Broken system: Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election...

originally posted by: queenofswords
And for those that keep bragging that she won the popular vote, it was razor thin...really really thin like 47.7% to 47.5%

And quite a few soldiers were not given time to vote.

If we get really technical: 50mil people voted. That means 250mil voted "no confidence". But no one talks about that.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
The New York Times: www.nytimes.com...

Google: www.google.com...=enn/p//0/0///////////

NPR: www.npr.org...

I havent checked the other sites but I would imagine that they too have the same results.

Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election...

Hillary's 59,323,520 votes (47.7%) to Trump's 59,152,992 votes (47.5%)

Its the year 2000 and a Bush victory all over again.

If in-fact we live in a democracy or the illusion of one, then the person with the most votes has to be the winner.

It is not a democracy when a handful of select individuals (the electoral college), determine the outcome of an election.

The fact is we DO NOT live in a democracy. We NEVER have. We live in a Representative Republic. Learn your history.

Also look at the poll maps of the election. NOT the whole state map, but the ones showing each county in each state. You will find that even in California and NY the majority of the counties where won by Trump. Only the large cities went for Clinton. (With a very few exceptions.)

graphics.wsj.com...

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: gladtobehere
The New York Times: www.nytimes.com...

Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election... Hillary's 59,323,520 votes (47.7%) to Trump's 59,152,992 votes (47.5%)

If in-fact we live in a democracy or the illusion of one, then the person with the most votes has to be the winner.

It is not a democracy when a handful of select individuals (the electoral college), determine the outcome of an election.

The United STATES is just that. States. Elections are by state and electoral voters are from each state so each state has their own voice. There have been calls for change to a popular vote but the roots of the state by state election run deep and change would be difficult and is unlikely.
An analogy may be the world series. It is game by game regardless of the total score of each team.

And i think this is the way to go.
Over here in Holland we have like 20 different party's, 17 million people and we go by popular votes. In this case, a party with 1 million votes could become the biggest, deliver the prime minister and choose the party's they want to 'rule' with. Keep in mind that out of 17 million people, 16 million people did not vote for them. They can become the ruling party with just 5.88 % of the votes. Is that what you call democracy?

If you ask me, you guys should embrace the way you elect your 'rulers'

Also, to me its only logical that a bigger state has more 'influence' then a small one. For the simple fact that the majority of a big state represents way more people than the majority of a smaller one.

Less than half a percent doesn't count as a win. Either way, this is how the system always worked, and how Bush was elect
ed.

a reply to: gladtobehere

The electoral college is HOW it's decided. You can't change the rules just because you don't like the results. Besides, there was MASSIVE election fraud on the part of the Dems anyways, so truth be known: Trump won the popular vote too. A re-count would prove the fraud, which is why the Dems will never have one.

Besides, Hillary is a very sick and twisted individual - so you will be far better off under a Trump admin.

No one would be complaining about the system if it went the way they wanted it to. The system works perfectly and allows representation of all states, not just the few heavily populated ones. If HRC were elected, I doubt you would have seen rioting on the streets like we have here. Democracy is a good thing to people until it doesn't go their way. Stop acting like spoiled brats and grow up. Not everyone gets a trophy.

a reply to: gladtobehere


" Plot Twist: CNN Now Saying That Donald Trump Will Win The Popular Vote; UPDATE: CNN Admits Design Flaw "



UPDATE: It turns out that CNN's projection for Trump was a "design flaw." Hillary Clinton is still poised to win the popular vote.

***Original Post***

CNN is now projecting that when all ballots are counted, Donald Trump will win the popular vote. Currently, Clinton is ahead by about 300,000 votes.

CNN projecting that Donald Trump will be the winner of the popular vote as well when 100% of ballots are counted t.co... pic.twitter.com/XbScvq7SsK


— Joe Perticone (@JoePerticone) November 10, 2016
Clinton's presumed victory in the popular vote sparked a new discussion about eliminating the Electoral College, and one person even called for Clinton to sue the country.

The Electoral College and the popular vote have split four times; most recently in 2000.


LOL , Gotta Love this Sheit . CNN Admits it Made a Mistake ? .....)











townhall.com...

For those who love popular vote:

Why have just one, when you can have fifty?

Especially when the Chief Executive is known as the President of the United States, not the President of the People of the United States.

States elect the President (and until 100 years ago, their Senators), not the People. People elect their Representatives (and now Senators)

If anything, we need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
The New York Times: www.nytimes.com...

Google: www.google.com...=enn/p//0/0///////////

NPR: www.npr.org...

I havent checked the other sites but I would imagine that they too have the same results.

Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election...

Hillary's 59,323,520 votes (47.7%) to Trump's 59,152,992 votes (47.5%)

Its the year 2000 and a Bush victory all over again.

If in-fact we live in a democracy or the illusion of one, then the person with the most votes has to be the winner.

It is not a democracy when a handful of select individuals (the electoral college), determine the outcome of an election.

Well.....you have at least 2.5 Million illegal immigrants in CA alone. These immigrants are allowed to get drivers licenses and make the decision whether or not they want to vote even though it is not legal for them to....all they have to have is a drivers license. If they get caught they get in trouble, but apparently nobody really checks.

On October 28, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that automatically registers all holders of a drivers license as a registered voter for all California ballots, including federal elections. Opponents expressed concern this could offer suffrage rights to non-citizen residents as a January 2015 legislation decreed the right of a drivers license to non-citizens.[42] However, as the Sacramento Bee pointed out, "people will need to attest they’re citizens before being able to register," "undocumented immigrants applying for driver’s licenses, a right they gained this year, will not be offered the option."[43] While voting as a non-citizen in a US Federal election carries legal penalties, California Assembly Bill No. 1461[44] leaves the choice up to the individual: "This bill would provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above, that person’s registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person. The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.

So.....2.5+ million illegals in CA alone and who knows how many got to vote. Nationwide you can bet there were plenty and likely more than enough to account for the split between Trump and Hillary for popular vote.

I would actually say that Trump won the popular vote if we cut out all of the illegal votes involved. Until we get the laws straightened out as to who SHOULD be able to vote then popular vote is a large misconception as it takes into account plenty who were not supposed to vote but did....including those 2.5+ million illegals in CA.

I dont even get why people point to the popular vote outcome. I mean, on CNN i saw people saying they voted for Trump but the machines registered a Clinton vote. Then i saw people on Fox News saying this. Then i saw people telling this right here on ATS.

I NEVER saw or haard people say they voted Clinton but it registered a Trump vote.

I say this is rigged. Rigged to push Killary into the white house. If people want the popular vote to decide who won, Trump should sue the hell out of it and demand a recount. I bet he ends up with way more popular votes than Killary after an honest recount.

They rigged the #, still he won... delicious

originally posted by: sprtpilot
Nope, the system is exactly correct, we live in a representative republic, quite ingenious.
Prevents mob rule don't you know?
Why should a very few populous areas be able to dictate to the entire country? Think about it.

because those large populated areas have American people that do vote, not square miles of dirt that can't vote.

Sure do away with the electoral college and just go strictly by popular vote..

That is exactly what Americans need....

Do away with electoral voting and let all future Presidential elections be decided by just 2 states, California and New York.

Yes Sir, that would really be great to have ALL decisions that affects ALL Americans decided by two left leaning states... I see no problem with democrats having the White House for the next 50 years.


There is a reason the Electoral College exists... and it is a damn good one.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: sprtpilot
Nope, the system is exactly correct, we live in a representative republic, quite ingenious.
Prevents mob rule don't you know?
Why should a very few populous areas be able to dictate to the entire country? Think about it.

because those large populated areas have American people that do vote, not square miles of dirt that can't vote.

Then we should deentralize our system. Because if 5% of the landmass begins to push around the half of the nation who lives on the other 95%, it will end very, very badly. Those "miles of dirt" is what provides you food, oil/gas/coal/energy, raw materials like cotton, iron/steel, and oils, and water. Not to mention maintains the roads and railways to get your crap from one metropolitan to another. To be dismissive of the folks who aren't urbanized seems to be part of what drove my neighbors to vote for a lunatic like Trump.

I still say there is a better method:

1. Each Presidential election will be a panel of 10 Candidates, 5 nominated by DNC and 5 nominated by the RNC.
2. Each person votes for who they feel is the best choice and who they feel is the second best choice.
3. Whichever of the 10 receives the most votes as the #1 candidate is President.
4. Whichever of the 10 receives the most votes as the #2 candidate is VP (not whoever came in second as the #1 choice)

You could wind up with a democratic POTUS and a republican VPOTUS or vice versa.

There are other options that could be considered, by going strictly by popular vote is not one of them.

a reply to: RickinVa

It is not the honor of our parties to run our country for us. In fact, we'd be better served as The People if they were made illegal. Its just a pinch point where power is aggregated between Uncle Sam and The People.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
The New York Times: www.nytimes.com...

Google: www.google.com...=enn/p//0/0///////////

NPR: www.npr.org...

I havent checked the other sites but I would imagine that they too have the same results.

Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election...

Hillary's 59,323,520 votes (47.7%) to Trump's 59,152,992 votes (47.5%)

Its the year 2000 and a Bush victory all over again.

If in-fact we live in a democracy or the illusion of one, then the person with the most votes has to be the winner.

It is not a democracy when a handful of select individuals (the electoral college), determine the outcome of an election.

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change from an electoral vote to a popular vote only form of election. I think it was the third grade I learned that.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: sprtpilot
Nope, the system is exactly correct, we live in a representative republic, quite ingenious.
Prevents mob rule don't you know?
Why should a very few populous areas be able to dictate to the entire country? Think about it.

because those large populated areas have American people that do vote, not square miles of dirt that can't vote.

If I lived out in those square miles of dirt doing things that were important for the whole country (i.e. providing resources of some kind) I most certainly would not want those people that live in concrete jungles deciding to elect a numpty with a proclivity to force gun control legislation through that effects the whole country by the power of executive fiat.

People in cities usually have help somewhat close at hand and do not need to deal with wild predators other than sewer rats and street thugs. People in the country have the very real threat of dealing with mountain lions, coyotes, wild boar etc. etc. Help in the form of Law Enforcement for them is in some cases a half hour or more away.....so

Why should city dwellers that have access to help 10 minutes away or less be able to dictate firearms laws for people who live in the country several miles away for whom help is usually a half hour or more away?

This is the exact type of situation that the EC was designed for, and if you can't acknowledge that then you are being willfully ignorant.

a reply to: Darkphoenix77

Seriously 95% of the people complaining don't even know how it actually works, plus their side lost, nobody was protesting on NOV 7 about how "broken" it is, and had they won the states and trump the popular vote they wouldn't be complaining either.

I do think they should just change the name from electorate to "state vote" some people seem to think that the "electorate" are actual people. I think naming it "state vote" would clarify what it is. People are to lazy to look # up.