So, according to what I am reading, hillary won California by around 3.5 million. lol at the left.

[NLT]

[

The rural guy gets the same vote as the urban guy. One person one vote. That is the right way. The electoral college is an abomination.

says the hypocrite that was bragging about how hildabeast was going to win by landslide of EC votes

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is a good example of the injustice of the electoral system.

Trump won 67 electoral votes in 3 states, PA, OH, and FL, by winning a majority of about 640,000 votes.

Clinton won California by a majority of over 3.5 million votes, and only got 55 electoral votes.

It's not unjust at all. The purpose of the EC is to empower the smaller states, just as giving each state regardless of size two seats in the Senate.

However, if you feel strongly about this, all you have to do is get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree to amend the Constitution to do away with the EC; of course you would be asking several small states to give up their power to influence presidential elections.

It's only just if you think that these arbitrary geographical units, called states, deserve some amount of power disproportionate to the number of PEOPLE in those states, purely out of chance.

It's ridiculous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

and once the Democrats get even for the GOP filibustering of the past 8 years,

I think it should go.

ROFLMAO! you can't avoid being a fucking hypocrite even when you're trying your hardest to do it, can you?

Allow me to paraphrase your stance

"I think the filibuster should go because it's anti-democratic but we should keep for now because the fact that my party is in the minority makes it advantageous for us, as soon as it's no longer advantageous for us, it should go.".... that about sum it up ?

BTW what are you and Mrs. Hitler doing for Thanksgiving?

So you don't believe in justice. Big surprise.

"Justice" as in "Partisan Political Revenge" , no I don't believe in it ...

Of course, that sort of thing was the mainstay of the folks like the Italian Fascists, the German National Socialists and the Soviets... AND apparently YOU, gee what a surprise.

How else will the democrats impose their minority view on the majority?

lol, see? It's happening already. The gallant defenders of the 'tyranny of the minority' that elected Trump are starting to rail against the coming Democrats' filibusters, used to thwart the majority,

before the Senate is even in session.

Stay tuned. It's going to get flip floppier on the right than a boat deck full of tuna.

 

[bripat9643]

This is a good example of the injustice of the electoral system.

Trump won 67 electoral votes in 3 states, PA, OH, and FL, by winning a majority of about 640,000 votes.

Clinton won California by a majority of over 3.5 million votes, and only got 55 electoral votes.

It's not unjust at all. The purpose of the EC is to empower the smaller states, just as giving each state regardless of size two seats in the Senate.

However, if you feel strongly about this, all you have to do is get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree to amend the Constitution to do away with the EC; of course you would be asking several small states to give up their power to influence presidential elections.

It's only just if you think that these arbitrary geographical units, called states, deserve some amount of power disproportionate to the number of PEOPLE in those states, purely out of chance.

It's ridiculous.

They aren't "arbitrary geographical units." Only bootlicking servile statists talk like that. The states created the federal government. They existed prior to the federal government. The federal government was created to serve the states, and not visa-versa.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, btw, the small states get allocated more than enough unfairly distributed power, by virtue of getting 2 Senators, no matter how few people they represent.

More than enough.

 

[bripat9643]

and once the Democrats get even for the GOP filibustering of the past 8 years,

I think it should go.

ROFLMAO! you can't avoid being a fucking hypocrite even when you're trying your hardest to do it, can you?

Allow me to paraphrase your stance

"I think the filibuster should go because it's anti-democratic but we should keep for now because the fact that my party is in the minority makes it advantageous for us, as soon as it's no longer advantageous for us, it should go.".... that about sum it up ?

BTW what are you and Mrs. Hitler doing for Thanksgiving?

So you don't believe in justice. Big surprise.

"Justice" as in "Partisan Political Revenge" , no I don't believe in it ...

Of course, that sort of thing was the mainstay of the folks like the Italian Fascists, the German National Socialists and the Soviets... AND apparently YOU, gee what a surprise.

How else will the democrats impose their minority view on the majority?

lol, see? It's happening already. The gallant defenders of the 'tyranny of the minority' that elected Trump are starting to rail against the coming Democrats' filibusters, used to thwart the majority,

before the Senate is even in session.

Stay tuned. It's going to get flip floppier on the right than a boat deck full of tuna.

What's already happening?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is a good example of the injustice of the electoral system.

Trump won 67 electoral votes in 3 states, PA, OH, and FL, by winning a majority of about 640,000 votes.

Clinton won California by a majority of over 3.5 million votes, and only got 55 electoral votes.

It's not unjust at all. The purpose of the EC is to empower the smaller states, just as giving each state regardless of size two seats in the Senate.

However, if you feel strongly about this, all you have to do is get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree to amend the Constitution to do away with the EC; of course you would be asking several small states to give up their power to influence presidential elections.

It's only just if you think that these arbitrary geographical units, called states, deserve some amount of power disproportionate to the number of PEOPLE in those states, purely out of chance.

It's ridiculous.

They aren't "arbitrary geographical units." Only bootlicking servile statists talk like that. The states created the federal government. The existed prior to the federal government. The federal government was created to serve the states, and not visa-versa.

lol, you're nuts. 13 states formed the federal government. Most of the rest were formed out of territory OWNED by the federal government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

ROFLMAO! you can't avoid being a fucking hypocrite even when you're trying your hardest to do it, can you?

Allow me to paraphrase your stance

"I think the filibuster should go because it's anti-democratic but we should keep for now because the fact that my party is in the minority makes it advantageous for us, as soon as it's no longer advantageous for us, it should go.".... that about sum it up ?

BTW what are you and Mrs. Hitler doing for Thanksgiving?

So you don't believe in justice. Big surprise.

"Justice" as in "Partisan Political Revenge" , no I don't believe in it ...

Of course, that sort of thing was the mainstay of the folks like the Italian Fascists, the German National Socialists and the Soviets... AND apparently YOU, gee what a surprise.

How else will the democrats impose their minority view on the majority?

lol, see? It's happening already. The gallant defenders of the 'tyranny of the minority' that elected Trump are starting to rail against the coming Democrats' filibusters, used to thwart the majority,

before the Senate is even in session.

Stay tuned. It's going to get flip floppier on the right than a boat deck full of tuna.

What's already happening?

People bitching about the Democrats' filibuster power. You know, that crazy thing in Congress that works against that 'tyranny of the majority' you nuts are always wailing about?

 

[Cellblock2429]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total


Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

From Blog: Hillary wins the popular vote – not

First of all, she’s (Hillary) probably not going to win the actual number of votes cast. She may win the number of votes counted, but not the votes cast.

States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the number of outstanding absentee ballots is larger than the state margin of difference. If there is a margin of 1,000 votes counted and there are 1,300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state tabulates those. If the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t influence the election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted.

Who votes by absentee ballot? Students overseas, the military, businesspeople on trips, etc. The historical breakout for absentee ballots is about 67-33% Republican.

 

[bripat9643]

This is a good example of the injustice of the electoral system.

Trump won 67 electoral votes in 3 states, PA, OH, and FL, by winning a majority of about 640,000 votes.

Clinton won California by a majority of over 3.5 million votes, and only got 55 electoral votes.

It's not unjust at all. The purpose of the EC is to empower the smaller states, just as giving each state regardless of size two seats in the Senate.

However, if you feel strongly about this, all you have to do is get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree to amend the Constitution to do away with the EC; of course you would be asking several small states to give up their power to influence presidential elections.

It's only just if you think that these arbitrary geographical units, called states, deserve some amount of power disproportionate to the number of PEOPLE in those states, purely out of chance.

It's ridiculous.

They aren't "arbitrary geographical units." Only bootlicking servile statists talk like that. The states created the federal government. The existed prior to the federal government. The federal government was created to serve the states, and not visa-versa.

lol, you're nuts. 13 states formed the federal government. Most of the rest were formed out of territory OWNED by the federal government.

You just admitted what I said: The states formed the federal government.

Your theory that the federal government owns America is hilarious. States were formed by the people who settled them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

This is a good example of the injustice of the electoral system.

Trump won 67 electoral votes in 3 states, PA, OH, and FL, by winning a majority of about 640,000 votes.

Clinton won California by a majority of over 3.5 million votes, and only got 55 electoral votes.

It's not unjust at all. The purpose of the EC is to empower the smaller states, just as giving each state regardless of size two seats in the Senate.

However, if you feel strongly about this, all you have to do is get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree to amend the Constitution to do away with the EC; of course you would be asking several small states to give up their power to influence presidential elections.

It's only just if you think that these arbitrary geographical units, called states, deserve some amount of power disproportionate to the number of PEOPLE in those states, purely out of chance.

It's ridiculous.

So you are saying the Senate, which gives these units two seats each instead of awarding seats according to population is ridiculous.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

The rural guy gets the same vote as the urban guy. One person one vote. That is the right way. The electoral college is an abomination.

Would you have said that had it gone the other way, and Hillary won the electoral and not the popular ?

 

[Harry Dresden]

We don't need crackpot minorities electing crackpot leaders.

so we can have non minority crackpots electing crackpot leaders?...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I must once again remind everyone, that if the overall popular vote was the goal to become president, the campaign strategies would have been much different. Thus the popular vote count would have been different.

When the Trump team mapped out their strategy to reach 270 electoral votes, they excluded the west coast and instead placed their money and effort in the swing states.

 

[Care4all]

Since when are California citizens, NOT citizens of the United States?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and while we're at it, the national poll average got it right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since when are California citizens, NOT citizens of the United States?

When you're RWnut trying to get attention writing myths.

 

[bripat9643]

Since when are California citizens, NOT citizens of the United States?

Are you counting illegal aliens as "california citizens?"

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Geeze, the sour grapes around here is getting more and more smelly.

 

[Care4all]

I must once again remind everyone, that if the overall popular vote was the goal to become president, the campaign strategies would have been much different. Thus the popular vote count would have been different.

When the Trump team mapped out their strategy to reach 270 electoral votes, they excluded the west coast and instead placed their money and effort in the swing states.

For both parties....it would have been different and Clinton still would have won the popular vote....imho.

btw, every Democratic President has won both the popular vote AND electoral college vote....

fyi- ONLY republican presidents and one whig I believe, have won the presidency with simply the electoral vote.

the candidates still go after the popular vote within each state....even with the electoral....

But please don't get me wrong, Mr Trump won the contest, through the contest rules and he will be our next president, as the contest dictates.