The Sage of Main Street
Gold Member
Untangling the ThreadI don't know what planet you live on. The electoral college result was a shock to virtually everyone, including the Clinton campaign. That's what happens when elections are stolen. There is no way in hell that Trump legitimately "won" PA, MI, and WI when all 3 states have gone for Democratic presidential candidates for the past 20+ years.
Clinton won the popular vote by 2% and 2.5 million votes, which was fairly close to expectations. The electoral college voters should vote for her.
Shock to who?
Clinton needed a 3.9% lead on a national basis to have a 50/50 shot at winning the electoral college. She was well below that.
You look at the polls as though the national popular vote has absolute value in a system that discounts it.
Look, this system is more like football and less like baseball. Clinton scored more times then trump, but Trumps 3 touchdowns won the game over Clintons 5 field goals.
Blah, blah, blah...your stupid sports analogies are meaningless. The Founding Fathers made no distinction between a republic and a democracy. They never intended for the total votes in individual states to matter more than the total national vote, which is the true will of the American people. The Founding Fathers wanted the electoral college voters to vote for the most qualified person that earned the most votes, regardless of the state vote totals. In this election, that is Clinton.
Everything you're saying is total nonsense and there is no mention of it anywhere in the Constitution.
Learn history instead of making crap up. You liberal babies are way to funny to be taken seriously.
Please enlighten me, fucktard. There is nothing in the Constitution stating that the state vote totals mean more than the national vote total.
You're just a fucking know-nothing Repug troll.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the country would elect a president from the popular vote. That is why they set out the electoral college, because we are a republic, not a democracy.
The EC has nothing to do with this democracy v. republic debate. It was the people's will, and therefore democratic, to offer something extra to the less populous states in order to get them to join the union. Having a Senate at all is the most undemocratic thing, to those who have been manipulated into following the required simple-minded view of what democracy means. Why should Rhode Island have the same number of Senators as California? Because in the real world, things cannot be reduced to simple equations.
Besides, most Americans think they might move or at least retire to the less populated regions, especially since the cities are becoming unlivable. What is undemocratic, if I may interrupt this trained-seal discussion, is the winner-take-all in the states. But the debate masters have instructed us to ignore that.