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: 4
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: carewemust
Change the system so that a simple majority is enough. Trump will win re-election easily in 2020, and his Republican replacement in 2024 too!


Trump is probably going to be too old to get a second term. He's 70 now right? That would make him 74 when he gets out of office. Remember the questions of Bernie's age? That guy was 72.

Bernie Sanders is 75, not 72.

I think that Trump will run for a second term.
Bernie ran at 75, so why can't Trump run at 74?




posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Once you take out the 3million+ illegals who voted for Hillary and remove all the dead people who voted, all the rigged machines that would switch to Hillary when you select Trump. I don't believe Hillary won the popular vote at all.

The corporate media still don't show that Trump won over 300 Electoral votes. AZ and Mi went to Trump, they don't want to show how big of a landslide victory it was for Trump.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

And nothing you said refutes the fact that people vote and land doesn't. So showing maps based on land area has nothing to do with voting, populations, population density, etc.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: Konduit

Soooo... 49% having control over the 51% is better?


That's not how the system works.
There is no complete control in the hands of one party or group.


Republicans have an electoral advantage.

The electoral college favors large land owners, and rural citizens. Most of whom are Republican because... well to be honest, they enjoy their individual liberties and like small government as to not interfere with their lives and stay secluded.

Why should they have an advantage?

Why can't every vote count the same?

The "states" shouldn't matter in the presidential vote because the president is the leader of the country collectively.. a union.. as if it were a whole. Individual states have governors and senators that can give individualized representation and governing power. The presidency shouldn't be bound by borders.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: Konduit

Soooo... 49% having control over the 51% is better?


That's not how the system works.
There is no complete control in the hands of one party or group.


Republicans have an electoral advantage.

The electoral college favors large land owners, and rural citizens. Most of whom are Republican because... well to be honest, they enjoy their individual liberties and like small government as to not interfere with their lives and stay secluded.

Why should they have an advantage?

Why can't every vote count the same?

The "states" shouldn't matter in the presidential vote because the president is the leader of the country collectively.. a union.. as if it were a whole. Individual states have governors and senators that can give individualized representation and governing power. The presidency shouldn't be bound by borders.


If you cannot understand the concept of the "United States of America" and that you think Hillary should be President after winning just 18 out of 50 states why bother arguing the point? If it was changed to popular vote 32 states would immediately start paperwork to secede.

If anything the best solution to represent the people is to break apart the mega states into smaller states to give a better voice to the people.

My relatives in California absolutely hate that the millions of Republican votes every election in their state get thrown out and count for nothing.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: UKTruth

And nothing you said refutes the fact that people vote and land doesn't. So showing maps based on land area has nothing to do with voting, populations, population density, etc.


People vote and the popular vote in their state wins. Then the states vote via electors and the popular vote of those electors wins unless 270 isn't reached.

You are a citizen of your state as well as a citizen of the U.S.

All the states should have a voice...not just the most populated ones.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

All the States do have a voice and I never disputed that. I'm pointing out that maps based on land area simply don't matter when trying to prove that "most of the country voted for ____". It's a completely dishonest representation. It's like pointing at Alaska's size then pointing out Chicago's size and saying Alaska "wins" in voting numbers, even though Chicago has almost 4 times as many actual American citizens (and that's not counting its metropolitan area).

It's a less exaggerated version of Egypt's population distribution. Virtually all of its citizens live close to the Nile River and coastlines, leaving entire swaths of the country virtually unpopulated. And since the desert doesn't vote, maps like the one in the OP would be misleading there, too.
edit on 16-11-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
My relatives in California absolutely hate that the millions of Republican votes every election in their state get thrown out and count for nothing.


It's the same for Republican votes in Texas. The only vote that counts is the deciding vote. With the EC there's 50 deciding votes, with the popular there's 1.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: carewemust
Change the system so that a simple majority is enough. Trump will win re-election easily in 2020, and his Republican replacement in 2024 too!


Trump is probably going to be too old to get a second term. He's 70 now right? That would make him 74 when he gets out of office. Remember the questions of Bernie's age? That guy was 72.


If today's vibrant Trump will be too old/sickly/low-energy for a second-term, so would Bernie or Hillary. Especially Hillary.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

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


Link works.


I will wait until the vote count is final...... hasn't been certified yet as far as I know.

It appears that there will be a number (millions) of votes in dispute, mostly on the democratic side.

edit on R072016-11-16T10:07:30-06:00k0711Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R072016-11-16T10:07:44-06:00k0711Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
I will wait until the vote count is final...... hasn't been certified yet as far as I know.

It appears that there will be a number (millions) of votes in dispute, mostly on the democratic side.


I have been keeping a spreadsheet of election results by state and updating it daily - mostly from the actual State sites.
I have been seeing some oddities, with totals going down, then up, then down again.
And most do not agree with the MSM totals at any given time.
Perhaps there are some votes being reviewed and discarded, or recounted.

As of last night, MSM had Trump 174,194 below my count, and Clinton was 85,851 below my count.

MSM shows higher counts in some states than the official sites, so some votes must have been disqualified or recounted.

So, things are certainly not settled yet.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
If today's vibrant Trump will be too old/sickly/low-energy for a second-term, so would Bernie or Hillary. Especially Hillary.


I agree completely. And I couldn't be happier, because I'm sick of two term presidents. Every President in my lifetime with the exception of HW (who had 8 years as VP anyways) has had 8 in the Oval Office. The Constitution says 4 year terms, and historically it's been closer to 4 than 8. I want a few 1 term Presidents. Trump is fine, and that he'll be 1 term is icing on the cake. One of the reasons I supported Bernie was that he would be 1 term. Clinton would also have been 1 term. That's all a win from my viewpoint.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: Konduit

Soooo... 49% having control over the 51% is better?


That's not how the system works.
There is no complete control in the hands of one party or group.


Republicans have an electoral advantage.

The electoral college favors large land owners, and rural citizens. Most of whom are Republican because... well to be honest, they enjoy their individual liberties and like small government as to not interfere with their lives and stay secluded.

Why should they have an advantage?

Why can't every vote count the same?

The "states" shouldn't matter in the presidential vote because the president is the leader of the country collectively.. a union.. as if it were a whole. Individual states have governors and senators that can give individualized representation and governing power. The presidency shouldn't be bound by borders.


The President does not run the entire country. He leads the executive branch and has limited power.
The electoral college is already weighted in favour of the larger states and I believe changes along with the census.
Trump won something like 80% of districts across the US and not just farms and rural areas. He won suburbs all across America too. At the district level, quite apart from state level, he won popular vote after popular vote.

Your argument is simply that big cities should decide the election because they have more people living in them. Apart from the unfairness of such a system, it is also open to massive manipulation by govt. to ensure it's re-election. It's a bad idea from top to bottom.

I also think for this election the popular vote argument is nonsense because the campaigns would have been completely different if they were aiming for the popular vote. Both campaigns would have been camped in Chicago, LA, and NY. I agree with Trump when he says he would have got more votes in those areas if he focused on them and more than made up 500k votes nationwide. Whining about it now is like losing a game of football and then saying you should have been playing baseball.
edit on 16/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

This is terribly incorrect.

The nation is comprised of 50 separate states. In other uses, state means "country". its a large governing body with autonomy, so call it what you want. Texas is still a Republic, so there's that.

So the electoral college is exactly correct. It would be a travesty for 3 states to tell the other 47 states what to do. With all the people crammed into the beltway, the ability to produce is diminished substantially. So stuff like your food, oil/minerals/heat/energy, water, fabrics/textiles....its all made and maintained in the other 47 states outside of IL, NY, and CA. In fact, the rural regions in all three of those states have enormous heartburn over how much influence the cities have on their lives day to day.

Its not "so that the votes of people who don't have neighbors count more? " Its so each state is given an equal chance to speak. The value of a state is not just its people. Especially the "bread basket" states. Because imagine what would happen if those folks protested like we see in the cities: crops would rot in the fields, and the nation would go hungry.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join