO.

Changing things just because one side is upset they lost is not a reasonable position to have. This system has served us very well and the idea all States should be the same would make the US a truly bad place to live. One size does not fit all.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Clinton has more votes. The majority of people who voted voted for her. He has the Electoral College, maybe, but he has NO mandate.

Again, no they did not. Trump votes plus the other quashed dick candidates she only gets 47%. The Country told her to take a hike.

Nope. She has more single votes than Trump. That is the meaning of winning the popular vote. It would be between the 2 main candidates.

We're not Talking about Trump to her. We are talking about popular vote. In order for that to happen she would need 51%. She didn't get it. She threw up an air ball. Didn't even hit the rim.

Typical liberal. Wanting to throw out the votes of over 4% of the country. I would never throw anyone's votes out. You should be ashamed of yourself.

a reply to: reldra

I think you are forgetting that the 3rd party candidates took a considerable share of the votes.

No matter which site you check, Clinton got less than 48%.

CNN as of now, for example:
Clinton: 47.9%
Trump: 47.2%

They are within .5% to .7% difference on the popular, but Trump took the electorate by a huge margin.
As of now:
Trump: 290
Clinton: 232


www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual states.

I agree that there is room for improvement. I propose that each state assign their electoral vote as a percentage of the popular vote. So in California where my vote didn't count, we would have 36 for Hillary and 19 for Trump.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual states.

If the states allocated electoral votes, I think Trump would have an even larger winning margin of the electoral votes.
Look at the states that Hillary won. Most of them have huge sections of Red.
Now look at the states that Trump won. Very little Blue in those states, if any

a reply to: JinMI

Wasn't specified. Each state was given an elector for each representative in Congress and it was up to the states what to do. Right off the bat, in about half of the states, the state legislatures picked the electors and there was no vote from the people. Then the plebs were all, "Hey! Why do those guys get to vote and I don't? Should I have a vote too!"

Hell it wasn't until WELL into the 20th century that the primary system really took off. Originally, the parties picked a candidate from among their peers in Congress. Later it shifted to state conventions but even then, the party leadership was still picking the candidates.

I think it's safe to say that people today would revolt if we rolled back the changes to the election system even 60 years or so. How many states had primaries in 1960? A third or less?

A lot of "conservatives" are reflexively hyper-sensitive on this issue in my opinion. Then there are a lot of "liberals" who don't want to admit that even if the system needs rethinking, it won't and shouldn't have anything to do with the results of this one.

originally posted by: Onesmartdog
Guess the hicks in the sticks won.

About time ! I have yet to meet a HRC supporter and I live in a very large city, about 16th in ranking as far as largest cities in the US with a good diversity .

The pollsters and HRC didn't care about the common working class people.

It is not that they didn't care, but they truthfully underestimated campaigning in certain places. I know this is long, but it is really worth the watch. It helped me understand and it is not nice to Clinton. It is a fantastic analysis.



This guy knows why.

a reply to: bluesjr

If you're going to award EVs in direct proportion to the popular vote, you may as well eliminate the electoral college. They will win roughly the same percentage of EVs as their percentage of popular vote nationwide (barring rounding issues, especially in smaller states).

The only way to reform the electoral college and have it remain somewhat true to its original intent is to award EVs by congressional district.

The vast majority of voters (53%) DID NOT VOTE FOR HILLLARY who only ended up with 47%.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: bluesjr

If you're going to award EVs in direct proportion to the popular vote, you may as well eliminate the electoral college. They will win roughly the same percentage of EVs as their percentage of popular vote nationwide, barring rounding issues, especially in smaller states.

The only way to reform the electoral college and have it remain somewhat true to its original intent is to award EVs by congressional district.

Possibly, and I certainly wouldn't want only the city point of view to always win. But here there would have been a 17 vote advantage for Hillary instead of the 55 vote advantage it is.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
The vast majority of voters (53%) DID NOT VOTE FOR HILLLARY who only ended up with 47%.

When you add in the the people that ran besides Clinton, you math is right. This is about who got more of the popular vote- Clinton or Trump. Clinton did. That is where your math fails.

So we do need to follow the electoral college. This is how our country works. But more people voted for Clinton than Trump. You will expect a divided reaction.

You can deny a lot of things, but not math.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
The vast majority of voters (53%) DID NOT VOTE FOR HILLLARY who only ended up with 47%.

Could not beat that into liberal minds with a ball peen hammer or even a jack hammer.

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
The vast majority of voters (53%) DID NOT VOTE FOR HILLLARY who only ended up with 47%.

Could not beat that into liberal minds with a ball peen hammer or even a jack hammer.

Compare Trump's votes to Clinton's votes. Clinton's total is higher than Trump's.

It cannot be more simply explained.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual states.

I agree. I didn't vote but a vote for Trump in CA really wouldn't have mattered. I might be more inspired to vote if the electoral votes were split.

I used to be completely against the electoral college, but this election has shown me how it helps balance the States power. But every vote should count. A vote for Trump in CA was meaningless.

Double Post

Double Post

This is an excellent topic

I support the abolition of the electoral college for many of the same reasons some here are defending it.

It gives too much power to the rural minority.

If the cities are where most of the laws are enforced, and more people are effected... then why shouldn't the cities have more or equal control?

The electoral college made sense when out economy was based on manufacturing and agriculture. Those industries gave life and sustenance to rural areas and common working folk...

But unfortunately for them..

The country and the world aren't headed in that direction.


There's a reason why so many movies about the future show mega cities.

The economy is shifting towards a base on technology, services, and engineering.

This is where the jobs are and will continue to be. Life outside the city won't be plausible for anyone that isn't established.

Our farms are almost completely robotic already.

Most manual labor will be replaced in the next 20 years.

We have to adapt and face the reality. City life sooner or later will be almost everyone's life.. out of necessity.

And there is statistical proof that shows, that after someone movespecial to a higher populated area and is forced to live with types of people they would never normally come across.. their political ideologies change. Not everyone, but a majority. Hence why we see cities becoming more and more liberal. You begin to think less of you as an individual (as you need to out in the stix) and more about everyone collectively as a whole.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
The vast majority of voters (53%) DID NOT VOTE FOR HILLLARY who only ended up with 47%.

Could not beat that into liberal minds with a ball peen hammer or even a jack hammer.

Compare Trump's votes to Clinton's votes. Clinton's total is higher than Trump's.

It cannot be more simply explained.

I agree!

youtu.be...

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual states.

If the states allocated electoral votes, I think Trump would have an even larger winning margin of the electoral votes.
Look at the states that Hillary won. Most of them have huge sections of Red.
Now look at the states that Trump won. Very little Blue in those states, if any

What good does 300 square miles of red do you..


When like 10 people live in it.

Those 10 people hardly even run into anything dealing with the government outside of taxes and potentially environmental laws.

They police themselves.

Trump supporters get all giddy when they see all that red..

But don't realize the population density is so low.. that those little specs of blue are all we need to have more votes.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
This is an excellent topic

I support the abolition of the electoral college for many of the same reasons some here are defending it.

It gives too much power to the rural minority.

There's a reason we are not a pure Democracy, but instead a Representative Democracy.

It's kinda the same thing with Electoral votes.