Hillary Clinton won the popular vote!!

[undiscovered]

 

This is for Big Girl in particular.

[Englebert]

15 minutes ago, undiscovered said:

 

This is for Big Girl in particular.

Or losing the NBA championship 4 games to 3 but scoring more overall points.

Or losing the World Series 4 games to 3 but scoring more overall runs.

Or losing a volleyball match 3 games to 2 but scoring more overall points.

Or sleeping with a thousand women but never finding the one you love.

Quality over quantity.

[tvc184]

 I counted this one time and I believe this is the 11th presidential election in our history where the winner did not get a clear majority of the vote. That is one out of every four folks. 

Bill Clinton  never got 50% of the vote. In his first election almost 60% of the people voted against him.  Of course in his case it was because of a third-party candidate however it is what it is. Even in his reelection Bill Clinton did not get 50% of the vote. That does not matter because he's a Democrat. 

[tvc184]

 Our constitutional republic with set up so that each state is a essentially a different country.  That is why laws can be so radically different between different states.  The United States federal government was created for the common defense and for overall betterment of the separate countries/states  and I allowing them to make their own basic laws. 

 For that reason we are not a pure democracy. We are set up where states get to vote on what is important to their state. Whether you were talking about Rhode Island or California, they both have two senators. Rhode Island has just as much authority in the U.S. Senate is a huge state of California.  The bigger states do you have representation based on population also by the House of Representatives.  Our presidential and election is based on what the Independent states want. That is why constitutionally we pick the president based on states. If states want to divide their electoral college votes they are allowed to.  It goes by what the citizens of the state what. Two states do you divide their vote. 

 Our country was formed on strong states' rights.  That is why we have the system that we have. Eleven times we have not had a winner by popular vote. If we want to change that then change the Constitution but good luck with that. I have a feeling that over half the country that are small states or are smaller population will not want to give up their authority and power. 

[new tobie]

like it or not the electoral college works!

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

 I counted this one time and I believe this is the 11th presidential election in our history where the winner did not get a clear majority of the vote. That is one out of every four folks. 

Bill Clinton  never got 50% of the vote. In his first election almost 60% of the people voted against him.  Of course in his case it was because of a third-party candidate however it is what it is. Even in his reelection Bill Clinton did not get 50% of the vote. That does not matter because he's a Democrat. 

Completely different than receiving less votes than another candidate.  I'm a believer in our system so don't take this as a criticism of the electoral college.  But to try to equate someone not receiving 50% or more of the votes with someone who lost the popular vote.  However, the latter HAS happened 5 times, the most recent and only modern examples being Trump-Clinton and Bush-Gore.  

[stevenash]

I reiterate-  Hard for me to understand anyone on the left that supports equity/fairness/consideration for all would not celebrate using the electoral college system.  I will also offer that if the vote had been strictly a popular one, Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton would have likely altered their methods/tactics of their respective campaigns and the popular vote might  have resultantly turned out different than it did .  I would also guess that due to the very small difference in the popular vote results, a recount/validation effort would have taken place.

[bullets13]

7 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I reiterate-  Hard for me to understand anyone on the left that supports equity/fairness/consideration for all would not celebrate using the electoral college system.  I will also offer that if the vote had been strictly a popular one, Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton would have likely altered their methods/tactics of their respective campaigns and the popular vote might  have resultantly turned out different than it did as a result.  I would also guess that due to the very small difference in the popular vote results, a recount/validation effort would have taken place.

I'm not a fan of the electoral college.  I'd prefer for everyone's vote to count and whichever candidate gets the most votes to win the election.  Considering that less than 10 states truly decide the election, that means that in over 40 states an individual pretty much knows their vote counts for nothing.  That being said, in this system, the overall vote count for the election is irrelevant.  Hillary may have won the popular vote, but there's no way to factor how many people didn't vote (on either side) because they lived somewhere like texas or California where the nominee was chosen before early voting had finished.  Trump probably gets an extra half-million votes in Texas, and Hillary and extra half-million in California if the voters in those states could cast votes that actually counted for an overall tally. 

[Big girl]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 I counted this one time and I believe this is the 11th presidential election in our history where the winner did not get a clear majority of the vote. That is one out of every four folks. 

Bill Clinton  never got 50% of the vote. In his first election almost 60% of the people voted against him.  Of course in his case it was because of a third-party candidate however it is what it is. Even in his reelection Bill Clinton did not get 50% of the vote. That does not matter because he's a Democrat. 

This has happened 5 times in American history. 3 times in the 1800s and twice in modern times. The last time it happened was in 2000 Gore vs Bush. (Another Democrat)You guys would be whining and complaining if the roles were reversed. I accept the fact that he is President. You guys wouldn't.

HILLIARY CLINTON

The choice of the people of the USA. November, 2016.

[baddog]

4 minutes ago, Big girl said:

This has happened 5 times in American history. 3 times in the 1800s and twice in modern times. The last time it happened was in 2000 Gore vs Bush. (Another Democrat)You guys would be whining and complaining if the roles were reversed. I accept the fact that he is President. You guys wouldn't.

HILLIARY CLINTON

The choice of the people of the USA. November, 2016.

You lie to yourself. You have accepted nothing if you keep whining. Need some cheese?

The Hillary vote was popular with "The Losers"

[stevenash]

She just stated in another thread that she will never complain or whine about the election.

[PhatMack19]

According to CNN, they are still counting votes and they are now expecting Trump to win the popular vote as well.  

 

Big girl is going to be pissed if CNN is right. 

[tvc184]

58 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Completely different than receiving less votes than another candidate.  I'm a believer in our system so don't take this as a criticism of the electoral college.  But to try to equate someone not receiving 50% or more of the votes with someone who lost the popular vote.  However, the latter HAS happened 5 times, the most recent and only modern examples being Trump-Clinton and Bush-Gore.  

In every other kind of vote that I have ever heard of, when one person gets less than 50% then there is a runoff. Bill Clinton had almost 60% of the country vote against him. Why no run off?

I know the law does not allow for it but if popular vote counts, does it really? Can we run 20 people like LA does in the Senate races and if one guy (like Trump for example) only gets 15% of the vote, does he win with 85% of the country wanting someone else.

I understand your point but to say it is completely different is a matter of perspective. 

[tvc184]

2 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

According to CNN, they are still counting votes and they are now expecting Trump to win the popular vote as well.  

 

Big girl is going to be pissed if CNN is right. 

I read that a day ago but didn't want to bring it up unless it came to pass. That would be great as it has absolutely no bearing on the outcome however it might end 1 of the 5,678 complaints that the Democrats have managed to generate. 

[tvc184]

45 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I'm not a fan of the electoral college.  I'd prefer for everyone's vote to count and whichever candidate gets the most votes to win the election.  Considering that less than 10 states truly decide the election, that means that in over 40 states an individual pretty much knows their vote counts for nothing.  That being said, in this system, the overall vote count for the election is irrelevant.  Hillary may have won the popular vote, but there's no way to factor how many people didn't vote (on either side) because they lived somewhere like texas or California where the nominee was chosen before early voting had finished.  Trump probably gets an extra half-million votes in Texas, and Hillary and extra half-million in California if the voters in those states could cast votes that actually counted for an overall tally. 

To overturn the EC would be to overturn the entire way and reason the country was formed as it was. 

Bear in mind this year when it was down to the wire Tuesday night they were saying correctly that New Hampshire might be the state that puts one side or the other over the top. To do away with EC makes NH irrelevant. Do you tell several entire states, sorry but you can never overcome the four big states so no need to vote? 

This country was set up as almost completely independent nations or states. Each was to have its own say on how they divide up their votes and so but the biggest state and the smallest state had the same power in Congress and have a chance to swing a presidential election. 

That is why we have legal marijuana in one state and not in another. That is why some states have the death sentence and others do not. That is why some states have a referendum process for the people to pass laws around the legislature (I think CA is an example) and others (like TX) do not. That is why we have the 10th Amendment. 

If a state does not like all of their votes going to a single person, that state can vote to allocate their EC votes as do two states. 

[tvc184]

28 minutes ago, Big girl said:

This has happened 5 times in American history. 3 times in the 1800s and twice in modern times. The last time it happened was in 2000 Gore vs Bush. (Another Democrat)You guys would be whining and complaining if the roles were reversed. I accept the fact that he is President. You guys wouldn't.

HILLIARY CLINTON

The choice of the people of the USA. November, 2016.

You quoted me and said "you guys". 

I have never said that and have made comments (usually in other forums) that it is stupid to say that a person isn't your president. You might hate him (or some time in the future, her) and say almost anything to support that hate other than a threat. The person is still "your" president. You can't opt out unless you wish to relinquish your citizenship and move to another country out of his control.

You might not agree with my comments but your broad brush is incorrect in his case. 

[TxHoops]

15 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

According to CNN, they are still counting votes and they are now expecting Trump to win the popular vote as well.  

 

Big girl is going to be pissed if CNN is right. 

I actually hope he does.  I'm not a fan of chaos and would prefer the popular vote and electoral college to be aligned. 

[TxHoops]

15 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

In every other kind of vote that I have ever heard of, when one person gets less than 50% then there is a runoff. Bill Clinton had almost 60% of the country vote against him. Why no run off?

I know the law does not allow for it but if popular vote counts, does it really? Can we run 20 people like LA does in the Senate races and if one guy (like Trump for example) only gets 15% of the vote, does he win with 85% of the country wanting someone else.

I understand your point but to say it is completely different is a matter of perspective. 

As you know, we simply don't have runoffs for President.  Probably good we don't considering the history of runoffs, although it could be different in a race for the highest office.  But still would be essentially two elections and I prefer it as we have it.

As far as completely different goes, to me they are simply two separate concepts.  Apples and oranges.  You can certainly make the "mandate" or "no mandate" argument but also is certainly different from winning while receiving less votes than your competitor.   

[tvc184]

6 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I actually hope he does.  I'm not a fan of chaos and would prefer the popular vote and electoral college to be aligned. 

Which is exactly what I said above. 

[TxHoops]

2 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Which is exactly what I said above. 

I can't be expected to read every line of every one of your blathering posts!

I kid, I kid!  

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

Completely different than receiving less votes than another candidate.  I'm a believer in our system so don't take this as a criticism of the electoral college.  But to try to equate someone not receiving 50% or more of the votes with someone who lost the popular vote.  However, the latter HAS happened 5 times, the most recent and only modern examples being Trump-Clinton and Bush-Gore.  

Thank GOD it worked against the far-left loon Gore.  But, on the other hand if Gore would have won, things would be like now, so bad, that we would not have gotten B. Hussein! 

[tvc184]

2 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

As you know, we simply don't have runoffs for President.  Probably good we don't considering the history of runoffs, although it could be different in a race for the highest office.  But still would be essentially two elections and I prefer it as we have it.

As far as completely different goes, to me they are simply two separate concepts.  Apples and oranges.  You can certainly make the "mandate" or "no mandate" argument but also is certainly different from winning while receiving less votes than your competitor.   

As has already been stated, if you win 3 baseball games 10-0 but lose 4 of them 1-0, you outscored your opponent at a devastating 30-4 pace....... but you lose the World Series.

I agree on wishes that they matched up but to worry about the EC is to do away with the founding of the nation.

Since this country was laid out by states' rights, lets just count the number of winning states regardless of size. Each state will then have equal representation.

Trump wins 30-20.  

[Big girl]

19 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I actually hope he does.  I'm not a fan of chaos and would prefer the popular vote and electoral college to be aligned. 

Not pissed. Hell, i am going to be embarrased.

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

As has already been stated, if you win 3 baseball games 10-0 but lose 4 of them 1-0, you outscored your opponent at a devastating 30-4 pace....... but you lose the World Series.

I agree on wishes that they matched up but to worry about the EC is to do away with the founding of the nation.

Since this country was laid out by states' rights, lets just count the number of winning states regardless of size. Each state will then have equal representation.

Trump wins 30-20.  

I'm with you.  I like the electoral college because I do believe (and mathematically I'm supported) it does give the little state "more" of a voice than a straight up popular vote. 

[GUNHO]

4 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I'm with you.  I like the electoral college because I do believe (and mathematically I'm supported) it does give the little state "more" of a voice than a straight up popular vote. 

You take Cal and NY,that's about half of the population.Pretty good jump start for the Dems.I think the founding fathers got it right.