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

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by JCricket

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.

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.

By February 20, when only three states had held nominating contests, such reporting had conferred on the Clinton campaign an aura of insurmountability, leading some voters to question whether their votes truly mattered. Even as Sanders won a string of contests at the end of March to narrow Clinton’s lead, superdelegates in those states stubbornly clung to Clinton. Despite the second-biggest victory ever in a contested New Hampshire Democratic primary, Sanders was credited with the same number of total delegates as Clinton, thanks to superdelegates.

http://inthesetimes.com/features/sup...y_clinton.html

[nailer]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

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.

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

[Rajoo]

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



Los Angeles County Population: 10.02 million (2013)

So much for counting counties.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

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.

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.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by merrylander

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)

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

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

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

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by Boreas

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.

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

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by merrylander

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.

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.

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

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?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by JCricket

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

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?