Posted on 12/01/2016 7:56:50 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
Shocked and appalled by the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency, some supporters of Hillary Clinton have turned to minimizing and even delegitimizing Trump’s election. In an era of severe political polarization, in an election with two candidates seen from the outset in highly unfavorable terms, after the most brutal campaign in modern history, and with an outcome that astonished just about everyone, these reactions are understandable, but wrong. Many die-hard Clinton supporters cannot bring themselves to believe their candidate could lose to Donald Trump. They think: How could such a crude and inept con man be elected president? Even after it has happened, it is unthinkable, a nightmare. So, the election must not have been fair. Those on the fringe raise the specter of diabolical Russians hacking away at our democracy. More grounded Clintonians have less malevolent boogeymen — our Founding Fathers. As they see it, the election’s outcome should be blamed on a dysfunctional and archaic electoral vote system. Hillary won the national popular vote. She should be president. It is as simple as that. The Electoral College should go the way of Trump University. They are right about one thing: Hillary did win the national popular vote. As votes continue to trickle in three weeks after Election Day, Clinton received 50.9% of the two-party vote to 49.1% for Trump. With about 135 million votes counted, Clinton has 2.3 million more votes than Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Without the electoral system the majority of America by area would be governed by the 20-25 major cities. Once in power, we could expect them to expand their corruption, crime, social mores and financial incompetence into rural America. For far too long our justices have used the commerce clause to expand coastal liberalism into middle America. Would love to see this halted.
When they get some of the jobs that will be created under a Trump Presidency, and perhaps they get married and start having children, they will change their tune!!
Merry Christmas!!!!
The founders were very cautious about enabling a handful of population centers to establish a tyranny of the majority...! In a nutshell They were brilliant!
Well said...A Merry Christmas to you also!
The closest I ever want to get to popular vote would be an apportionment of EC based on vote %. Straight out. Nothing fancy, no 50% thresholds, no extra for being the more popular, just flat out %.
Yes...As it turned out the Media was pissing in the wind!
Keep it up and I’ll really give you something to cry about!...L.O.L.! Just what my dad told me and my sisters!
The term “popular vote” would have been completely alien to the Founding Fathers. Presidential electors weren’t necessarily chosen by popular vote back then. I believe most states appointed them through votes in their state legislatures.
I’d love to ask these morons if they have any student loans made out to them to finance their tuition, etc.
I wonder how many of them are aware that the voters they hate and who’s votes they don’t accept are paying for the 4 year ‘college’ party they’re enjoying so much.
It goes without saying also, that a lot of these creeps will NEVER repay their loans.
Time for them to think past their nose and GROW UP!
Colorado considered a measure like this after the 2000 election. They dropped the idea quickly once they realized how dumb it would be to do such a thing.
With 9 electoral votes, such a measure would almost guarantee that Colorado's votes would be split by a 5-4 margin in every election. A presidential candidate would have to win 62% of the popular vote in Colorado just to improve from a 5-4 EV margin to a 6-3 margin, and 73% of the vote to get to a 7-2 margin. So if the vast majority of elections are going to have results for a candidate that range from the 3-6 deficit to a 6-3 victory, you've basically turned Colorado into a state with only 3 electoral votes.
The same would hold true for every other state, and it would be even more ridiculous for smaller states than Colorado to adopt such a system.
And guess what, the Cubs didn’t win the World Series! It ended in a 27-27 tie (total number of runs scored by each team). What? That’s not how we determine the winner? We should chnage the rules after the Tigers’ loss and declare that total runs scored across 7 games is the right way to think about it!
Idiots. If popular vote was the rule, the game would’ve been played differently!
Let them.
Never stop an enemy from destroying themselves...and make no mistake, they ARE the enemy. They would completely destroy this country and make it into a high-tech East Germany, where the government could surveil and direct just about every aspect of our lives. Those not willing would be out of jobs (either fired or boycotted into bankruptcy), out of our homes, lose our families, and likely be sent to re-education camps (though they’d call them something else, something that wouldn’t let the precious little snowflakes understand that they were the worst of monsters).
Let them continue with their delusion - it prevents a serious re-appraisal of their views, policies, methods, demeanor, etc. It leaves them as more and more of a bad taste in most people’s mouths. It prevents them from regaining power - at least for a while - and buys us all some precious time.
Let them continue - it is also VERY, VERY enjoyable, and sweet revenge for the inflicting of Obama upon us for these last, and very long, 8 years.
“The closest I ever want to get to popular vote ...”
I think 5,000 counties for Trump and 300 for Hillary is the REAL story.
The whole damn democratic party should be renamed the Deadender Party...
They truly are the REAL enemy...
Dems, moaners, crybabies, ponder this:
The Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians scored exactly 27 runs apiece in the 2016 World Series. Therefore, the WS was a tie, right? No? You mean the Cleveland fans aren’t rioting and demanding an eighth game? Or best of 9?
Why not?
Answer: Because the WS isn’t decided by the total number of runs over the seven possible game. Because the winner of the series is the team that wins four games first. Theoretically, the Cubs could have won by scoring only four runs to the Indians’ 27. Those are the rules of the World Series of Baseball.
Dems, if you cannot make the connection here, I’m done with you.
Could you just STFU, please. The rest of America has work to do, making America great again.
That is all.
Brilliant minds. While I was composing my screed, you posted your brilliant observation. You are, like, a genius or something.
Mine too! and I finally get to use that line! What happened to that good old common sense.
Of course, it would depend on the other 48 states modifying their laws accordingly. Not likely to happen. Those in power aren't going to cede any of that power to the other party.
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.