The electoral college and how it changes voting

[frigidweirdo]

Hillary and the Dems should be happy that she did so well in an election that has historically punished the party in control of the Oval.

They should be happy more people voted for them and they lost? Er.... yeah, I'll kick you in the balls and tell you that you should be happy you don't have testicular cancer.

I get you're not happy with the results. Neither am I. Trump simply ran a better campaign than Hillary and she never made the connection with the voter that Trump did. I feel that the way he made that connection was wholly dishonest but there is no penalty for that which is enforceable without another election.

Well, if Trump ran a better campaign, how come he didn't get as many votes? There's the first problem. The second problem is that Trump and Hillary got LESS VOTES than the loser 4 years ago. Hmm.... Both ran bad campaigns. Hillary didn't tell everyone how damn wonderful everything would be if she won, even if it would have been a lie, Trump did it, Obama did it. Trump simply made a fool out of himself, but he judged that at least half of the country would be entertained enough by it to vote for the clown.

 

[candycorn]

Hillary and the Dems should be happy that she did so well in an election that has historically punished the party in control of the Oval.

They should be happy more people voted for them and they lost? Er.... yeah, I'll kick you in the balls and tell you that you should be happy you don't have testicular cancer.

I get you're not happy with the results. Neither am I. Trump simply ran a better campaign than Hillary and she never made the connection with the voter that Trump did. I feel that the way he made that connection was wholly dishonest but there is no penalty for that which is enforceable without another election.

Well, if Trump ran a better campaign, how come he didn't get as many votes?

Well, if that is the criterion for victory, enjoy your trophy I suppose. His was a campaign that not only gave him more votes in the key states, he attracted supporters that historically went to the Democrats.

There's the first problem.

It's not a problem. The system delivered us the duly elected President.

The second problem is that Trump and Hillary got LESS VOTES than the loser 4 years ago.

Not sure why that is a problem at all. We've had piss-poor turn out in most of the elections. If you really want to know what a "problem" is; look at your local city council, county, and state proposition/constitutional amendment elections. This is where your life can get really screwed up by electing the wrong person/team. Turnout for these far more crucial elections is a joke.

Hmm.... Both ran bad campaigns. Hillary didn't tell everyone how damn wonderful everything would be if she won, even if it would have been a lie, Trump did it, Obama did it.

That is campaigning in 2016. If you are upset that platitudes and silly promises resonate; blame yourself and your neighbors.

Trump simply made a fool out of himself, but he judged that at least half of the country would be entertained enough by it to vote for the clown.

Well, that fool is now POTUS... Do with that what you will.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hillary and the Dems should be happy that she did so well in an election that has historically punished the party in control of the Oval.

They should be happy more people voted for them and they lost? Er.... yeah, I'll kick you in the balls and tell you that you should be happy you don't have testicular cancer.

I get you're not happy with the results. Neither am I. Trump simply ran a better campaign than Hillary and she never made the connection with the voter that Trump did. I feel that the way he made that connection was wholly dishonest but there is no penalty for that which is enforceable without another election.

Well, if Trump ran a better campaign, how come he didn't get as many votes?

Well, if that is the criterion for victory, enjoy your trophy I suppose. His was a campaign that not only gave him more votes in the key states, he attracted supporters that historically went to the Democrats.

There's the first problem.

It's not a problem. The system delivered us the duly elected President.

The second problem is that Trump and Hillary got LESS VOTES than the loser 4 years ago.

Not sure why that is a problem at all. We've had piss-poor turn out in most of the elections. If you really want to know what a "problem" is; look at your local city council, county, and state proposition/constitutional amendment elections. This is where your life can get really screwed up by electing the wrong person/team. Turnout for these far more crucial elections is a joke.

Hmm.... Both ran bad campaigns. Hillary didn't tell everyone how damn wonderful everything would be if she won, even if it would have been a lie, Trump did it, Obama did it.

That is campaigning in 2016. If you are upset that platitudes and silly promises resonate; blame yourself and your neighbors.

Trump simply made a fool out of himself, but he judged that at least half of the country would be entertained enough by it to vote for the clown.

Well, that fool is now POTUS... Do with that what you will.

The point being that surely a good campaign is one that people support. Seeing as they were more or less about the same, with Trump with less votes, how can that be a good campaign?

Your logic is that the system gave people a president, therefore it's not a bad system? Then why not put two balls into a hat, and pick one of them? It's be far cheaper than the current system, and just as fair.

It's a problem because it means you have two main parties who won't relinquish control, they're clearly not popular, but nothing is changing. In other countries if one party is unpopular, another party takes over. \

Clown, not fool. He's not stupid, he might have no idea how to do his new found job, but he's not stupid, but he has acted the part of the clown for the last year.

 

[tyroneweaver]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Were you paying attention in school when the teachers explained the large state / small state issue and debate ?! The bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House Of Reps deals with that issue at the legislative level.

At the Presidential level, the electoral college deals with this issue perfectly as well.

I understand the system. I just don't like how a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote anywhere else.

Because they have great flyfishing. And that's reason enough.

 

[mrbojanglezs]

its not unfair it is designed to do exactly what the founding fathers designed it to do. Give all the sates equal say in government. Why shouldn't small population states have an impact on the election. Otherwise every president would be elected by NYC and LA

 

[Rustic]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

View attachment 98690

How many haven't accepted the result of the election? People are just calling for a change in the system, for NEXT TIME.

Why change? It works perfectly...
Anyway, more people in more states voted for trump. Fact

 

[thanatos144]

More whining from the Left. A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years. I don't New York, California & Texas deciding each election.

Whining? I stated the facts.

North Korea's system also "works as intended".

So go live in North Korea.

 

[Rustic]

Hillary and the Dems should be happy that she did so well in an election that has historically punished the party in control of the Oval.

They should be happy more people voted for them and they lost? Er.... yeah, I'll kick you in the balls and tell you that you should be happy you don't have testicular cancer.

I get you're not happy with the results. Neither am I. Trump simply ran a better campaign than Hillary and she never made the connection with the voter that Trump did. I feel that the way he made that connection was wholly dishonest but there is no penalty for that which is enforceable without another election.

Well, if Trump ran a better campaign, how come he didn't get as many votes?

Well, if that is the criterion for victory, enjoy your trophy I suppose. His was a campaign that not only gave him more votes in the key states, he attracted supporters that historically went to the Democrats.

There's the first problem.

It's not a problem. The system delivered us the duly elected President.

The second problem is that Trump and Hillary got LESS VOTES than the loser 4 years ago.

Not sure why that is a problem at all. We've had piss-poor turn out in most of the elections. If you really want to know what a "problem" is; look at your local city council, county, and state proposition/constitutional amendment elections. This is where your life can get really screwed up by electing the wrong person/team. Turnout for these far more crucial elections is a joke.

Hmm.... Both ran bad campaigns. Hillary didn't tell everyone how damn wonderful everything would be if she won, even if it would have been a lie, Trump did it, Obama did it.

That is campaigning in 2016. If you are upset that platitudes and silly promises resonate; blame yourself and your neighbors.

Trump simply made a fool out of himself, but he judged that at least half of the country would be entertained enough by it to vote for the clown.

Well, that fool is now POTUS... Do with that what you will.

The point being that surely a good campaign is one that people support. Seeing as they were more or less about the same, with Trump with less votes, how can that be a good campaign?

Your logic is that the system gave people a president, therefore it's not a bad system? Then why not put two balls into a hat, and pick one of them? It's be far cheaper than the current system, and just as fair.

It's a problem because it means you have two main parties who won't relinquish control, they're clearly not popular, but nothing is changing. In other countries if one party is unpopular, another party takes over. \

Clown, not fool. He's not stupid, he might have no idea how to do his new found job, but he's not stupid, but he has acted the part of the clown for the last year.

No, it's more than fair it's genius, still the fact remains more people in more states(31 as opposed to 19) voted for trump. Pure popular vote is mob rule...
The EC is going nowhere, rightly so. Because.... The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
The states are turning redder, and Congress agrees on nothing…
So good luck bedwetter

 

[thanatos144]

Funny, it worked just fine when every Democrat was elected. Odd, very odd.

I recall that Gore got more than W. Bush as well.

I recall that Bush won that election.

Bush didn't win that election. He was given the election by the Supreme Court. Gore got more votes.

If the election was a tie it would have went to to house of representatives and Bush Still would have won so please Learn about how the country actually works you ignorant regressive.

 

[SixFoot]

For the newbs who don't understand Civics or the Republic they live in.

Fun With Numbers (re: Popular Vote)

 

[thanatos144]

Hillary and the Dems should be happy that she did so well in an election that has historically punished the party in control of the Oval.

They should be happy more people voted for them and they lost? Er.... yeah, I'll kick you in the balls and tell you that you should be happy you don't have testicular cancer.

I get you're not happy with the results. Neither am I. Trump simply ran a better campaign than Hillary and she never made the connection with the voter that Trump did. I feel that the way he made that connection was wholly dishonest but there is no penalty for that which is enforceable without another election.

I learned something this election.Hillary Clinton would NEVER have won no matter what she did. She was not trusted by people in the majority of states. She couldn't beat a man child with orange skin a comb over and a perchant for tweeting stupidity at night.

 

[Rustic]

Hillary and the Dems should be happy that she did so well in an election that has historically punished the party in control of the Oval.

They should be happy more people voted for them and they lost? Er.... yeah, I'll kick you in the balls and tell you that you should be happy you don't have testicular cancer.

I get you're not happy with the results. Neither am I. Trump simply ran a better campaign than Hillary and she never made the connection with the voter that Trump did. I feel that the way he made that connection was wholly dishonest but there is no penalty for that which is enforceable without another election.

I learned something this election.Hillary Clinton would NEVER have won no matter what she did. She was not trusted by people in the majority of states. She couldn't beat a man child with orange skin a comb over and a perchant for tweeting stupidity at night.

...and she's a loopy kunt

 

[boedicca]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

I'll give you credit for one thing: you are finely attuned to the Prog Dog Whistle.

 

[Missourian]

Well, if Trump ran a better campaign, how come he didn't get as many votes? There's the first problem. The second problem is that Trump and Hillary got LESS VOTES than the loser 4 years ago. Hmm.... Both ran bad campaigns. Hillary didn't tell everyone how damn wonderful everything would be if she won, even if it would have been a lie, Trump did it, Obama did it. Trump simply made a fool out of himself, but he judged that at least half of the country would be entertained enough by it to vote for the clown.

This is an easy one. Trump ran a campaign based on the rules set out by the Constitution. If we were a true democracy, he would have campaigned in NY and Texas and Massachusetts and California. But he didn't, he was in Michigan, Chicago, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Iowa.

It's not like Hillary didn't understand the rules. She wasn't running to win the popular vote. She didn't campaign in California, or Texas. She was trying to turn red states blue, like Georgia and Arizona.

You understand that democrats have a HUGE built in advantage in the Electoral College right now.

You did see the map before the election.

A reminder. This is what we were looking at before election day.

ALL Hillary and the Liberals had to do was was hold the blue states and win two of eight toss up states. She choose Kaine to shore up VA and she got it...NH an NV went her way...but she lost RELIABLY blue states!

Let me put this in perspective for you. I'm 44 years old. The last time Pennsylvania, Michigan went Republican...I was still two years from legal voting age. The last time Wisconsin went Republican I was in Middle School. We were singing 99 Red Balloon, every teenage boy dreamed of owning a 79 Trans am 6.6 liter just like The Bandit, the series premiere of Miami Vice aired, and Bo Derek was the hottest thing since sunburn.

 

[blackhawk]

If the Democrats take the White House back in 2020 everyone who thinks the EC is unfair will be fine with it again and all will be right in their world again.

 

[BULLDOG]

Funny, it worked just fine when every Democrat was elected. Odd, very odd.

I recall that Gore got more than W. Bush as well.

I recall that Bush won that election.

Bush didn't win that election. He was given the election by the Supreme Court. Gore got more votes.

If the election was a tie it would have went to to house of representatives and Bush Still would have won so please Learn about how the country actually works you ignorant regressive.

But it wasn't a tie. Gore got more votes.

 

[Pogo]

Hillary and the Dems should be happy that she did so well in an election that has historically punished the party in control of the Oval.

They should be happy more people voted for them and they lost? Er.... yeah, I'll kick you in the balls and tell you that you should be happy you don't have testicular cancer.

I get you're not happy with the results. Neither am I. Trump simply ran a better campaign than Hillary and she never made the connection with the voter that Trump did. I feel that the way he made that connection was wholly dishonest but there is no penalty for that which is enforceable without another election.

I learned something this election.Hillary Clinton would NEVER have won no matter what she did. She was not trusted by people in the majority of states. She couldn't beat a man child with orange skin a comb over and a perchant for tweeting stupidity at night.

I don't often get to say this but for once I agree with you --- if you can't easily take down a flaming-orange narcissist with the emotional maturity of twelve-year-old, the place to look for answers is in the mirror. How can you lose a match where your opponent is doing everything he can think of to throw the game?

Responsibility must be shared though by the gullibility of the electorate on the other side to buy Kevin Trudeau just because he tells them to. It's been said nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. There's no doubt of it now.

 

[Muhammed]

More whining from the Left. A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years. I don't New York, California & Texas deciding each election.

Actually the odds of one person's vote is more likely to swing a national election under the electoral college system.

If people do not like the electoral college system then they are welcome to start their own republic.

 

[Unkotare]

Funny, it worked just fine when every Democrat was elected. Odd, very odd.

I recall that Gore got more than W. Bush as well.

I recall that Bush won that election.

Bush didn't win that election. He was given the election by the Supreme Court. Gore got more votes.

If the election was a tie it would have went to to house of representatives and Bush Still would have won so please Learn about how the country actually works you ignorant regressive.

But it wasn't a tie. Gore got more votes.

It wasn't a tie; Bush won the election.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

View attachment 98690

How many haven't accepted the result of the election? People are just calling for a change in the system, for NEXT TIME.

No



.