Here are some numbers for you Clintonites who think she should have won..because of the popular vote

[M14 Shooter]

The Popular vote is democratic and the will of the people as individuals.

If this were a democracy, and the President were elected by the"will of the people as individuals", you might have a point.
He isn't, so you don't..

Ah, another echo of the RW meme. How common & how thoughtless.

Poli Sci 1A was not part of the education of those who echo this half-truth. In truth we are a nation designed by the founders as a democratic republic; and the reason for this is no better understood than how the two CU decisions have fundamentally impacted our elections.

I know this post is too abstract for the thoughtless, who will offer a simple and inaccurate rebuttal, and the dumber of them will post idiot-grams built on logical fallacies & echoes of ignorance.

I see the Foolish Child has evolved to a Childish Fool. Congrats.
In any event, all you've done here is prove my statement correct. Well done.

My prediction in the last paragraph is proved!

Nothing here changes the fact that the forum's self-defined Foolish Child proved my statement correct.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why should the few residents of largely unpopulated land masses dictate the outcome of national elections as opposed to city residents?

A state like Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes with a population of less than 600,000, while
California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of more than 37 million. Thus California has a population that is 66x Wyoming, but only gets 18x the electoral college votes.

This was agreed to back at the formation of the country. The small states were not about to enter the Union unless there were some checks and balances on the larger states due to their much greater population. Remember, were called the "UNITED STATES" because we agreed to union under these rules, compromises which involved many checks and balances within the system. Sorry you don't like it, but it has worked out pretty well given this is the greatest country on earth.

It worked out well because a minority of votes cast elected your guy, who in fact told you & other voters what they wanted to hear, some of which he has walked back already.

Time will tell if we will have a government for the people, or one wherein the power elite set the agenda & censor alternative opinions, lifestyles and individuality.

Authoritarians & Plutocrats are never pleased when the hoi polloi question there actions.

 

[Redfish]

Why should the few residents of largely unpopulated land masses dictate the outcome of national elections as opposed to city residents?

A state like Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes with a population of less than 600,000, while
California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of more than 37 million. Thus California has a population that is 66x Wyoming, but only gets 18x the electoral college votes.

This was agreed to back at the formation of the country. The small states were not about to enter the Union unless there were some checks and balances on the larger states due to their much greater population. Remember, were called the "UNITED STATES" because we agreed to union under these rules, compromises which involved many checks and balances within the system. Sorry you don't like it, but it has worked out pretty well given this is the greatest country on earth.

It worked out well because a minority of votes cast elected your guy, who in fact told you & other voters what they wanted to hear, some of which he has walked back already.

Time will tell if we will have a government for the people, or one wherein the power elite set the agenda & censor alternative opinions, lifestyles and individuality.

Authoritarians & Plutocrats are never pleased when the hoi polloi question there actions.

You just explained why Trump won, and you don't even know it.

He has not even been sworn in yet and he has done more for the country than obozo did in 8 years.

 

[Borillar]

I haven't personally verified these numbers, but after looking at the red/blue map of the county by county votes across the nation, I do not doubt a bit of it. Trump won because most of the nation wanted him to him. The Electoral College performed exactly as intended....protected the rural working areas from the urban welfare clubs.
*****************************************************************

Interesting Numbers... Finally, the Electoral College explained so anyone can understand the need for it.


The best explanation of why the Founders had unbelievable wisdom in designing the Electoral College.


It also illustrates that the Democratic Party does not represent the country, just the heavily populated east and west coast mega cities which are out of touch with the vast majority of the country.


There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.


There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.


Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.


In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond)


Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.


The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.


When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Why should the few residents of largely unpopulated land masses dictate the outcome of national elections as opposed to city residents?

lets turn that around, why shouldn't the white majority control everything that happens in this country? you want majority rule, be careful what you wish for.

The white majority pretty much does control everything that happens in this country and has done so from the beginning. Obama has changed very little.

On the one hand you are whining that the majority should control, and then in the next post you bitch about the majority controlling. Which is it?

I'm not thinking about this in terms of black vs white, but since you think that is important... Should a black man's vote in Oregon be worth more to the electoral college than a white man's vote in Texas? Should a redneck's vote in Wyoming be worth more than a redneck's vote in Texas? Should a neo-nazi in Idaho have more of a vote than KKK'er in Florida? My take is that a vote in point A in the USA should count just the same as a vote in point B rather than the convoluted system we have now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I haven't personally verified these numbers, but after looking at the red/blue map of the county by county votes across the nation, I do not doubt a bit of it. Trump won because most of the nation wanted him to him. The Electoral College performed exactly as intended....protected the rural working areas from the urban welfare clubs.
*****************************************************************

Interesting Numbers... Finally, the Electoral College explained so anyone can understand the need for it.


The best explanation of why the Founders had unbelievable wisdom in designing the Electoral College.


It also illustrates that the Democratic Party does not represent the country, just the heavily populated east and west coast mega cities which are out of touch with the vast majority of the country.


There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.


There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.


Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.


In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond)


Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.


The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.


When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Why should the few residents of largely unpopulated land masses dictate the outcome of national elections as opposed to city residents?

lets turn that around, why shouldn't the white majority control everything that happens in this country? you want majority rule, be careful what you wish for.

The white majority pretty much does control everything that happens in this country and has done so from the beginning. Obama has changed very little.

Obama's election was a sea change in terms of both foreign and domestic policy.

Why should the few residents of largely unpopulated land masses dictate the outcome of national elections as opposed to city residents?

A state like Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes with a population of less than 600,000, while
California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of more than 37 million. Thus California has a population that is 66x Wyoming, but only gets 18x the electoral college votes.

This was agreed to back at the formation of the country. The small states were not about to enter the Union unless there were some checks and balances on the larger states due to their much greater population. Remember, were called the "UNITED STATES" because we agreed to union under these rules, compromises which involved many checks and balances within the system. Sorry you don't like it, but it has worked out pretty well given this is the greatest country on earth.

It worked out well because a minority of votes cast elected your guy, who in fact told you & other voters what they wanted to hear, some of which he has walked back already.

Time will tell if we will have a government for the people, or one wherein the power elite set the agenda & censor alternative opinions, lifestyles and individuality.

Authoritarians & Plutocrats are never pleased when the hoi polloi question there actions.

You just explained why Trump won, and you don't even know it.

He has not even been sworn in yet and he has done more for the country than obozo did in 8 years.

Time will tell what you and the minority of voters have put into the Oval Office. I'm not convinced the President-elect has the temperament or vision to hold the office of POTUS. He is what he is, and that may have some benefits, and may have some drawbacks.

I hope he can bring the nation together, but given his rhetoric and the hate of some of his most ardent supporters, I'm not optimistic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Time will tell what you and the minority of voters have put into the Oval Office.

You know that:
1: The popular vote doesn't matter
2: The minority of voters also voted for Hillary
So.. other than illustrating your continuing butt-hurt over the election, what's your point?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Time will tell what you and the minority of voters have put into the Oval Office.

You know that:
1: The popular vote doesn't matter
2: The minority of voters also voted for Hillary
So.. other than illustrating your continuing butt-hurt over the election, what's your point?

LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

Time will tell what you and the minority of voters have put into the Oval Office.

You know that:
1: The popular vote doesn't matter
2: The minority of voters also voted for Hillary
So.. other than illustrating your continuing butt-hurt over the election, what's your point?

LOL

As I thought: You seek to only illustrate your continued butt-hurt.
Carry on.

 

[Redfish]

I haven't personally verified these numbers, but after looking at the red/blue map of the county by county votes across the nation, I do not doubt a bit of it. Trump won because most of the nation wanted him to him. The Electoral College performed exactly as intended....protected the rural working areas from the urban welfare clubs.
*****************************************************************

Interesting Numbers... Finally, the Electoral College explained so anyone can understand the need for it.


The best explanation of why the Founders had unbelievable wisdom in designing the Electoral College.


It also illustrates that the Democratic Party does not represent the country, just the heavily populated east and west coast mega cities which are out of touch with the vast majority of the country.


There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.


There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.


Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.


In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond)


Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.


The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.


When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Why should the few residents of largely unpopulated land masses dictate the outcome of national elections as opposed to city residents?

lets turn that around, why shouldn't the white majority control everything that happens in this country? you want majority rule, be careful what you wish for.

The white majority pretty much does control everything that happens in this country and has done so from the beginning. Obama has changed very little.

On the one hand you are whining that the majority should control, and then in the next post you bitch about the majority controlling. Which is it?

I'm not thinking about this in terms of black vs white, but since you think that is important... Should a black man's vote in Oregon be worth more to the electoral college than a white man's vote in Texas? Should a redneck's vote in Wyoming be worth more than a redneck's vote in Texas? Should a neo-nazi in Idaho have more of a vote than KKK'er in Florida? My take is that a vote in point A in the USA should count just the same as a vote in point B rather than the convoluted system we have now.

each of those people's votes carry equal weight within their states.

But since you want a pure democracy. I guess you would support a national referendum on abortion, deportation of illegal aliens, controlling media bias, man made climate change, congressional salaries, and term limits.

So, should we let all citizens vote on those things and majority rules?

 

[Borillar]

Why should the few residents of largely unpopulated land masses dictate the outcome of national elections as opposed to city residents?

lets turn that around, why shouldn't the white majority control everything that happens in this country? you want majority rule, be careful what you wish for.

The white majority pretty much does control everything that happens in this country and has done so from the beginning. Obama has changed very little.

On the one hand you are whining that the majority should control, and then in the next post you bitch about the majority controlling. Which is it?

I'm not thinking about this in terms of black vs white, but since you think that is important... Should a black man's vote in Oregon be worth more to the electoral college than a white man's vote in Texas? Should a redneck's vote in Wyoming be worth more than a redneck's vote in Texas? Should a neo-nazi in Idaho have more of a vote than KKK'er in Florida? My take is that a vote in point A in the USA should count just the same as a vote in point B rather than the convoluted system we have now.

each of those people's votes carry equal weight within their states.

But since you want a pure democracy. I guess you would support a national referendum on abortion, deportation of illegal aliens, controlling media bias, man made climate change, congressional salaries, and term limits.

So, should we let all citizens vote on those things and majority rules?

Trouble is, the electoral votes carry different weights. States with large populations are being under represented in the electoral college.

As far as a national referendum on these various issues goes, isn't that what our dysfunctional congress is supposed to be for? I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to it as long as people's individual rights are not being voted away - ie abortion, gun rights, etc. Might be the only way to settle things like term limits and congressional pay - you know congress would never vote themselves out of office or a smaller paycheck. Would your hypothetical national referendum work as a one person one vote or the electoral college model?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

land does not vote, people vote.

That's cute, but meaningless. What is or should be obvious is that the most populated states should not dictate to all states. That is the purpose of the EC. It worked fine.

Hillary lost because she was a poor candidate who had no credible record, no credible plans for improvement of the economy and nothing more than screaming criticisms of Trump. People all across the nation want what Trump offered...except for the big cities. Even New York State predominately wanted (and got) Trump despite the wishes of the vote-for-a-living welfare buns in NYC.

Hillary lost because urban voters are generally more highly educated and more progressive, yet they do not get full credit for their votes. Trump won because the vast majority of people who voted for him are poorly educated, unsophisticated thinkers who live in rural areas. That is the reality.

Meet your new masters...

Better show us some respect.

They can't even wank themselves off much less be master of anything, much less themselves..

And yet, they won, you lost.
Show them the respect you would expect them to show you and your side had Satan stepped in and allowed Hillary to win.

 

[JakeStarkey]

land does not vote, people vote.

That's cute, but meaningless. What is or should be obvious is that the most populated states should not dictate to all states. That is the purpose of the EC. It worked fine.

Hillary lost because she was a poor candidate who had no credible record, no credible plans for improvement of the economy and nothing more than screaming criticisms of Trump. People all across the nation want what Trump offered...except for the big cities. Even New York State predominately wanted (and got) Trump despite the wishes of the vote-for-a-living welfare buns in NYC.

Hillary lost because urban voters are generally more highly educated and more progressive, yet they do not get full credit for their votes. Trump won because the vast majority of people who voted for him are poorly educated, unsophisticated thinkers who live in rural areas. That is the reality.

Meet your new masters...

Better show us some respect.

They can't even wank themselves off much less be master of anything, much less themselves..

And yet, they won, you lost. Show them the respect you would expect them to show you and your side had Satan stepped in and allowed Hillary to win.

Trump will get the same respect and chance that Obama was given by his opponents from day one.

The alt right did not win. The GOP won, and the alt right climbed on its back.

Watch the GOP shrug it off.

 

[Redfish]

lets turn that around, why shouldn't the white majority control everything that happens in this country? you want majority rule, be careful what you wish for.

The white majority pretty much does control everything that happens in this country and has done so from the beginning. Obama has changed very little.

On the one hand you are whining that the majority should control, and then in the next post you bitch about the majority controlling. Which is it?

I'm not thinking about this in terms of black vs white, but since you think that is important... Should a black man's vote in Oregon be worth more to the electoral college than a white man's vote in Texas? Should a redneck's vote in Wyoming be worth more than a redneck's vote in Texas? Should a neo-nazi in Idaho have more of a vote than KKK'er in Florida? My take is that a vote in point A in the USA should count just the same as a vote in point B rather than the convoluted system we have now.

each of those people's votes carry equal weight within their states.

But since you want a pure democracy. I guess you would support a national referendum on abortion, deportation of illegal aliens, controlling media bias, man made climate change, congressional salaries, and term limits.

So, should we let all citizens vote on those things and majority rules?

Trouble is, the electoral votes carry different weights. States with large populations are being under represented in the electoral college.

As far as a national referendum on these various issues goes, isn't that what our dysfunctional congress is supposed to be for? I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to it as long as people's individual rights are not being voted away - ie abortion, gun rights, etc. Might be the only way to settle things like term limits and congressional pay - you know congress would never vote themselves out of office or a smaller paycheck. Would your hypothetical national referendum work as a one person one vote or the electoral college model?

Yes, and if there was a national referendum to ban abortion it would pass. If there was a national referendum to ban illegal immigration it would pass. If there was a national referendum to ban guns it would fail.

The EC gives proportional representation to each state. Without it, CA, TX, FL, and NY would choose our presidents, the other 46 would have no voice.

 

[Redfish]

That's cute, but meaningless. What is or should be obvious is that the most populated states should not dictate to all states. That is the purpose of the EC. It worked fine.

Hillary lost because she was a poor candidate who had no credible record, no credible plans for improvement of the economy and nothing more than screaming criticisms of Trump. People all across the nation want what Trump offered...except for the big cities. Even New York State predominately wanted (and got) Trump despite the wishes of the vote-for-a-living welfare buns in NYC.

Hillary lost because urban voters are generally more highly educated and more progressive, yet they do not get full credit for their votes. Trump won because the vast majority of people who voted for him are poorly educated, unsophisticated thinkers who live in rural areas. That is the reality.

Meet your new masters...

Better show us some respect.

They can't even wank themselves off much less be master of anything, much less themselves..

And yet, they won, you lost. Show them the respect you would expect them to show you and your side had Satan stepped in and allowed Hillary to win.

Trump will get the same respect and chance that Obama was given by his opponents from day one.

The alt right did not win. The GOP won, and the alt right climbed on its back.

Watch the GOP shrug it off.

there is no such thing as the alt right, its a creation of mindless assholes in the media and the dem spin machine.

Respect has to be earned. Obama never earned it. We shall see if Trump does.

As to opposing him from day one, go for it. He has both houses of congress, and you have--------------------------------Rosie O'Donnell.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

That's cute, but meaningless. What is or should be obvious is that the most populated states should not dictate to all states. That is the purpose of the EC. It worked fine.

Hillary lost because she was a poor candidate who had no credible record, no credible plans for improvement of the economy and nothing more than screaming criticisms of Trump. People all across the nation want what Trump offered...except for the big cities. Even New York State predominately wanted (and got) Trump despite the wishes of the vote-for-a-living welfare buns in NYC.

Hillary lost because urban voters are generally more highly educated and more progressive, yet they do not get full credit for their votes. Trump won because the vast majority of people who voted for him are poorly educated, unsophisticated thinkers who live in rural areas. That is the reality.

Meet your new masters...

Better show us some respect.

They can't even wank themselves off much less be master of anything, much less themselves..

And yet, they won, you lost. Show them the respect you would expect them to show you and your side had Satan stepped in and allowed Hillary to win.

Trump will get the same respect and chance that Obama was given by his opponents from day one.

The alt right did not win. The GOP won, and the alt right climbed on its back.

Watch the GOP shrug it off.

you didnt even know there was an "alt right" until the talking points told you there was. You should try to come up with something original instead of just parroting some other liberal asshole.
However in the meantime, if making these totally senseless comments in any way at all relieves the pain you must be feeling associated with the butt hurt, please feel free to continue. It not like you posting something foolish is going to take anyone on here by surprise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

you didnt even know there was an "alt right" until the talking points told you there was. You should try to come up with something original instead of just parroting some other liberal asshole. However in the meantime, if making these totally senseless comments in any way at all relieves the pain you must be feeling associated with the butt hurt, please feel free to continue. It not like you posting something foolish is going to take anyone on here by surprise.

You did not know you were alt right and being used until I told you so. You snowflakes are being used by the fascists and statists on the right, which means the great majority of America will resist you until Trump is Nixoned.

 

[Borillar]

The white majority pretty much does control everything that happens in this country and has done so from the beginning. Obama has changed very little.

On the one hand you are whining that the majority should control, and then in the next post you bitch about the majority controlling. Which is it?

I'm not thinking about this in terms of black vs white, but since you think that is important... Should a black man's vote in Oregon be worth more to the electoral college than a white man's vote in Texas? Should a redneck's vote in Wyoming be worth more than a redneck's vote in Texas? Should a neo-nazi in Idaho have more of a vote than KKK'er in Florida? My take is that a vote in point A in the USA should count just the same as a vote in point B rather than the convoluted system we have now.

each of those people's votes carry equal weight within their states.

But since you want a pure democracy. I guess you would support a national referendum on abortion, deportation of illegal aliens, controlling media bias, man made climate change, congressional salaries, and term limits.

So, should we let all citizens vote on those things and majority rules?

Trouble is, the electoral votes carry different weights. States with large populations are being under represented in the electoral college.

As far as a national referendum on these various issues goes, isn't that what our dysfunctional congress is supposed to be for? I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to it as long as people's individual rights are not being voted away - ie abortion, gun rights, etc. Might be the only way to settle things like term limits and congressional pay - you know congress would never vote themselves out of office or a smaller paycheck. Would your hypothetical national referendum work as a one person one vote or the electoral college model?

Yes, and if there was a national referendum to ban abortion it would pass. If there was a national referendum to ban illegal immigration it would pass. If there was a national referendum to ban guns it would fail.

The EC gives proportional representation to each state. Without it, CA, TX, FL, and NY would choose our presidents, the other 46 would have no voice.

I really doubt that an abortion ban would pass a national referendum. Women wouldn't stand for pissing away their reproductive and privacy rights. Agree wrt guns. Illegal immigration is already illegal.

The electoral college gives very disproportionate representation to the various states. Without it, the citizens of the whole country would select their President rather than a select few electors.

 

[bendog]

I haven't personally verified these numbers, but after looking at the red/blue map of the county by county votes across the nation, I do not doubt a bit of it. Trump won because most of the nation wanted him to him. The Electoral College performed exactly as intended....protected the rural working areas from the urban welfare clubs.
*****************************************************************

Interesting Numbers... Finally, the Electoral College explained so anyone can understand the need for it.


The best explanation of why the Founders had unbelievable wisdom in designing the Electoral College.


It also illustrates that the Democratic Party does not represent the country, just the heavily populated east and west coast mega cities which are out of touch with the vast majority of the country.


There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.


There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.


Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.


In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond)


Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.


The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.


When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61IfFKawvcL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

[JakeStarkey]

M14 is quite right the Foolish Children of the far right and alt right elected a minority President Trump.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why should the few residents of largely unpopulated land masses dictate the outcome of national elections as opposed to city residents?

A state like Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes with a population of less than 600,000, while
California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of more than 37 million. Thus California has a population that is 66x Wyoming, but only gets 18x the electoral college votes.

This was agreed to back at the formation of the country. The small states were not about to enter the Union unless there were some checks and balances on the larger states due to their much greater population. Remember, were called the "UNITED STATES" because we agreed to union under these rules, compromises which involved many checks and balances within the system. Sorry you don't like it, but it has worked out pretty well given this is the greatest country on earth.

It worked out well because a minority of votes cast elected your guy, who in fact told you & other voters what they wanted to hear, some of which he has walked back already.

Time will tell if we will have a government for the people, or one wherein the power elite set the agenda & censor alternative opinions, lifestyles and individuality.

Authoritarians & Plutocrats are never pleased when the hoi polloi question there actions.

You just explained why Trump won, and you don't even know it.

He has not even been sworn in yet and he has done more for the country than obozo did in 8 years.

It's what he has done to our country, which should bother us, the common people, i.e. the hoi polloi. He has surrounded himself with the power elite, Generals, former and current elected officials, millionaires and billionaires.

Do you have a clue as to the meaning of a plutocrat and an authoritarian?