Posted on 11/25/2016 4:02:16 PM PST by C19fan
From the White House to the courthouse, every elected official in AmericaDemocrat, Republican, or independenthas something in common: He or she got more votes than the people they ran against. That adherence to majority rule changes on Jan.20, as it has four other times in our history. While ballots are still being counted, the final tally is likely to find President-elect Donald Trump trailing Hillary Clinton by around 2 million votes; he will be the second of our last three presidents to be elected with less than a majority, indeed less than a plurality, of the popular vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Except for the EV system, popular vote would be the best way.
No need to drop the gold standard for the tin version.
CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION is NEVER a good idea.
False claim.
They are counting the votes for Trump and Hillary and claiming he lost the popular vote.
There were other candidates in the race, who also received votes
70,608,915 votes were not cast for Hillary.
That is a difference of 6,773,493 compared to the 63,835,422 votes she garnered.
She lost the popular vote, period.
They are so desperate, they could care less where they get the votes.
Trump did win a popular vote. He won the popular vote of the States. That’s the one that does and should count.
By the way, if we do change from election by the Electoral College to election by popular vote, which would require a Constitutional Amendment, what are we going to do about future Constitutional Amendments? Is the next change to be approval of Constitutional Amendments by popular vote of the people instead of by popular vote of the States? I know. That would require a Constitutional Amendment too.
Could California Cause the Election of a Republican President?
That being the case, the possibility of a Republican getting 50.1 percent of the national popular vote total, but losing in California, may not be far-fetched. If the popular vote winner did not have the required 270 electoral votes, California, as a result of joining the NPV, would have to cast its 55 votes for a Republican, which would likely tip the scale in favor of the Republican. Would the 60 percent of California voters who vote Democrat tolerate that occurrence?
This ‘compact” is an unconstitutional treaty among states.
Armed blockade of the couple of nutjob centers that vote for commies. Who still has food at the end wins.
I’ll say it again, the day after the Inauguration is going to be hilarious.
Go away democrats!
National popular vote? Wonderful! Then we can have national recounts!
They will try anything .... anything.
They’re not satisfied with the destruction Obama has done. They want Hillary, Tim or Slow Joe to finish the job.
The Left seems to want to go by the electoral college when they win the electoral college and by the popular vote when they win the popular vote.
Those who want to have their country’s leader elected simly by popular vote should move to a country that already has that as it’s method of voting.
The USofA was not set up to vote that way for a reason and if they choose not to appreciate that, they are choosing disobedience to the foundational laws and guidelines of the USofA and really should not be in our country.
Total and complete B.S. The complaining states should be reminded there are only 2 Senators per state, regardless of the population/ number of votes. Counting illegal and fraudulent votes in the Marxist enclaves like California and New York need to be controlled and verified. ONLY legal voters need vote. Discount the illegals and the beast loses more states, that’s for sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.