The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Did you even take a civics class in school? If so, you didn't do very well.

National totals of the popular vote are utterly without meaning. None. That's the way it was designed.

It is by state. There is no ambiguity here. She who shall never be named again won where she should have, Trump won where he should have. With the electoral votes all counted she lost. It's that simple. Period.

You don't like it. We get it. Too bad. Get a better candidate next time. You had one in the dude from Vermont, he got shafted. The Dems have no one to blame but themselves...except they'll manage to find something else to blame, like the Constitution.

The pure hubris is just amazing.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: JinMI


It's not changing the rules. The Electoral College was not designed to undermine the principle of "one man, one vote". It was designed to protect the country against a mob vote that went against democratic values, or a massive voter fraud. It's a fail safe, not the master dictator that many have come to think of it as. In the VERY RARE instances when the electoral vote does not match the popular vote, it is on the Electors to decide if it is necessary to veto the vote of the people, by defying the Popular Vote and choosing a President, not elected by the People--- or uphold those basic democratic principles of one person, one vote.

There is no reason that Electors should see the vote for Hillary as anything less than a reasoned vote in alignment with our democratic values. For the Electoral College to vote Trump would be to break the very thing it was designed to protect.

You have a lot of learning to do about the US. The founding fathers set it up as a republic on purpose. They feared the vote of the majority overwhelming the minority. They never wanted or would except true democracy of one man one vote. They tried to make sure all states have a say in who will lead them its even in the name the United States. They never intended for the central government to become all powerful. They believed the federal government had two jobs settle disputes between the states and provide defense for the Union. Everything else was supposed to be handled through your state. I strongly suggest you start by reading the federalist papers and then you can understand why we don't live in a democracy. They were very smart and realized that states with huge populations would overwhelm the others and came up with a system to prevent exactly that. Imagine what would happen if 4 states could decide the election candidates would just promise them everything at the expense of the others. Only a fool would think that's preferable to the current system.

a reply to: JinMI

The Popular Vote is a total of all states. Every voter in every state counts as 1.
Go find a link if you want to break down each state into each state's Popular Vote totals.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: JinMI

The Popular Vote is a total of all states. Every voter in every state counts as 1.
Go find a link if you want to break down each state into each state's Popular Vote totals.

The popular vote is the total of all states...and means nothing in regards to electing a POTUS. End of discussion.

Lets just look into how many dead people voted and illegal aliens voted and subtract those all from Hillary's so called popular vote and then see what the real score is.

a reply to: seagull

Good luck making that lesson stick.

a reply to: dragonridr


The electoral college is designed as a fail safe. It was not designed to undermine the people's vote. Normally, Electoral and Popular are in alignment... The person who wins the Electoral College vote, also wins the Popular Vote. It's very unusual for it not to work that way... and when it doesn't it's supposed to be in the event that the electoral college needs to override the people's votes. We've simply grown used to the Electoral College being the end all-- and we've incorrectly started saying thing like "our vote doesn't really matter." That was not the intention of the EC. The EC is free to vote however it chooses... I believe the right choice in this case is to not veto 2.1 million votes, but to stand in alignment with the American people's choice.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Show me proof that electors are overiding the peoples vote in their state. Unless your trying to make someone say in Michigan go faithless because CA thinks it's a good idea?

Popular vote does not matter for POTUS.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

I am not even an American and I understand why the electoral college was set up the way it is rather than having a popular vote.
I don't believe two or three or four states should dictate the future of the rest of the states. The number of electoral vote based on population density in each state is the much fairer system imo to determine the Leader that represents the will of the people in ALL the states in the union.

a reply to: JinMI


See this is exactly the problem. You are saying the people's vote doesn't matter, but it does under our democratic principle of "one person, one vote". You are twisting the purpose of the EC to think it was meant to overpower the will of a reasonable People's choice. The People of the United States chose Clinton and the EC can and should reflect the winner of the People of the United States.

a reply to: oddnutz

I too am not American and I seem to understand it more then some. Just because they didn't get what they want they think they can change/bend/break the rules.... The rules were set this way for a reason.

Whoa...deja vu....I feel as if I have heard this before!

Oh yeah, like every day at least once a day for 3 weeks now.....seriously you guys....

you are all like a broken record that constantly skips.

How many ways, and how many days must you be told the same thing over and over.....good God man!

The United States is not a pure democracy......repeat after me....Clinton Lost....this is not a democracy....

let it sink in and then please move on.....there are 5 steps....please advance to step 5

a reply to: oddnutz


Then you don't agree in equal citizenship. You believe a person in one state should have a more valuable vote than a person in another state. For instance you believe that a vote by a person in Wyoming should be 4 times more powerful than a vote by a person in Michigan.

I don't agree. Especially when the discrepancy is over 2.1 million votes for the winner of the Popular Vote. It is a major violation of equal citizenship. No, in a situation like this, the right move is for the EC to vote in alignment with the people's choice for President.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

You can not change the rules after the election to get a different result. I don't think you understand how the EC works..at all.

One person, one vote...one state. Maybe that will make it a little clearer for you.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

I logged in today because for the last couple weeks all I see is you whining and posting the same stuff you always do. I hope you are being paid well for this. That being said I doubt there will be enough electoral college voters that switch. Mostly because the republicans actually pick who they want to vote in the red states.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Konduit

That's not true... The electoral college is a safeguard against a problem with a messed up popular vote. This was not the case. Also, it's very rare for a candidate to win the electoral vote but not the popular vote. In rare cases like this, electoral colleges need to decide if they should veto the will of the people or uphold it. Hillary is ahead by an unprecedented 2.1 million votes and counting. There is not good reason to veto that many votes.

What color is the sky on your planet? No, it isn't! The EC is in place to ensure the peoples vote from the ENTIRE country are not skewed by densely populated cities.

Case in point...

If you remove California from the vote totals for each candidate you wind up with

Trump - 57,284,822
Clinton - 55,160,636
Trump - 2,124,186 (win)
And the EC score would be Trump-306 vs Clinton-182 (a freaking LANDSLIDE!!)

So, rather than Clinton winning by 2m votes you have Trump winning by the same margin.

Even FURTHER to the point, if you remove just ONE COUNTY (Los Angeles) from the overall popular vote totals you have:

Trump - 60,580,746
Clinton - 60,629,356
A virtual TIE

Just ONE COUNTY in ONE STATE!!

I rest my case.

YOU LOSE!

NEXT!!!

a reply to: spiritualzombie

They ought to arrest and prosecute Clinton, not put her in office.

And while they're doing that good deed, they can ferret out all those that aided and abetted the witch and do the same to them.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Wyoming gets 3 electoral college votes and Michigan gets 16 electoral votes. A majority vote in Michigan is worth over 5 times than that of Wyoming. Get it yet?

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

It's a point worth repeating. By electing Trump, the electors would be essentially exercising a veto on the American people's vote, violating one of the most important principles governing our democracy- "one person, one vote". So the question is, was the people's choice so far beyond the bounds of reason to warrant such an unprecedented veto of over 2.1 million votes? Or in this case, is it the duty of the electors to uphold the vote of the People, and respect the fundamental value of equal citizenship, by casting their vote for Hillary?

Allowing the entire course of the country to be determined by the cities is a bad thing. That's how you end up with a Hunger Games-esque Capitol lording it over the districts that actually produce things (ie California). The electoral college system allows the entire country to be represented on a more equal footing.

Because, y'know, the old guy getting up every morning to run the farm that produce most of your food should have as much say as Sha'Qu'Nita spitting out babies for the welfare money. Gotta get dem weaves, yo.

Also, it's not a democracy, it's a republic.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Allowing the entire course of the country to be determined by the cities is a bad thing. That's how you end up with a Hunger Games-esque Capitol lording it over the districts that actually produce things (ie California). The electoral college system allows the entire country to be represented on a more equal footing.

Heh...that's actually an EXCELLENT analogy! I hadn't made that connection until now!

Well done!!!

ETA...Welcome to the "Capitol" (in the OP's world).