Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total
 

What a bummer for the bots.:eek:

This one has got to hurt.:(

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/popula...ction-results/

At least she made some history.

The Electoral College needs to go and Senate seats need to be redistributed based on citizen population.

I agree with that.

What, no six pack of you tube links? :p

Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Lead Over Donald Trump Now Exceeds 1.5 Million Votes
 

This makes 2 out of the last 5 elections where the will of the people has been thwarted by this obsolete and fundamentally unfair system. It's got to go.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hilla...ry?id=43667918

Rounded off to whole numbers, that translates to 48 percent vs. 47 percent.

If you look at what is required to change the constitution it unlikely to ever happen.

None the less it is such an outrage that if it can not be done through legal means, then I am of the opinion that violent ones would be warranted.

I think I understand the reason why the electoral college was created and is used. It is to attempt to balance the "voting power" of one state against another. Is this correct? If I understand correctly it is to give states like wyoming or the dakotas a voice in the election. Without it, california and the other states would make their voice mute.

This doesn't make sense to me. Can someone please jump in and give a lucid explanation of the purpose of the electoral college?

City mouse/ country mouse?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I totally disgusted with this whole process. This entire election season has been one insult after another to my sense of fair play.

The entire thing has been rotten and rigged.

First the Democrats rigged the primary process for Hillary. Right off the bat they assign her a 400 point lead in undemocratic superdelegates, setting the narrative in the minds of the voters that she has an insurmountable lead that can't be overcome. Then the media colludes with them by reporting that "insurmountable" lead before every primary.

Then, after she "wins" the nomination, the media pivots and goes on a non stop rampage to destroy Donald Trump.

Finally I guess karma catches up and she's tripped up by the grossly unfair electoral college. Make no mistake, I'm happy she's not going to be President, but I abhor the way it came about.

Hey Tom,
Where did you get the info on the 400 point lead? I googled and didn't find anything conclusive. I would like to know more about this.

I'm glad Trump won and I'm glad it hurts the sociopathic criminal left.

getting rid of the college of electors will be a huge undertaking starting with every state before going to congress and yes it should be done. I think campaign finacing laws should be changed as well there is too much money in the process now. 501c's and superpacs have way too much influence on outcomes.

Uh huh. If the situation were reversed and a Dem lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, the EC would be talked about as the greatest idea ever.

The US is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. The EC was devised to be consistent with idea of a representative republic. The left doesn't get to kick that to the curb just because they lost one election.

I agree with you on the campaign financing laws. Get rid of tax favored status for PAC's and the favored tax treatment of political contributions. That would certainly be a good start.

Regardless of who's in power and who won, the Electoral College needs to go and the Senate needs to be proportion by population, the least populated states getting one ...

Regarding our being a republic of sovereign states, that was then and this is now. The Civil War set a precedent regarding holy state sovereignty.

Is it the EC or the two party system that is stifling democracy?

It would be hard to reconcile how a candidate could lose 95% of the counties in the country but win the popular vote and be president.

Both. TJ showed the main problem with the EC with his CA/WY example and the parties are corporately run (American Fascism;)).

See, that's the difference between you and most everyone else. We think in terms of what constitutes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Your Randian obsession with the individual and of selfishness as a cardinal virtue is a deranged perversion of enlightened self interest. See a shrink.

Land doesn't vote, citizens vote.

This is mostly common knowledge that most of the super delegates were in the tank for HRC even before the primaries started. They really did not want nor expect competition for Hillary and then Sanders showed up, an independent running in the Democratic Primary. Why they allowed him is still a mystery but it is quite possible that he gave the Democratic Party's primaries a sense of legitimacy. Here, from a progressive site which some of the bots may object to.
http://inthesetimes.com/features/sup...y_clinton.html

Not if one understands population density and how the president is elected.

https://www.google.com/maps/vt/data=...gUeJrLS5GD-ils

San Francisco City/County Population: 837,442 (2013)

https://www.google.com/maps/vt/data=...TlS-4_QeyxexbE

Los Angeles County Population: 10.02 million (2013)

So much for counting counties. :rolleyes:

I hate to break this to you but the electoral college was there to elect the Pres and VP simply because the framers of the Constitution did not believe that they could trust the Senators to do an honest job of it. The first proposal was to let the Senators elect Pres and VP. Then when it was decided that both be elected by the people the EC probably should have been disbanded but was not.

The Virginia Plan called for Congress to elect the president. The rest of your post is equally inaccurate.

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president. Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. However, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, recommended instead the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he was elected by the Congress. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787. Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern large states would otherwise control presidential elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electo...(United_States)

So this is commonly accepted knowledge, but not necessarily proven. I can accept that.
Thanks!

Maybe you didn't see y thread challenge, or you opted not to participate. No insults or condescending remarks for 24 hours.

From what I read voter fraud was rampant in those days with ballot boxes being stolen, election officials bribed, about anything you can think of. Just had written ballots so not much way to police the election.

I guess they thought there was some less chance of the electors being dishonest.

Does the EC actually serve any purpose these days? I mean any real functional protection or safe guard? Does it somehow balance the vote/population ratio for the states?

Prefer commonly known? Go for it.
Or do you think the super delegates who voluntarily sworn in to support Hillary and participate in the DNC rigging are going to raise their hands now and say they cheated, especially after this colossal loss?

Well, if not for the electoral college a handful of high density metropolitan areas would decide every election forever leaving the middle of the country really unrepresented.

And based on your argument the majority of our population is unrepresented. :rolleyes:

I would have given the classic answer, the one that Alexander Hamilton put in the Federalist papers: it's a layer between the population and the presidency, there to guard against the presidency being captured by a demagogue able to inflame the electorate. But it looks like it's not going to work, for that.

But then something struck me, and I did a little looking into the makeup of the 1787 constitutional convention. I got some 1790 census data, did some arithmetic, and here's what I found out:

http://www.politicalchat.org/attachm...1&d=1479665001

It turns out the constitutional convention was loaded in favor of the smaller states. And lo and behold, the electoral college functions to assure outsize influence to the smaller-population states. This year's results show it definitely works, for that.

That didn't take very long. So much for Mark's experiment in civility. :rolleyes:

Your post made me laugh out loud. :D

Who says a state necessarily rates 1 senator? You might, just for a notional example, haven't looked at the populations, lump Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho together and just give them 1.

Then, BTW, do away with congressional districts and have all states elect all their representatives at large, by some proportional representation scheme....

The term bot was my exercise in civility, or would you like for me to expand? :rolleyes:

Why not just get rid of the states?

Tradition. What I suggest is radical enough for one revolution. Maybe get rid of the states after another 200 years.

How much of a problem is the differing voting laws and regulations in individual states contributing to the problem of holding fair elections?