Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
2.9 MILLION less votes is an unusal way to kick butt. Obama did defeat Clinton, by more VOTES.
But 67 more electoral votes is the way it's done.
Clinton and Obama competed for electoral votes against each other?
No, the post references votes.
Of course I know the Electoral College decides who becomes President, it was designed to reflect the popular vote in times when casting ballots was difficult due to lack of transportation.
It was never designed to reflect the nationwide popular vote. For the most part it has but that's not part of the design. The decision by the founders to use such a system had nothing to do with transportation.
Of course I know the Electoral College decides who becomes President, it was designed to reflect the popular vote in times when casting ballots was difficult due to lack of transportation.
It was never designed to reflect the nationwide popular vote. For the most part it has but that's not part of the design. The decision by the founders to use such a system had nothing to do with transportation.
How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?
It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The Electoral College vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide popular vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each state.
Note that 48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 55 of California’s Electoral votes go to the winner of the state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.
In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But, it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual state elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes, and the 2016 election, where Donald J. Trump received fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton, but received a majority of electoral votes.
______________________________________________________
More states are going to go porportional in the EC; CONs fought it in Maine, and Nebraska but were defeated.
2.9 MILLION less votes is an unusal way to kick butt. Obama did defeat Clinton, by more VOTES.
I'm sure President Hillary tells herself the popular vote is the important thing, as she finishes her nightly bottle of vodka.
Dump is snorting himself away from reality no doubt, as we read. He can afford expensive women and cocaine, thus, his fan base.
2.9 MILLION less votes is an unusal way to kick butt. Obama did defeat Clinton, by more VOTES.
I'm sure President Hillary tells herself the popular vote is the important thing, as she finishes her nightly bottle of vodka.
Dump is snorting himself away from reality no doubt, as we read. He can afford expensive women and cocaine, thus, his fan base.
Bill (and Roger) preferred cheap women and cocaine.
he does coke?.....does he get it through the clintons or obama or bush?.....2.9 MILLION less votes is an unusal way to kick butt. Obama did defeat Clinton, by more VOTES.
I'm sure President Hillary tells herself the popular vote is the important thing, as she finishes her nightly bottle of vodka.
Dump is snorting himself away from reality no doubt, as we read. He can afford expensive women and cocaine, thus, his fan base.
Particularly the stupidity involved in the entire process.Ok, I don't care who you are...that shit right there is FUNNY!how many STUPID snowflakes are willing to pay $1,200 a ticket to see this corrupt, criminal
Do tickets include a few pounds of uranium?
View attachment 146447
Received more votes for President than any candidate in US history
Amateurs? Trump has been selling manue his entire adult life; lousy casinos and a 'university' that was found to be a fraud, he had to pay out millions. You bought cr*p, the majority of voters did not. As for 'stealing' votes, look at the guy that lined up wife 2 to fight his first wife, IN PUBLIC, and made many off of tabloid photos.
Since popular votes is not what we use to elect a President, I didn't consider them. Each time you morons bring up the nationwide popular vote, I add you to the list of those that do no have a clue how the system works.
We don't use nationwide popular vote to elect a President. You don't have a clue how or why the system is what it is. Both FACTS.
Amateurs? Trump has been selling manue his entire adult life; lousy casinos and a 'university' that was found to be a fraud, he had to pay out millions. You bought cr*p, the majority of voters did not. As for 'stealing' votes, look at the guy that lined up wife 2 to fight his first wife, IN PUBLIC, and made many off of tabloid photos.
What's 'manue?'
Yes, Obama kicked her ass in 2008, Trump kicked her ass in 2016. Fact.
Of course I know the Electoral College decides who becomes President, it was designed to reflect the popular vote in times when casting ballots was difficult due to lack of transportation.
It was never designed to reflect the nationwide popular vote. For the most part it has but that's not part of the design. The decision by the founders to use such a system had nothing to do with transportation.
How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?
It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The Electoral College vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide popular vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each state.
Note that 48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 55 of California’s Electoral votes go to the winner of the state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.
In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But, it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual state elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes, and the 2016 election, where Donald J. Trump received fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton, but received a majority of electoral votes.
______________________________________________________
More states are going to go porportional in the EC; CONs fought it in Maine, and Nebraska but were defeated.
All that proves is you can cut and paste.
By the way, Maine and Nebraska don't do proportional electoral votes.
Yes, Obama kicked her ass in 2008, Trump kicked her ass in 2016. Fact.
he didn't come close to kicking her arse. He won the EC. More people wanted her in charge than him. Fact.
Well, she has no more influence, favors, access, uranium, etc to sell, and her Clinton Foundation donations have dried up....You know there will be plenty, that twinkie bitch must need money bad lol
^^^I am eager to see how many STUPID snowflakes are willing to pay $1,200 a ticket to see this corrupt, criminal blame anyone and everyone else but herself for her losing the 2016 Presidential Election!
Bwuhahahaha.......
Hillary – the live show: Clinton launching book tour | Daily Mail Online
Hillary – the live show: Clinton to tell audiences her 'personal, raw, detailed and surprisingly funny story' in unprecedented nationwide tour with tickets selling for up to $1,200
Received more votes for President than any candidate in US history
Received more illegal votes than any candidate in history.
Another Petal with a Fake News fixation....
