It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Popular Vote vs Electoral College: Trump Won The Country, While Clinton Won The Major Cities

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   


United States Presidential Election, 2016 Maps

2016 Presidential Election, Detailed Results

This graphic of the final results of the 2016 election should help some of you to understand why the Electoral College exists.

Clearly this was a devastating landslide for Trump across the board... yet Clinton supposedly won the popular vote.

That's because if the US elections were decided solely by popular vote, major cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and Seattle would decide every Presidential race. If this was the case, the states would not have equal representation and would have most likely never joined the union or seceded a long time ago, and we wouldn't have a country.

edit on 15-11-2016 by Konduit because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual states.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

The electoral college exists so that the votes of people who don't have neighbors count more?


That's because if the US elections were decided solely by popular vote, major cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and Seattle would decide every Presidential race.


Instead, it's a short list of swing states?



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
53% DID NOT VOTE FOR HER. She lost the poplar vote.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual states.


Congressional District Vote.

The winner of the popular vote for each district gets that 1 single vote, then the winner of the state popular vote gets the 2 remaining 'senatorial' votes. Nebraska and Maine do it that way.

I would like to see that nationally, but only if *every* state did it that way. Safe to say that California and New York won't ever allow it.
edit on 15-11-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

My question would be, was it always intended to be all or nothing regarding electors for a whole state?



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Konduit

The electoral college exists so that the votes of people who don't have neighbors count more?


That's because if the US elections were decided solely by popular vote, major cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and Seattle would decide every Presidential race.


Instead, it's a short list of swing states?


It exists so states like New York, California and Texas don't drown the rest of our voices out.

Stop whining. Hillary won California. She really, really, REALLY won California's 55 electoral votes. Good for her!
edit on 15-11-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Hillary got the popular vote just like she got the polls.

Over-Sampling in the polls and Over-Sampling in the heavy over populated "D" pockets.




posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Thanks, decent map, though I don't believe it's fully accurate for Wash. State(looks like some of the red counties were counted as blue on the coast). I hope that explains the ones who are confused about the entire West Coast only being Dem/Lib voters, that it is in fact not, especially farther north.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: theantediluvian

My question would be, was it always intended to be all or nothing regarding electors for a whole state?



Not always. Each state is allowed to distribute them as they see fit, based on internal voting and legislature.

There was a movement called the "National Popular Vote" that was trying to make it so every state that signed on to their charter would begin to apportion their EV's to the winner of the popular vote, but only once the number of states that agreed to that reached or exceeded 270 electoral votes.

I haven't heard about them in the last year or so. I wonder if they realized it is illegal for the states to enter into such a treaty with each other without the consent of the Federal Congress.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

States like Wisconsin only have 10 electoral votes, while California has 55. I would say that is equal representation of the population density, wouldn't you?



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: theantediluvian

My question would be, was it always intended to be all or nothing regarding electors for a whole state?


No. All but a few states are not regulated to cast their electoral votes for the candidate of choice in their precinct



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Clinton has more votes. The majority of people who voted voted for her. He has the Electoral College, maybe, but he has NO mandate.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Konduit

The electoral college exists so that the votes of people who don't have neighbors count more?


No. It's because farmers and lower-class/poor people in isolated towns have a beautiful, valuable voice to add. And we want to make those areas are INHABITABLE & LIVABLE, too? Eh?

Those people give voices to the causes that are close to their hearts and pocketbooks. Isolated as they may be...their state's voice matters.

Or maybe you just want everyone in massively overpopulated areas and dependent on a more socialist system to have the loudest voice, because that's the area that's given the most consideration in a popular vote system.

We are the united STATES. Like it or lump it.


edit on 15-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode
53% DID NOT VOTE FOR HER. She lost the poplar vote.


Pardon? She won the popular vote. Maybe you are still looking at the hoax site.

The David Wasserman/Cook Political non partisan count is probably the most accurate and up to date, Not sure if ATS allows a Google Doc

Cook Political
edit on 15-11-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)


Link works.

edit on 15-11-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Clinton has more votes. The majority of people who voted voted for her. He has the Electoral College, maybe, but he has NO mandate.


Again, no they did not. Trump votes plus the other quashed dick candidates she only gets 47%. The Country told her to take a hike.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Clinton has more votes. The majority of people who voted voted for her. He has the Electoral College, maybe, but he has NO mandate.


Again, no they did not. Trump votes plus the other quashed dick candidates she only gets 47%. The Country told her to take a hike.


Nope. She has more single votes than Trump. That is the meaning of winning the popular vote. It would be between the 2 main candidates.
edit on 15-11-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.


Accept he got the title or accept him.

Not necessarily the same thing.

I have not changed my thoughts because of a vote.

The balls in his court.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

If there were to be any change in the electoral vote, that's the one I'd support. It would certainly give political minorities in many states much more reason to actually bother voting in presidential elections. Unfortunately, you're right, though. It'll never happen because states like California and New York will never accept it.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Guess the hicks in the sticks won.

About time ! I have yet to meet a HRC supporter and I live in a very large city, about 16th in ranking as far as largest cities in the US with a good diversity .

The pollsters and HRC didn't care about the common working class people.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join