Donald Trump Will Never Be President of the United States

[HappyJoy]

So you can't find any source that says the EC was crated to change the popular vote results?

Oh my the far left cult is strong with this one! Does not understand how the president of the US gets elected.

Asking for links to something they do not understand in the first place, now this stuff you can not make up!

Where is the link? Link to something where our forefathers' intention of the EC was to overturn the popular vote. Sounds like it should be easy to find and you seem pretty confident so let's see it.

You have to be at least mildly capable, right?

How about you supply the link where the FF intended the popular vote overturn the EC? Sounds like it should be easy enough for you. You
certainly sound like that's what you want.

First you're going to have to find where I made that claim.

No I don't, I've asked you and if you're going to hide behind a comment like that, you've already lost the argument.

I didn't make the claim you said I did so why would I find a link to back that up?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not even close. It is the deciding factor for winning the presidency, but it has nothing to do with acceptance by the country as a whole. Trump and Shrub are the only two presidents in modern history that became president without winning the popular vote. Both are reviled by the majority of the country.

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

When you win on a technicality

You mean when you win the way every other President won?

View attachment 298770

Small detail? DURR.

Did I stutter? You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?

Did I stutter?

More like a mumble.

You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?​

Since you didn't know, yes I had to post it for you.

No, I know what a technicality is, it's why I chose the word. I'm not sure what you're confused about.

Getting more electoral votes is "a small detail of a set of rules"?

What are the large details?

 

[Meister]

So why are you talking about the plurality of the vote? If you are not arguing about
how our system works regarding the electoral college?
I'm mean, you're coming off like the plurality should supersede the electoral college.

 

[HappyJoy]

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

When you win on a technicality

You mean when you win the way every other President won?

View attachment 298770

Small detail? DURR.

Did I stutter? You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?

Did I stutter?

More like a mumble.

You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?​

Since you didn't know, yes I had to post it for you.

No, I know what a technicality is, it's why I chose the word. I'm not sure what you're confused about.

Getting more electoral votes is "a small detail of a set of rules"?

What are the large details?

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

When you win on a technicality

You mean when you win the way every other President won?

View attachment 298770

Small detail? DURR.

Did I stutter? You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?

Did I stutter?

More like a mumble.

You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?​

Since you didn't know, yes I had to post it for you.

No, I know what a technicality is, it's why I chose the word. I'm not sure what you're confused about.

Getting more electoral votes is "a small detail of a set of rules"?

What are the large details?

Yes, I think when votes counted equal over 100 million in a single election and are dispersed down to a few hundred electoral college votes that most Americans don't understand because the big piecture is the person who gets the most votes probably should win the election.

Trust me, if the shoe is on the other foot you'll understand and if my candidate won that way I'd hope they would try to reach out to all Americans.

 

[Kosh]

When you win on a technicality

You mean when you win the way every other President won?

View attachment 298770

Small detail? DURR.

Did I stutter? You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?

Did I stutter?

More like a mumble.

You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?​

Since you didn't know, yes I had to post it for you.

No, I know what a technicality is, it's why I chose the word. I'm not sure what you're confused about.

Getting more electoral votes is "a small detail of a set of rules"?

What are the large details?

When you win on a technicality

You mean when you win the way every other President won?

View attachment 298770

Small detail? DURR.

Did I stutter? You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?

Did I stutter?

More like a mumble.

You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?​

Since you didn't know, yes I had to post it for you.

No, I know what a technicality is, it's why I chose the word. I'm not sure what you're confused about.

Getting more electoral votes is "a small detail of a set of rules"?

What are the large details?

Yes, I think when votes counted equal over 100 million in a single election and are dispersed down to a few hundred electoral college votes that most Americans don't understand because the big piecture is the person who gets the most votes probably should win the election.

Trust me, if the shoe is on the other foot you'll understand and if my candidate won that way I'd hope they would try to reach out to all Americans.

Yes we know the far left does not understand the system, that is why you lost in 2016.

Learn how the system works and maybe you might win one in the future..

 

[Meister]

When you win on a technicality

You mean when you win the way every other President won?

View attachment 298770

Small detail? DURR.

Did I stutter? You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?

Did I stutter?

More like a mumble.

You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?​

Since you didn't know, yes I had to post it for you.

No, I know what a technicality is, it's why I chose the word. I'm not sure what you're confused about.

Getting more electoral votes is "a small detail of a set of rules"?

What are the large details?

When you win on a technicality

You mean when you win the way every other President won?

View attachment 298770

Small detail? DURR.

Did I stutter? You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?

Did I stutter?

More like a mumble.

You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?​

Since you didn't know, yes I had to post it for you.

No, I know what a technicality is, it's why I chose the word. I'm not sure what you're confused about.

Getting more electoral votes is "a small detail of a set of rules"?

What are the large details?

Yes, I think when votes counted equal over 100 million in a single election and are dispersed down to a few hundred electoral college votes that most Americans don't understand because the big piecture is the person who gets the most votes probably should win the election.

Trust me, if the shoe is on the other foot you'll understand and if my candidate won that way I'd hope they would try to reach out to all Americans.

What?????? What I understand is that the person who gets the majority of the electoral college wins. That's it.
Wait till next time, attitude. Thank God our FF weren't like you, New York and Ca. would get represented...not the fly over states.
What goes on with those socialists states don't have any of my interests. That's why we ALL are represented through the electoral college, HJ

 

[westwall]

He's as legit as your messiah was, Bulldog

Except for not gaining the support of at least a plurality of people.

So?, Trump won the majority of the electoral college which makes him every bit as legit as any other
president we've had. That is where the rubber meets the road....right?

Yeah, he's legit in the sense that the legal obligations were met. Absolutely does not extend beyond that. There is a huge difference between winning a plurality of the vote and losing it. Trump lost. A normal human being would feel some sort of humility and perhaps be more inclusive of all Americans.

Trump earned his first asterisk on election day.

Legality is all that matters. Your attempt to delegitimize him based on lies, made up charges, and innuendo however, is not.

Legality is not all that matters. He lost the popular vote, he is an unpopular president. You may not think that makes a difference when leading a country, it does. Probably the biggest reason the wall hasn't been built, Trump's ideas are unpopular, people don't want to spend money on that shit and Congress isn't going to go out on a limb to get that for him either.

Yes it is. None of your whining matters a tinker's damn.

 

[westwall]

Not even close. It is the deciding factor for winning the presidency, but it has nothing to do with acceptance by the country as a whole. Trump and Shrub are the only two presidents in modern history that became president without winning the popular vote. Both are reviled by the majority of the country.

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

And that is a glitch that has only surfaced twice in modern history. Trump and Shrub.

Glitch??

It only happened twice. Yes, it is a glitch.

4 times by my count.

 

[Meister]

This is why we have an electoral college, it just doesn't get clearer than this.

 

[westwall]

So?, Trump won the majority of the electoral college which makes him every bit as legit as any other
president we've had. That is where the rubber meets the road....right?

Yeah, he's legit in the sense that the legal obligations were met. Absolutely does not extend beyond that. There is a huge difference between winning a plurality of the vote and losing it. Trump lost. A normal human being would feel some sort of humility and perhaps be more inclusive of all Americans.

Trump earned his first asterisk on election day.

It doesn’t matter.

Not to the 1/3 of the country that supports him, but they don't care about anything other than praising him anyway. It means a lot to the rest of the country.

There was only a third that supported the shrilary, so you're even. The fact that 1.5 million people decide to live in a ghetto of their own creation just shows how ignorant, and useless they are.

No idea what you are talking about with 1.5 million, but Trump's opponent got 3 million more votes than he did.

1.5 million were found to be illegal. The rest were in California so they wasted their votes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you win on a technicality

You mean when you win the way every other President won?

View attachment 298770

Small detail? DURR.

Did I stutter? You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?

Did I stutter?

More like a mumble.

You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?​

Since you didn't know, yes I had to post it for you.

No, I know what a technicality is, it's why I chose the word. I'm not sure what you're confused about.

Getting more electoral votes is "a small detail of a set of rules"?

What are the large details?

When you win on a technicality

You mean when you win the way every other President won?

View attachment 298770

Small detail? DURR.

Did I stutter? You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?

Did I stutter?

More like a mumble.

You really had to look up the definition of a technicality?​

Since you didn't know, yes I had to post it for you.

No, I know what a technicality is, it's why I chose the word. I'm not sure what you're confused about.

Getting more electoral votes is "a small detail of a set of rules"?

What are the large details?

Yes, I think when votes counted equal over 100 million in a single election and are dispersed down to a few hundred electoral college votes that most Americans don't understand because the big piecture is the person who gets the most votes probably should win the election.

Trust me, if the shoe is on the other foot you'll understand and if my candidate won that way I'd hope they would try to reach out to all Americans.

the big piecture is the person who gets the most votes probably should win the election.

Only if they get more electoral votes.

if the shoe is on the other foot you'll understand

Be sure to ping me when that happens.

 

[westwall]

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

And that is a glitch that has only surfaced twice in modern history. Trump and Shrub.

It’s irrelevant.

It's irrelevant if more of the country didn't want him to be president? Trump thinks the same thing. He's just that dumb too.

You mean more people in a few populated counties didn't want him.....The country wanted him and the electoral college played that out for you.

Do what ever mental gymnastics you need to convince yourself, but the voters never wanted him as president, and I'm sure they never will.

The next election will tell then, won't it.

 

[HappyJoy]

So why are you talking about the plurality of the vote? If you are not arguing about
how our system works regarding the electoral college?
I'm mean, you're coming off like the plurality should supersede the electoral college.

Hey, you've been around the block, you're a mod. Maybe try quoting the post you're responding to....hey? (I mean the post above you is Toddster and who wants to reply to that fuckwad, right?) Quite the concept, almost missed this.

I'm not arguing that Trump isn't the president I'm saying he earned that proverbial asterisk next to his name that I had previously mentioned, remember? it makes a difference and the responsibility is for that president to win under those conditions to maybe make an attempt to reach out to those (most Americans) who did not vote for him. There was no mandate, the country is not united behind him and there has been zero effort made to help this country chill it's shit out. I don't know, I think it's a leader's responsibility to take it upon themselves to at least attempt to lead the entire country, not just the 35% who are sycophantic, die hard, deadenders who would just assume paint a portrait of him on their ceiling if were ordered to.

We are the United States of America, by our own name we are meant to stick together even as we recognize our differences and we need a leader who also recognizes that. I mean unless you're one of those weirdos on this board who really does want that violent civil war. You know who they are, those guys whose posts you have to delete when they start targeting other members of this board and make violent threats, eh, enough about modding.

Anyway, long story short, Trump won with he lowest margin of victory and what I mean is he went deep into the negatives. Doesn't overturn the election but I don't see where our forefathers intention ed such a lost to be malformed into a victory.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

And that is a glitch that has only surfaced twice in modern history. Trump and Shrub.

It’s irrelevant.

It's irrelevant if more of the country didn't want him to be president? Trump thinks the same thing. He's just that dumb too.

You mean more people in a few populated counties didn't want him.....The country wanted him and the electoral college played that out for you.

Do what ever mental gymnastics you need to convince yourself, but the voters never wanted him as president, and I'm sure they never will.

Another Fairy Tale.

See you in November.

 

[Meister]

So why are you talking about the plurality of the vote? If you are not arguing about
how our system works regarding the electoral college?
I'm mean, you're coming off like the plurality should supersede the electoral college.

Hey, you've been around the block, you're a mod. Maybe try quoting the post you're responding to....hey? (I mean the post above you is Toddster and who wants to reply to that fuckwad, right?) Quite the concept, almost missed this.

I'm not arguing that Trump isn't the president I'm saying he earned that proverbial asterisk next to his name that I had previously mentioned, remember? it makes a difference and the responsibility is for that president to win under those conditions to maybe make an attempt to reach out to those (most Americans) who did not vote for him. There was no mandate, the country is not united behind him and there has been zero effort made to help this country chill it's shit out. I don't know, I think it's a leader's responsibility to take it upon themselves to at least attempt to lead the entire country, not just the 35% who are sycophantic, die hard, deadenders who would just assume paint a portrait of him on their ceiling if were ordered to.

We are the United States of America, by our own name we are meant to stick together even as we recognize our differences and we need a leader who also recognizes that. I mean unless you're one of those weirdos on this board who really does want that violent civil war. You know who they are, those guys whose posts you have to delete when they start targeting other members of this board and make violent threats, eh, enough about modding.

Anyway, long story short, Trump won with he lowest margin of victory and what I mean is he went deep into the negatives. Doesn't overturn the election but I don't see where our forefathers intention ed such a lost to be malformed into a victory.

It was exactly the intentions of our FF to have an electoral college....even if it meant to overturn the popular vote.

The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.
This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.
If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.


There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.
Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Just in case anyone is in need of a really great laugh

It never gets old.

A lot of Al- Qaeda Americans never saw it coming

 

[HappyJoy]

So why are you talking about the plurality of the vote? If you are not arguing about
how our system works regarding the electoral college?
I'm mean, you're coming off like the plurality should supersede the electoral college.

Hey, you've been around the block, you're a mod. Maybe try quoting the post you're responding to....hey? (I mean the post above you is Toddster and who wants to reply to that fuckwad, right?) Quite the concept, almost missed this.

I'm not arguing that Trump isn't the president I'm saying he earned that proverbial asterisk next to his name that I had previously mentioned, remember? it makes a difference and the responsibility is for that president to win under those conditions to maybe make an attempt to reach out to those (most Americans) who did not vote for him. There was no mandate, the country is not united behind him and there has been zero effort made to help this country chill it's shit out. I don't know, I think it's a leader's responsibility to take it upon themselves to at least attempt to lead the entire country, not just the 35% who are sycophantic, die hard, deadenders who would just assume paint a portrait of him on their ceiling if were ordered to.

We are the United States of America, by our own name we are meant to stick together even as we recognize our differences and we need a leader who also recognizes that. I mean unless you're one of those weirdos on this board who really does want that violent civil war. You know who they are, those guys whose posts you have to delete when they start targeting other members of this board and make violent threats, eh, enough about modding.

Anyway, long story short, Trump won with he lowest margin of victory and what I mean is he went deep into the negatives. Doesn't overturn the election but I don't see where our forefathers intention ed such a lost to be malformed into a victory.

It was exactly the intentions of our FF to have an electoral college....even if it meant to overturn the popular vote.

Under what situations? Give me a link...how the fuck hard is that?

The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

Where is it documented that the intention of the electoral college was to randomly change the result?

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

I don't think you're going to find a link to any source coming from our forefathers who makes this distinction with 3rd party candidates. But now that you've made that claim the owness is on you.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.

What you are describing has never happened. If anything what you are describing a very, very rare occurrence (again it has not happened) that only the EC can solve (which is not true) and there fore not the reason as to why Trump won. There was a clear winner in the popular vote. I've asked time and time again where did our forefathers decide that the EC should intervene in this situation. You have been unable to give a reason or point to a source. Why not?

There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

Would there? I mean especially in 2016 when a candidate did clearly win the popular vote. Anyway there are remedies to the unnecessary road blocks you bring up such as instant runoff voting or requiring a minimum vote percentage to win. Which I would say all that is better than leaving it up to the House. Though once again I have to say you're bringing a problem this country hasn't faced.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.
Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

Yes. But that's not what were talking about. Again, I'll ask the question. When did our forefathers envision our popular vote election to be overturned by the EC in a situation like we saw in 2016 where one candidate got 3 million more votes than the other and lost? You have not been able to demonstrate this. Instead you get into details that quite frankly are not relevant to 2016 and its why you haven't provided a source that tackles this.

You failed Mod.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So why are you talking about the plurality of the vote? If you are not arguing about
how our system works regarding the electoral college?
I'm mean, you're coming off like the plurality should supersede the electoral college.

Hey, you've been around the block, you're a mod. Maybe try quoting the post you're responding to....hey? (I mean the post above you is Toddster and who wants to reply to that fuckwad, right?) Quite the concept, almost missed this.

I'm not arguing that Trump isn't the president I'm saying he earned that proverbial asterisk next to his name that I had previously mentioned, remember? it makes a difference and the responsibility is for that president to win under those conditions to maybe make an attempt to reach out to those (most Americans) who did not vote for him. There was no mandate, the country is not united behind him and there has been zero effort made to help this country chill it's shit out. I don't know, I think it's a leader's responsibility to take it upon themselves to at least attempt to lead the entire country, not just the 35% who are sycophantic, die hard, deadenders who would just assume paint a portrait of him on their ceiling if were ordered to.

We are the United States of America, by our own name we are meant to stick together even as we recognize our differences and we need a leader who also recognizes that. I mean unless you're one of those weirdos on this board who really does want that violent civil war. You know who they are, those guys whose posts you have to delete when they start targeting other members of this board and make violent threats, eh, enough about modding.

Anyway, long story short, Trump won with he lowest margin of victory and what I mean is he went deep into the negatives. Doesn't overturn the election but I don't see where our forefathers intention ed such a lost to be malformed into a victory.

It was exactly the intentions of our FF to have an electoral college....even if it meant to overturn the popular vote.

Under what situations? Give me a link...how the fuck hard is that?

The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

Where is it documented that the intention of the electoral college was to randomly change the result?

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

I don't think you're going to find a link to any source coming from our forefathers who makes this distinction with 3rd party candidates. But now that you've made that claim the owness is on you.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.

What you are describing has never happened. If anything what you are describing a very, very rare occurrence (again it has not happened) that only the EC can solve (which is not true) and there fore not the reason as to why Trump won. There was a clear winner in the popular vote. I've asked time and time again where did our forefathers decide that the EC should intervene in this situation. You have been unable to give a reason or point to a source. Why not?

There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

Would there? I mean especially in 2016 when a candidate did clearly win the popular vote. Anyway there are remedies to the unnecessary road blocks you bring up such as instant runoff voting or requiring a minimum vote percentage to win. Which I would say all that is better than leaving it up to the House. Though once again I have to say you're bringing a problem this country hasn't faced.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.
Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

Yes. But that's not what were talking about. Again, I'll ask the question. When did our forefathers envision our popular vote election to be overturned by the EC in a situation like we saw in 2016 where one candidate got 3 million more votes than the other and lost? You have not been able to demonstrate this. Instead you get into details that quite frankly are not relevant to 2016 and its why you haven't provided a source that tackles this.

You failed Mod.

 

[HappyJoy]

So why are you talking about the plurality of the vote? If you are not arguing about
how our system works regarding the electoral college?
I'm mean, you're coming off like the plurality should supersede the electoral college.

Hey, you've been around the block, you're a mod. Maybe try quoting the post you're responding to....hey? (I mean the post above you is Toddster and who wants to reply to that fuckwad, right?) Quite the concept, almost missed this.

I'm not arguing that Trump isn't the president I'm saying he earned that proverbial asterisk next to his name that I had previously mentioned, remember? it makes a difference and the responsibility is for that president to win under those conditions to maybe make an attempt to reach out to those (most Americans) who did not vote for him. There was no mandate, the country is not united behind him and there has been zero effort made to help this country chill it's shit out. I don't know, I think it's a leader's responsibility to take it upon themselves to at least attempt to lead the entire country, not just the 35% who are sycophantic, die hard, deadenders who would just assume paint a portrait of him on their ceiling if were ordered to.

We are the United States of America, by our own name we are meant to stick together even as we recognize our differences and we need a leader who also recognizes that. I mean unless you're one of those weirdos on this board who really does want that violent civil war. You know who they are, those guys whose posts you have to delete when they start targeting other members of this board and make violent threats, eh, enough about modding.

Anyway, long story short, Trump won with he lowest margin of victory and what I mean is he went deep into the negatives. Doesn't overturn the election but I don't see where our forefathers intention ed such a lost to be malformed into a victory.

It was exactly the intentions of our FF to have an electoral college....even if it meant to overturn the popular vote.

Under what situations? Give me a link...how the fuck hard is that?

The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

Where is it documented that the intention of the electoral college was to randomly change the result?

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

I don't think you're going to find a link to any source coming from our forefathers who makes this distinction with 3rd party candidates. But now that you've made that claim the owness is on you.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.

What you are describing has never happened. If anything what you are describing a very, very rare occurrence (again it has not happened) that only the EC can solve (which is not true) and there fore not the reason as to why Trump won. There was a clear winner in the popular vote. I've asked time and time again where did our forefathers decide that the EC should intervene in this situation. You have been unable to give a reason or point to a source. Why not?

There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

Would there? I mean especially in 2016 when a candidate did clearly win the popular vote. Anyway there are remedies to the unnecessary road blocks you bring up such as instant runoff voting or requiring a minimum vote percentage to win. Which I would say all that is better than leaving it up to the House. Though once again I have to say you're bringing a problem this country hasn't faced.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.
Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

Yes. But that's not what were talking about. Again, I'll ask the question. When did our forefathers envision our popular vote election to be overturned by the EC in a situation like we saw in 2016 where one candidate got 3 million more votes than the other and lost? You have not been able to demonstrate this. Instead you get into details that quite frankly are not relevant to 2016 and its why you haven't provided a source that tackles this.

You failed Mod.

Well then me and 5 or 6 others including a mod are in big trouble.

 

[Crixus]

I'm sure that there will be another one just as funny for the 2020 election.

I'm hopeing for mass suicide.