For those of you wondering why the EC is broken ATM

[crockett]

I've said many times that the Electoral College is broken at the moment but is not a flawed system but rather a system which has been manipulated at state levels. That manipulation has been carried out by gerrymandering.

This is why Hillary Clinton has at this point 2.8 million more votes than Trump but still lost the EC. Something which was not intended by the forefathers. The intended purpose of the EC was to actually keep someone like Trump out of office, but it seems in today's world these people just rubber stamp their party line. Why this has happened is because key states have been gerrymandered to fuck and back under the control of Republican lawmakers to a point they can dictate the election outcome with less voters.

This article is pretty good at explaining how this came to be..

'''Gerrymandering On Steroids''': How Republicans Stacked The Nation'''s Statehouses | Here & Now

[Bladewire]

Gerrymandering should be illegal and punishable by a minimum of five years in federal prison for anyone involved.

[tazz]

The only reason Clinton won the popular vote was because of the 4 million votes for her in California. Looking state by state Trump won 30 states in the popular vote and 8 of the 13 swing states.Take California out of the equation and Trump won both popular vote and electoral college. So looks like to me the popular vote is the system that is broke.

[mineistaken]

I bet you did not complain when bill clinton won with even MUCH less popular percentage.
And only when your disliked candidate wins you pick up "to save from people like Trump".
Poor double standard mongering clown who does not even realize he is not objective.

And forefathers were not that stupid as you assume. Of course it was obvious that it was possible to win EC votes while losing popular votes.

[kane]

Originally Posted by tazz

The only reason Clinton won the popular vote was because of the 4 million votes for her in California. Looking state by state Trump won 30 states in the popular vote and 8 of the 13 swing states.Take California out of the equation and Trump won both popular vote and electoral college. So looks like to me the popular vote is the system that is broke.

So those 4 million people in California shouldn't have a say in how the country is run and who is in charge?

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by tazz

The only reason Clinton won the popular vote was because of the 4 million votes for her in California. Looking state by state Trump won 30 states in the popular vote and 8 of the 13 swing states.Take California out of the equation and Trump won both popular vote and electoral college. So looks like to me the popular vote is the system that is broke.

^^
Acting like a 3 million vote majority is invalid

7 million here voted Clinton

4 million votes Trump

Sad thing is, if all 11 million had voted Clinton, Trump would still be annointed . Broken outdated system

[kane]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

I bet you did not complain when bill clinton won with even MUCH less popular percentage.
And only when your disliked candidate wins you pick up "to save from people like Trump".
Poor double standard mongering clown who does not even realize he is not objective.

And forefathers were not that stupid as you assume. Of course it was obvious that it was possible to win EC votes while losing popular votes.

To be fair, in both of Bill Clinton's elections he was facing two major candidates. He got 43% in 1992 while Bush got 37.4% and Perot got 18.9%. In 1996 he got 49.2 % to Dole's 40.7% and Perot's 8.4%.

Hillary, with 48.3% did better than Bill the first time (when Perot was a real factor) and worse than he did during his second run.

[tazz]

Originally Posted by kane

So those 4 million people in California shouldn't have a say in how the country is run and who is in charge?

So you think it is ok to to let one state decide the outcome just because they have more people living there? Each state should have equal say in the outcome.

[seeandsee]

lets see now what will EC say

[tazz]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

^^
Acting like a 3 million vote majority is invalid

7 million here voted Clinton

4 million votes Trump

Sad thing is, if all 11 million had voted Clinton, Trump would still be annointed . Broken outdated system

[/center]

^^
Acting like just because California has more people living there they should decide who becomes president. Screw the other states. Their say doesn't matter.

[kane]

Originally Posted by tazz

So you think it is ok to to let one state decide the outcome just because they have more people living there? Each state should have equal say in the outcome.

I think it should be a popular vote election. Whoever gets the most votes, wins. It's that simple.

I don't subscribe to the idea that candidates would only campaign in the big cities to win the votes there. I think they would still need to campaign around the nation. I think you can look at this election as an example. Trump himself said he didn't bother campaigning in California or New York because he knew he wouldn't win there, yet he still only came up 3 million votes shy in an election where nearly 129 million votes were cast.

I think the Electoral College is outdated and it encourages corruption and voter fraud while disenfranchising voters all across this country.

[tazz]

I think both systems are broke and it should be changed to a mix of both. Each state gets 1 vote and whoever wins the popular vote in that state is who they must cast their vote for. That way each state has equal say.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by tazz

The only reason Clinton won the popular vote was because of the 4 million votes for her in California. Looking state by state Trump won 30 states in the popular vote and 8 of the 13 swing states.Take California out of the equation and Trump won both popular vote and electoral college. So looks like to me the popular vote is the system that is broke.

Do you even understand what you are saying? You clearly do not, because states have zero to do with the popular vote. The popular vote is the number of people in total whom voted for a given candidate.

States only matter for the EC vote.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

I bet you did not complain when bill clinton won with even MUCH less popular percentage.
And only when your disliked candidate wins you pick up "to save from people like Trump".
Poor double standard mongering clown who does not even realize he is not objective.

And forefathers were not that stupid as you assume. Of course it was obvious that it was possible to win EC votes while losing popular votes.

Where do you get this nonsense? Bill Clinton won both the popular vote and the EC in both elections.

In fact the only time since the 1800s the PV and EC have not both been the same is with George Bush Jr and now Trump.

[Barry-xlovecam]

The US Constitution's great compromise ascending toward a Federal System was apportionment of the Senate. Two senators from each state regardless of population.

The Electors of the Electoral College are based of this now flawed apportionment. Notwithstanding a constitutional amendment to the contrary -- the US Constitution stands.

Wait for the mid-term elections to come -- that is the way government works (these days).

[onwebcam]

Hillary has more votes because shitloads of people live in NYC and LA and she received shitloads of more votes there because everyone votes dem. That's it.. The system isn't broken. It's exactly the way it needs to be. NYC and LA can't be the decider for everyone else.

[Lewis11]

Very true..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Hillary has more votes because shitloads of people live in NYC and LA and she received shitloads of more votes there because everyone votes dem. That's it.. The system isn't broken. It's exactly the way it needs to be. NYC and LA can't be the decider for everyone else.

It doesn't matter where they live, why can't you rightist understand that point? The Popular vote is the "actual" votes cast by "the people". It doesn't matter if they live in California, Idaho, New York or Texas.

It's the vote won by the majority of people in this country.. The electoral vote is supposed to follow the popular vote and in over 100 years of elections the only time this hasn't held true is with Bush Jr and now Trump. Why is it happening? Because of gerrymandering of key states.

When the candidate whom wins the EC vote loses the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, something is not right.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by crockett

It doesn't matter where they live, why can't you rightist understand that point? The Popular vote is the "actual" votes cast by "the people". It doesn't matter if they live in California, Idaho, New York or Texas.

It's the vote won by the majority of people in this country..

Because if that was the case everyone ever voted in would be Democrat? Those are the only 2 places they would campaign..

This is another reason she lost

[kane]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Because if that was the case everyone ever voted in would be Democrat? Those are the only 2 places they would campaign..

This is another reason she lost

Doesn't your graphic prove that the Electoral College isn't needed? The vote was within a few percentage points of each other this election and your graphic shows a lot of states that neither candidate campaigned it yet somehow, it must be voodoo magic or something, those people managed to make a choice and cast a vote.

People always say, "With no Electoral College the candidates would focus only on New York and California."I disagree. They say that as if one candidate could convince 100% of the people in those states to vote for them. 30% of the voters in California voted for Trump. 43% of the voters in Texas voted for Clinton and yet neither campaigned in those states.

The people in this country are spread out enough now, and will continue to do that as the cost of living in big cities continues to rise, that candidate will still have to run a campaign that focuses on the country as a whole. And, instead of visiting somewhere like Florida 20 times because it is a battleground state, they could go visit it a few times and then go to other states that they regularly wouldn't visit and rally their supporters there.

[k0nr4d]

Originally Posted by kane

So those 4 million people in California shouldn't have a say in how the country is run and who is in charge?

And if it was popular vote - is it fair that those 4 million people in california decided for half of the country?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

And if it was popular vote - is it fair that those 4 million people in california decided for half of the country?

What a cluster fuck the EU Parliament is ... My understanding of Brexit just increased

Under the Lisbon Treaty, seats are allocated to each state according to population and the maximum number of members is set at 751 (however, as the President cannot vote while in the chair there will only be 750 voting members at any one time).[63]

The seats are distributed according to "degressive proportionality", i.e., the larger the state, the more citizens are represented per MEP. As a result, Maltese and Luxembourgish voters have roughly 10x more influence per voter than citizens of the six large countries.

As of 2014, Germany (80.9 million inhabitants) has 96 seats (previously 99 seats), i.e. one seat for 843,000 inhabitants. Malta (0.4 million inhabitants) has 6 seats, i.e. one seat for 70,000 inhabitants.

The new system implemented under the Lisbon Treaty, including revising the seating well before elections, was intended to avoid political horse trading when the allocations have to be revised to reflect demographic changes.[64]

Pursuant to this apportionment, the constituencies are formed. In six EU member states (Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom), the national territory is divided into a number of constituencies. In the remaining member states, the whole country forms a single constituency. All member states hold elections to the European Parliament using various forms of proportional representation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ted_Parliament

At any rate don't discuss US Civics with an educated American. As I said before; the US Senate is not apportioned and its count is included in the Electors count for each state --- it's a rigged system that was a compromise during the constitutional convention.

The Senate and the United States Constitution. During the summer of 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia established equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives.

[woj]

Popular vote would be pretty easy to game, some candidate could say "those fucks in North Dakota are pumping that evil oil! we'll tax them hard, and we'll use the collected $$ to build solar panels in California, 100% free hospitals in Illinois and we'll make higher education free in NY!"...

upon hearing this great new proposal everyone in CA, IL and NY would jizz over themselves... then on election day, everyone in those states, including dead relatives and family pets would vote for the brilliant candidate who came up with that plan... so ND with perhaps 700k potential votes would get thrown under the bus, but that would be insignificant in comparison to the % of the 80M+ votes in those 3 states that would be gained...

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by woj

Popular vote would b.... be gained...

The simple solution would be to take away 2 electoral votes from every state. An amount equal to the non apportioned Senate seats. Done deal ... Fair to every state.

But no! Some assholes are more important than others

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

7 million here voted Clinton

4 million votes Trump

wow... 7 million ignorant brainwashed people... by these stats you'd think California is some 3rd world place without internet...

[crockett]

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

And if it was popular vote - is it fair that those 4 million people in california decided for half of the country?

Who gives a fuck what sate they are in? If it's popular vote every single person's vote equals the same. It doesn't matter if they live in Cali, Texas or fucking Kansas.

News flash for you buddy.. Cali already has 55 EC votes compared to a state like Kansas which only has 6. Why should the minority be deciding the election?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by nico-t

Dutch Boy, don't you have some Nazi to be campaigning for?

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by tazz

^^
Acting like just because California has more people living there they should decide who becomes president. Screw the other states. Their say doesn't matter.

What is wrong with you?

128 million Americans voted.

California had 11 million votes.

California is only 8.5% of the vote count.

How the fuck is 11 million votes from California us "decididing the election" and saying "Screw the other states. Their say doesn't matter."?

You are seriously brainwashed and have lost all critical thinking skills.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

And if it was popular vote - is it fair that those 4 million people in california decided for half of the country?

What about all those people in states Trump won or Hillary won whom didn't vote for the candidate which won the EC for that state? It's easy to claim this canidate won this state or that and grant them the EC votes but it's not really that simple..

Look at Arizona as example.. was only a 90k difference but all EC votes went to Trump. Both candidates had nearly split the population with less than a 10% spit.

Colorado on the other hand went to Clinton yet it was also a nearly even split with only roughly 100k votes deciding the state.

FL another roughly 100k votes decided which candidate won the EC vote.


The simple fact is by the map posted above, it's pretty much shows that candidates already ignore states which are a sure win for them. The EC doesn't paint the "clear" picture that people try to claim it does..

It's easy to sit here and claim Trump won FL like he won every vote in the state meanwhile it was actually a very narrow win.. Less than 10% between the two.


State Trump votes Clinton votes DifferenceAlabama
1,318,255 729,547 Trump +588,708
Alaska
163,387 116,454 Trump +46,933
Arizona
1,252,401 1,161,167 Trump +91,234
Arkansas
684,872 380,494 Trump +304,378
California
4,483,810 8,753,788 Clinton +4,269,978
Colorado
1,202,484 1,338,870 Clinton +136,386
Connecticut
673,215 897,572 Clinton +224,357
Delaware
175,162 221,608 Clinton +46,446
Florida
4,617,886 4,504,975 Trump +112,911
Georgia
2,089,104 1,877,963 Trump +211,141
Hawaii
128,847 266,891 Clinton +138,044
Idaho
409,055 189,765 Trump +219,290
Illinois
2,146,015 3,090,729 Clinton +944,714
Indiana
1,557,286 1,033,126 Trump +524,160
Iowa
800,983 653,669 Trump +147,314
Kansas
671,018 427,005 Trump +244,013
Kentucky
1,202,971 628,854 Trump +574,117
Louisiana
1,178,638 780,154 Trump +398,484
Maine
335,593 357,735 Clinton +22,142
Maryland
943,169 1,677,928 Clinton +734,759
Massachusetts
1,090,893 1,995,196 Clinton +904,303
Michigan
2,279,543 2,268,839 Trump +10,704
Minnesota
1,322,951 1,367,716 Clinton +44,765
Mississippi
700,714 485,131 Trump +215,583
Missouri
1,594,511 1,071,068 Trump +523,443
Montana
279,240 177,709 Trump +101,531
Nebraska
495,961 284,494 Trump +211,467
Nevada
512,058 539,260 Clinton +27,202
New Hampshire
345,790 348,526 Clinton +2,736
New Jersey
1,601,933 2,148,278 Clinton +546,345
New Mexico
319,666 385,234 Clinton +65,568
New York
2,790,073 4,491,191 Clinton +1,701,118
North Carolina
2,362,631 2,189,316 Trump +173,315
North Dakota
216,794 93,758 Trump +123,036
Ohio
2,841,005 2,394,164 Trump +446,841
Oklahoma
949,136 420,375 Trump +528,761
Oregon
782,403 1,002,106 Clinton +219,703
Pennsylvania
2,970,733 2,926,441 Trump +44,292
Rhode Island
180,543 252,525 Clinton +71,982
South Carolina
1,155,389 855,373 Trump +300,016
South Dakota
227,701 117,442 Trump +110,259

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by crockett

[crockett]

Originally Posted by nico-t

Dutch boy, adults are talking here, go paint your room with lead paint..

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Hillary has more votes because shitloads of people live in NYC and LA and she received shitloads of more votes there because everyone votes dem. That's it.. The system isn't broken. It's exactly the way it needs to be. NYC and LA can't be the decider for everyone else.

Think for yourself for a moment.

128 million people voted

11 million in California

7 million in New York

14% of votes come for New York & California

How the FUCK does your brain think New York & California choose the president without the EC?

Even if 100% of voters in New York & California votes for the same candidate they only have 14% pull. The rest of the country is 86% of the vote!

You are so brainwashed you can't even do basic math. Snap out of it stud!

[Robbie]

Guys, until the United STATES becomes the United STATE (singular)...it is still a union of fifty states.

If our society were to decide that we wanted to make it a "popular vote" to win...then it would still be state by state. And Trump would still have won.

What crockett is suggesting is a popular vote that counts as one big vote. But that's never been the way our country was set up.

I'm thinking it would require a re-write of the constitution.

And as some have said...it would pretty much render everyone's vote in the country not living in N.Y., Florida, Texas, and California meaningless.

If a popular vote were to be done as one big lump of vote nationwide, you could argue that people in the vast majority of states would not be represented in that vote.

I know everyone wants to attack everyone else on here...I don't want to get involved in that today. Just wanted to point out the facts as they have always been.

IF you went by poplular vote...it would be state by state. Trump would win the most states. And he would win the Presidency.

Trump won 30 states to Clinton's 20 states.

As I said, the only alternative would be to change the constitution.
And since Hillary's popular vote margin came entirely from California...I can't see people living in the rest of the country EVER going for that.

[kane]

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

And if it was popular vote - is it fair that those 4 million people in california decided for half of the country?

Is it fair that the collective 2.4% that Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by decided for half the country?

This argument can be made for any election. If one candidate got 101 votes and the other got 99 votes the loser can say, "Is it fair that those 2 extra voters chose for half the people?"

[kane]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Guys, until the United STATES becomes the United STATE (singular)...it is still a union of fifty states.

If our society were to decide that we wanted to make it a "popular vote" to win...then it would still be state by state. And Trump would still have won.

What crockett is suggesting is a popular vote that counts as one big vote. But that's never been the way our country was set up.

I'm thinking it would require a re-write of the constitution.

And as some have said...it would pretty much render everyone's vote in the country not living in N.Y., Florida, Texas, and California meaningless.

If a popular vote were to be done as one big lump of vote nationwide, you could argue that people in the vast majority of states would not be represented in that vote.

I know everyone wants to attack everyone else on here...I don't want to get involved in that today. Just wanted to point out the facts as they have always been.

IF you went by poplular vote...it would be state by state. Trump would win the most states. And he would win the Presidency.

Trump won 30 states to Clinton's 20 states.

As I said, the only alternative would be to change the constitution.
And since Hillary's popular vote margin came entirely from California...I can't see people living in the rest of the country EVER going for that.

I don't buy into the idea that a candidate would only have to focus on those few states to win because that idea assumes that the person would win 100% (or close to it) of the vote in those states which is not going to happen.

Just doing some quick math:

Of the top 10 most populated states in the US currently 3 of them are blue states, NY, CA, and IL and the other 7 are red states. When you add up the numbers the blue states account for about 70.7 million people while the red states account for 99.6 million people.

A candidate could focus on the nation as a whole instead of fighting for a few extra votes in on the big states and still win.

[imabro]

Originally Posted by crockett

I've said many times that the Electoral College is broken at the moment but is not a flawed system but rather a system which has been manipulated at state levels. That manipulation has been carried out by gerrymandering.

This is why Hillary Clinton has at this point 2.8 million more votes than Trump but still lost the EC. Something which was not intended by the forefathers. The intended purpose of the EC was to actually keep someone like Trump out of office, but it seems in today's world these people just rubber stamp their party line. Why this has happened is because key states have been gerrymandered to fuck and back under the control of Republican lawmakers to a point they can dictate the election outcome with less voters.

This article is pretty good at explaining how this came to be..

'''Gerrymandering On Steroids''': How Republicans Stacked The Nation'''s Statehouses | Here & Now

Such a dumb shit you are.

[Bladewire]

^^ another nothing post from coward fake nic ^^

[onwebcam]

Mau-Mauing the Trump Electors - WSJ

[ottopottomouse]

Apart from all the arguments about whether it is a fair system or not is anything being done to address the low turnout? All the people who didn't bother to vote could have made their own third candidate win by miles.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Apart from all the arguments about whether it is a fair system or not is anything being done to address the low turnout? All the people who didn't bother to vote could have made their own third candidate win by miles.

Low turn out works in favor of Republicans. Democrats fucked up by turning away the "people's" candidate whom would have stomped Trump in-order to push the establishment candidate which was Hillary.

Trump didn't win this election, the DNC gave it to him by trying to force Hillary on us..

[Barry-xlovecam]

Low turnout is for the reason of apathy.
Given the current state of the political system in the USA I think it is quite understandable. Citizens have little faith in the government's ability to change -- so they just abstain and roll with the punches.

I wish Trump luck with his term limits proposal for all elected offices. I am equally convinced that will go nowhere.

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Millions of illegal immigrants voted. Trump still won. Get over it

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by kane

Is it fair that the collective 2.4% that Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by decided for half the country?

This argument can be made for any election. If one candidate got 101 votes and the other got 99 votes the loser can say, "Is it fair that those 2 extra voters chose for half the people?"

He didn't need to win all 3 to be president...false equivalency, not an argument stop lyying

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Low turnout is for the reason of apathy.
Given the current state of the political system in the USA I think it is quite understandable. Citizens have little faith in the government's ability to change -- so they just abstain and roll with the punches.

I wish Trump luck with his term limits proposal for all elected offices. I am equally convinced that will go nowhere.

Low turnout is good. We don't want low IQ people voting!

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Low turnout is for the reason of apathy.
.

After all the votes were finally counted the turnout was 58.1% of all eligible voters cast ballots in 2016.
Slighty down from 2012 58.6%
Up from 2004's 54.2% and possibly more than any Presidential election between the years of 1972 and 2000.

I'd say that this past election was pretty exciting and had the country's attention like no other with the exception of 2008 with our first black Presidential nominee (and eventual President).

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

After all the votes were finally counted the turnout was 58.1% of all eligible voters cast ballots in 2016.
Slighty down from 2012 58.6%
Up from 2004's 54.2% and possibly more than any Presidential election between the years of 1972 and 2000.

I'd say that this past election was pretty exciting and had the country's attention like no other with the exception of 2008 with our first black Presidential nominee (and eventual President).

It had the attention for all the wrong reasons.. The attention was mostly all negative things..

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by crockett

It had the attention for all the wrong reasons.. The attention was mostly all negative things..

All negative things made up and created by the fake news media

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by crockett

It had the attention for all the wrong reasons.. The attention was mostly all negative things..

I agree. And it continues with DT tweeting insults & put downs to people daily creating drama. A big step down from the dignity & class of Obama.

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

I agree. And it continues with DT tweeting insults & put downs to people daily creating drama. A big step down from the dignity & class of Obama.

Trump never attacks someone first. Why is it okay to make fun of his looks and call him names, but when he strikes back it's "bad"? Please explain

The media made so much stuff up about him it was a joke. However, the people saw through the BS and elected him President in a landslide!

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Trump never attacks someone first.

That's not true.

People can say/do something Trump doesn't like, and he'll attack them.

Like the manufacturers in Mexico.