In 2012 Trump called for a revolution saying "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy".

In 2012, there was a point when it seemed as though Romney was going to win the popular vote but lose due to the electoral college.

Needless to say, Trump was not the least bit pleased.

Kind of ironic and hypocritical considering the fact that Trump lost the popular vote but won due to the electoral college...

Here is some of his outrage in the form of tweets:


We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
twitter.com...

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
twitter.com...

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
twitter.com...

Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble…like never before.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
twitter.com...

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
twitter.com...


Now these are the tweets that WERENT deleted.

Here are a couple of gems that were bleached:

“He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!”

“The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!” (I assume he really meant “won”.)


2012's Donald Trump would have been calling for a revolution against 2016 Donald Trump.

It is a disaster for a democracy, good thing the US is a democratic republic.

a reply to: gladtobehere

So you're mad because he won.

Like anyone, Trump needs to be educated. He really wasn't in a position to understand the Electoral College. Perhaps he now appreciates it more.

This is the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America. It's not all about you. I know that's hard to take because you think you're so important, but that's the way it is. Lots of people are under the mistaken impression that the Electoral College was put in place to "protect slavery." That's not true at all. It was the exact opposite. When the original 13 colonies decided to band together the southern slave-holding states dominated the landscape both in terms of land area and population. Virginia was HUGE and, in fact, for the first 50 years most every President came from Virginia.

But it was the NORTHERN states that were small with small populations: Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts. Compared to southern states they are all TINY, so they are the ones who lobbied for a Senate where every state was equally represented, and in matters of voting, was the same size. The House was left to be "The People's House" based solely on population.

In real-life terms what this means is that the presidential campaign must take into consideration ALL states because any one of them could turn out to be a decisive one in terms of the Electoral College vote. If this were NOT The case the candidates could concentrate on both coasts and ignore most of the country. But as it stands the Electoral College gives a very slight advantage to the less populous and smaller states. Look at the Electoral College Map for this election. It's available nearly everywhere. What you see is a mass of red states all across the country with a smattering of blue on the West Coast plus Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, and the northeast plus Virginia, Minnesota, and Illinois. That's all. 20 states are blue; 30 states are red. And most of the really tiny states that the Electoral College was designed to help? They're all blue. Even with the small state advantage in the College, on a per-state basis, Trump one 30 to 20.

The United States was set up as a Republic ("What have you given us?" "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."--Benjamin Franklin), not a "Democracy," where you suffer under the illusion that all voters are equal, when half of them are stupid and easily led, as every election shows. "Democracy" is Mob Rule, two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner. God save us from that. The Electoral College was set up to provide for a majority of people AND STATES to elect the President with as broad a mandate as possible from the entire United States--not just the population of a minority of states on both coasts.

a reply to: avgguy

Trump has very little idea of how government works but that aside, hes not completely wrong.

Our politicians are elected thru whats supposed to be a democratic process or "popular vote".

But how they govern or legislate is supposed to be based on the "rule of law" ie the Constitution not because a majority of their constituents simply want to ban guns (Second Amendment and all).

Two different concepts.


a reply to: Trueman

If "winning" means being "elected" by losing the popular vote and still being appointed to office, then yes, I'm mad that he "won".

And Trump is mad too, calling for a revolution.

But this time it involves him, so its ok...

originally posted by: gladtobehere
In 2012, there was a point when it seemed as though Romney was going to win the popular vote but lose due to the electoral college.

Needless to say, Trump was not the least bit pleased.

Kind of ironic and hypocritical considering the fact that Trump lost the popular vote but won due to the electoral college...

Here is some of his outrage in the form of tweets:


We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

Yes, the irony of it all. I just posted a reply to you in another thread On Farage re the UK referendum, he was going to go on the streets if the referendum result was too close to call, that was in May, and he actually used the near exact same figures should it be a defeat for him, as was the outcome in reverse.

The EC is a big joke. America is the only country in the world to use it. Everyone else uses either the majority vote (such as Hungary and Italy I believe) And countries like Australia and New Zealand use a preferences system

It is so the vote cannot be run up in California and New York making them the almighty coronator of emperors and turning the rest of the nation into the land of the serfs.

a reply to: gladtobehere

It is . The Size of an Areas Population should Not Dictate Politics . Every State should have an Equal Voice in Government .

originally posted by: gladtobehere
In 2012, there was a point when it seemed as though Romney was going to win the popular vote but lose due to the electoral college.

Needless to say, Trump was not the least bit pleased.

Kind of ironic and hypocritical considering the fact that Trump lost the popular vote but won due to the electoral college...

Maybe it's a little ironic, but hypocritical would be if he won in 2012 and made those comments in 2016. Given the order things happened in, it just looks like he thought about the system and was smart enough to make it work for him.

Clinton had a larger organization with a more extensive ground game with many more people but Trump had a smarter electoral strategy. He did so well in the Great Lakes he almost got Minnesota even. They all laughed. They all said it couldn't be done.

Also, I'm not much worried about the popular vote issue for one major reason. It took ~$2 billion in propaganda to try and stop him by making people hate him. That's not sustainable. It's like with marketing for movies...a month after all the commercials stop, people start to wonder why people thought that movie was so great. Propaganda only works while it is active and then it fades after it stops. And even with that effort, he got pretty close to also winning the popular vote.

In this case, there is no way they can afford to sustain the anti-Trump propaganda in an non-election year, so his popularity is going to get better for at least a few months. The media will grumble about a 'honeymoon' for a while before pouncing on something in an attempt to declare the 'honeymoon is over.'

George W Bush has seen similar benefits from a similar effect; he rates much more likable now then while in office because the media isn't out to get him all the time anymore.

If the rules at the onset of the campaign were "populous vote" then the strategy would have been much, much different ! Having ones cake and eating it too is always nice, but hey, take what your best shot in a situation like that is always best !

Donald Trump takes advantage of whatever situation he is in, the hell with consistency sometimes.

Actually, the electoral college system hurt his numbers.

He won in a landslide. Would have been an avalanche if a state like CA had its electoral votes broken up into regions as much of the state outside LA/SF voted red.

But he didn't get any of those electoral votes.

originally posted by: schuyler
Like anyone, Trump needs to be educated. He really wasn't in a position to understand the Electoral College. Perhaps he now appreciates it more.

Well the challenge is to take him to task on that.
I do see the biggest flaw in the electoral college though, not that Trump would be coming from that point of view, (he's something else) it would be totally useless today should there be any other major parties involved in the singular election of a country's leader, however there are no other parties as yet with much appreciation, just the Red and the Blues, both pretty much a capitalistic viewpoint more right of centre than most say, European capitalistic countries.
The strange thing is, does walking down the street just reflect the Reds and the Blues, or is something else going on?

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: gladtobehere

So you're mad because he won.

What can that mean, it's nothing to do with the OP, which happens to be true, so what can that mean?

a reply to: Trueman

If "winning" means being "elected" by losing the popular vote and still being appointed to office, then yes, I'm mad that he "won".

And Trump is mad too, calling for a revolution.

But this time it involves him, so its ok...

I understand. I would be mad if was Hillary instead of Trump.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: gladtobehere

So you're mad because he won.

What can that mean, it's nothing to do with the OP, which happens to be true, so what can that mean?

You're mad too

originally posted by: MysticPearl
Actually, the electoral college system hurt his numbers.

He won in a landslide. Would have been an avalanche if a state like CA had its electoral votes broken up into regions as much of the state outside LA/SF voted red.

But he didn't get any of those electoral votes.

Thats makes no sense..

The electoral College helped him..

If there were no electoral college, he loses.

The people did not voter Trump into office yesterday. The Electoral college did

People only say that when their candidate loses. Maybe it should be updated, maybe not, but ive yet to hear a non hypocritical call for it to be changed.

They say they'll never get rid of the electoral college. Because of this...

Either two-thirds of Congress would have to agree to propose it, or two-thirds of state legislatures would have to agree to call a Constitutional convention.

Three-fourths of the states must approve it with, either in the legislature or in a convention.

I say screw the formalities. Put it on the ballot and let the people vote if they want to keep it or get rid of it.