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.
originally posted by: ParasuvO
Why would the polls be predicting a national popular vote, which is not held at the ballot boxes, and use those stats to proclaim a victor when it has never been the case?
You are saying they are even more stupid and pathetic than has ever been mentioned before?
You left types should be crucifying them for leading you down a path of LOSING.
Instead you make useless explanations that some POPULAR NATIONAL VOTE.....ever mattered.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
It scales better than a national popular vote. There is a reason the founding fathers did not want a national popular vote and for good reason. We can see why in the last election where A few cities in 2 states would have determined the fate of the nation had a popular vote been used. Clinton carried only 450+ counties and she carried less states than Trump.
I wont speak for anyone else but I have no desire to live in New York or California given their politics and agendas. If the left gets the national popular vote change they demand it would not matter if I didnt want to live in CA or NY since their political views would be forced upon me since they would control the agenda and laws.
originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: carewemust
I hope more for the Democrats to refocus on themselves and try to bring a better candidate and message to the public. Stomping their feet and blaming others for their faults isn't a strategy to the Whitehouse. I believe Trump will win a second term and Democrats will be mainlining antidepressants. I would rather see the country come together no matter who is in the Whitehouse.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan
Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried, including New York and California.
The numbers for proportional representation are not off. However please explain how you think they are off.
BS
originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
It wasn't a blunder. The polls were taken from popular vote, and she actually DID win the popular vote. So, the projections were accurate at that moment.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan
Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried, including New York and California.
The numbers for proportional representation are not off. However please explain how you think they are off.
Compare the numbers of people represented per rep in different states, it's not equal or anywhere close to equal.
en.wikipedia.org...
Sort by population per house seat. Montana has 1 person representing a million people, In Rhode Island it's 1 per 500,000 people.
We need to rebalance things, and by rebalance I don't mean reapportion as we do every census. I mean rethink the numbers involved. When the constitution was written it was 1 rep per 30,000 people. There were 65 members in the House and 26 in the Senate. Representation was fairly equal among the populace, and there were porportionally more senators. If we had more members to the house, the power of the 2 votes per state from the senate seats gets weaker. Therefore in order to maintain a proper balance of power, we have to add enough reps that we can actually apportion with sane numbers, and then increase the senate seats to rebalance the small vs large state power. In the end, this means we would end up with something like 30,000 Representatives and 10,000 Senators. Which is an unmanageable group for a congress. As a result, we're back to my original statement which is that a representative republic simply doesn't work at our population scale.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: DbDraad
The system we have now with the house/senate compromise doesn't work anymore. The population has grown beyond what it allows for. Representative republics are all about ratios, but people become a disorganized mess in large enough groups. Having a sane representation ratio, means also growing the senate otherwise the senate representation means nothing. So you're left with either needing to grow both, or capping population, or accepting that people cannot be properly represented. None of which actually work.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: thepixelpusher
Sounds like you can't believe that Trump lost the popular vote yet got into office anyway. You probably also believe that his inauguration had the largest crowd ever assembled, and that he only sent that $25,000 check the day after everyone found out he hadn't sent it yet was because of "the legal department."
There is one primary reason for Trump’s relatively static approval rating: he has a diverse base of constituents. Obama’s eggs were proven to be fully in the far-left basket, and as this became more apparent, those who tended to lean rightward or moderate began to disapprove of his decisions.
originally posted by: angeldoll
Alt-right attack!
Have fun. Dreamers gonna dream.
She won the popular vote. I know you don't like hearing that, and it's old, (and verified) news. He won the election, that is clear. Fair and square. I'm not saying he didn't. I'm just saying
She Won the Popular Vote
Which she did.