Jump to content

Thank you Founding Fathers for creating the Electoral College


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Thankfully one state, especially California, can't decide the fate of elections :bc:

 

Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears.

As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.

In recent years, California has been turning into what amounts to a one-party state. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Californian's who registered as Democrats climbed by 1.1 million, while the number of registered Republicans dropped by almost 400,000.

What's more, many Republicans in the state had nobody to vote for in November.

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Skidooski said:

Thankfully one state, especially California, can't decide the fate of elections :bc:

 

Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears.

As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.

In recent years, California has been turning into what amounts to a one-party state. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Californian's who registered as Democrats climbed by 1.1 million, while the number of registered Republicans dropped by almost 400,000.

What's more, many Republicans in the state had nobody to vote for in November.

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

Take away the million of illegals that voted and Thrillery didn't win California either but hey Russia and Fake News :guzzle: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is way more complex than the people pushing for change are letting on. 

If the election was done by popular vote, the candidates would have behaved very differently. They would not concentrate all their time and effort on a few swing states, ignoring the ones that they 'know' are going to go one way or the other. They would have to spread the campaign time and dollars around the whole country in a very different way. This would make the polling process different before the election, and would change the proportion of votes in individual states (by how much, no one could tell). In that scenario, Trump may well have won the popular vote (we will never know that either. 

 

One thing for sure, it would be days after election day before we would know who won. In the current system, they start calling states like mine (Mass) right after the polls close. If we had to wait until all the ballots were counted and certified (including absentee ballots) then add it all up to get a nationwide total,  it would be the better part of a week before a winner could be declared. I'm not sure that's what we want, or that it would change the result. 

You have to understand that if the rules are different up front, the candidates would behave differently during the campaign, changing the popular vote result in some way. It' not reasonable to change the rules after the votes have been cast, because you don't like the result.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

It's  really the only way the republican party can win theses days is getting a handicap

:wrong:

Hey, since the EC is such a handicap, how come the R's have absolutely punished the Dems in the Governorship races, Congressional Seats, State Legislators, etc? Are those all run off the EC too? I had no idea! So dumb. How do you function? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

:wrong:

Hey, since the EC is such a handicap, how come the R's have absolutely punished the Dems in the Governorship races, Congressional Seats, State Legislators, etc? Are those all run off the EC too? I had no idea! So dumb. How do you function? 

:owned:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

:snack:

 

When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

 

Edited by SnowRider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member

There is a large population segment of california thats wants to be there own country....  i am all for that but put the parts of the state that want to stay in the us should stay in the US.  Liberal areas that want to leave the us, we should encourage it.  We would just be a LA brexit away from never having such a horrible president as obama again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
3 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

There is a large population segment of california thats wants to be there own country....  i am all for that but put the parts of the state that want to stay in the us should stay in the US.  Liberal areas that want to leave the us, we should encourage it.  We would just be a LA brexit away from never having such a horrible president as obama again.

Texas....bye bye :bc: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

:snack:

 

When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

 

Now its all the spics is California mostly illegals :flush: 

Edited by Momorider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
19 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Texas....bye bye :bc: 

Texas would want to stay in the us if we could just shed LA snd maybe san fran.  Clinton won cali by like 4 million votes.  Without LA and san fran she lost the popular vote by over a million.  Those 2 cities can be there own county, or a safe haven for liberals that cant handle making smerica great again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BOHICA said:

Texas would want to stay in the us if we could just shed LA snd maybe san fran.  Clinton won cali by like 4 million votes.  Without LA and san fran she lost the popular vote by over a million.  Those 2 cities can be there own county, or a safe haven for liberals that cant handle making smerica great again.

A nice big earthquake could take care of those 2 cities :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, BOHICA said:

Texas would want to stay in the us if we could just shed LA snd maybe san fran.  Clinton won cali by like 4 million votes.  Without LA and san fran she lost the popular vote by over a million.  Those 2 cities can be there own county, or a safe haven for liberals that cant handle making smerica great again.

So can Idaho..... :lol: If's and but's :lmao: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

:snack:

 

When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

 

:lol: Look at this guy!

OK so who had the closest date to today on the bet when this dip shit would show back up??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...