Posted on 12/06/2016 7:54:16 AM PST by GonzoII
Despite 24/7 complaints from Democrats that Hillary Rodham Clinton won the popular vote, support for the Electoral College system, which President-elect Trump won, has surged since the election.
I tell them we had 50 elections, and Trump won the majority of them.
No state Hillary won awarded their EVs to Trump, so why should states where Trump won the popular vote award their EVs to Hillary?
I also offer the idea of doing it by county or congressional district. Needless to say they still make up excuses.
Tell them that more than 50% of the people voted against her than for her. Then say that the same was true for Trump, but Trump won the Electoral College.
-PJ
Exactly right.
Even in those states, the entire margin - and more - comes from Los Angeles County, the Bay Area, Cook County and the five boroughs of New York City.
Take those areas out and even those states likely go red.
Supposedly Trump won 3,084 counties out of 3,141. The counties that HRC won were urban, which gave her a larger over all vote tally which is not how the election is won. This allows for the minority to be equal to the majority. Minority lives matter, don’t they?
Not to argue with you, but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. You are correct that she didn’t win a majority but she still won the popular vote.
Especially when CA does everything they can to let Mexicans vote.
Pray America woke
I’ve been telling people that politics is a game; Trump won because he knew the rules of the game and played better than Clinton. Change the rules and you change the way the game is played. With the electoral college system, Trump never went to California, and held no rallies in New York. And there was no need to do so. Change it to a national “popular vote” and he spends time in California and New York.
He could still have won by playing a different strategy to meet the requirements of the game. And he was still a better player than Clinton.
A freeper did some calculations and figured the the five buroughs of New York and LA County could have determined the entire national election this time.
Lol...
From 1950s textbooks.
.
Hillary got less legitimate votes than Trump, by many millions.
That is the important point.
The rest is chaff.
“I’ve also told people that her entire margin over Trump can be said to come out of California. So if you back out California vote totals from the national totals, both electoral vote and popular vote, then Trump had a landslide in the other 49 states.”
—
Thanks for that——makes things easier to explain.
.
.
My point was that she got less than a majority of the popular vote. If we say someone wins the popular vote with less than 50%, then yes , she won a plurality.
I wanted to point out to liberal types that 52% of the vote went against Hillary.
Since you brung it up. I wonder by what margin did Hitlery win Oakland.
The day after the election, he told me I was right. I may not have a degree in history, but I rarely lose when I get into discussions regarding American or military history.
My next project is to learn more about the history of the Mosel River, from Roman times. It was prompted by a book I bought for my 14 YO son, on greatest generals up to 1900.
I was struck by the chapter on the Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill. During the Battle of Blenheim campaign in the early 1700s, he won a battle in Trarbach, a town along the Mosel River. You can imagine my reaction, as I lived in that town for four years and NEVER saw any statue, memorial, etc. regarding the battle site.
I understood why, as Churchill was British and the Mosel has been fought over for centuries, mostly by the French and the Germans.
My starting point will be to dust off a Rhine/Mosel travelogue that was published in 1889, that was bought for me by my parents at a flea market in the 60s. Based on my recollections and a recent viewing of internet pictures, little has changed over the past 130 years.
Then they spent much time using examples how people in Kansas or Rhode Island would NEVER get anything they wanted due to their population. All the politicians would spend their time and money in NY and California with a few visits to NJ or Chicago and Texas.
If you can imagine many of these red states today losing on every issue all the time to ideas common in NYC and San Francisco, soon you can imagine the guns coming off the mantle to demand representation on some issues. Just because people with weird ideas seem to congregate in NYC and Ca. doesn't mean they should have more influence in the rest of the country. Why give Washington DC any representation with over 90% voting Dem every election. They vote Dem to grow government and keep their jobs. If a majority of homosexuals live in Ca. then don't be surprised Dems win by a large margin each election. People in the Bible belt would never get anything they wanted. You could teach the advantages of the EC for a week in public school and fix the misinterpretation of the reason we have electors elected to represent us each Federal election.
In fact, one of the wrong moves we have done over the years is have direct election of Senators. The purpose of states choosing Senators was to have states wishes recognized somewhere. The House was designed to have the people represented by their choice, but the Senate was supposed to have the chore of representing the rights of the state.
The way things are right now, if there is any changes, right or left, the chance of violence is increased. The Constitution is the touchstone we go to to pay homage to the past and the bond made with our Government 227 years ago. It has served us well for a long time and it should be difficult to change. I think all of us at some time or another has taken thought of some invisible "red line" they would NOT cross and be forced to take up arms. I think changing the EC might be one of them as deleting it would relegate the majority of states opinions to the waste basket forever. The only remedy after that would be force and bloodshed.
Looking at other direct democracies throughout history will show they don't last a couple of decades before large changes must redesign the government. A republic allows you to design just laws for everyone, that are approved by a majority, that everyone MUST follow, instead of passing laws like ping pong balls changing in the wind depending on who is elected at the time.
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.