• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Won the VOTE.

Excon said:
No.
The Presidential election is a vote by the States as to who will be President. Not a vote of the people.
The People vote in their individual States to determine who their State will vote for.

The States chose Trump.

End of story.
Click to expand...


Pssst. Hillary won the vote. Tell your friends.
 
Excon said:
You are ignoring what I was replying to.
That claim was that Hillary won the vote. Capisce?
She did not win the vote as the vote was of the States and they chose Trump.

As you ignored what was being replied to, your reply is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

He's clearly referencing the popular vote. If you couldn't figure that out, well, I hope you've become a little more enlightened today.
 
JackA said:
Pssst. Hillary won the vote. Tell your friends.
Click to expand...
Psst. She only won the vote in limited states which was not enough to actually win the election.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not so. Using three states A, B and C with 10, 20 and 31 EC votes, respectively, and 2 candidates (#1 and #2):

Popular vote results - #1 gets 70% in A, #1 gets 80% in B and #2 gets 51% in C.

Winner take all EC version - EC votes are (10+20) or 30 total for #1 and 31 total for #2.

Proportional EC version - EC votes are (7+16+15) or 38 total for #1 and (3+4+16) or 23 total for #2.

As you can see, the same popular vote can generate a different EC winning candidate - using each EC system.
Click to expand...
Hey, that was pretty good! ;)
 
Deuce said:
He's clearly referencing the popular vote. If you couldn't figure that out, well, I hope you've become a little more enlightened today.
Click to expand...
Clearly you do not understand the reply that was made.
The popular vote is a fiction to, and is irrelevant to whom the States choose to elect.

Again.

The Presidential election is a vote by the States as to who will be President. Not a vote of the people.
The People vote in their individual States to determine who their State will vote for.

The States chose Trump.

End of story.​
 
JackA said:
The point going forward is that Trump has no mandate. He'll claim one. It is being claimed for him already. Democrats won more House votes, too, but, given our "rigged system", to borrow a term, Republicans have the House on a similar artificial basis to their possession of the Presidency. As more Presidential votes were won by Clinton, so we're more House votes won by Democrats.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the mismatch in popular votes to House Seats. Dems need to move and disperse themselves into states and congressional districts where their votes are more meaningful.
 
Casper said:
I would consider that, at least it brings it a little closer to The People, but why not all the way?
Click to expand...

To make small (by population) states matter at least a bit.
 
NoLeftNoRight said:
Unlike with Hillary...there is some chance.....yes.
Seems you're upset that under Trump, America might not continue to whore itself out under unfair trade with deceptive nations who couldn't care less the harm they do to the American people?
Click to expand...

Globalization is here to stay, prepare yourself for that.

Who said I had an issue with knocking out unfair trade deals?

Trump was actually right about NAFTA, but it's been said for years by people on the left and right already. I don't think it needs to totally go, but its' current structure has only benefited corporate fat cats.

BTW, deceptive nations? There is no deception by other nations, it's our political leadership being deceptive.
 
Fenton said:
The electoral college makes it very difficult for a Republican to win, at least prior to last night and I still support it over a straight vote. No one thought Trump was going to flip 6 States and even the Professional polsters had Hillary winning every battleground state and had them tied in Ohio. The fact he did is what makes it such a crushing defeat.

It would be akin to mob rules and it either party could exploit the process to make sure the other never wins again.
Click to expand...

Republicans have won only a single popular vote since 1988 and generally recieve 1 million less votes than Republicans in congressional elections across the country, so the data would suggest the opposite is true. It's almost impossible for a democrat to overcome the multiple low pop districts, without an overwhelming city turnout. I'm for the electoral college, but it needs to be rezoned to represent actual population levels. A few states deserve more electoral, both red and blue.
 
Chomsky said:
Hey, that was pretty good! ;)
Click to expand...

Thank you, I was trying to show that running a campaign to win C (the urban state?) even by a few votes would be a no brainer and the other (rural and suburban?) states could have no say in the matter. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not so - please see post #46.
Click to expand...

Um, yeah. Proportional EC yields different results than the winner-take-all EC system.

But Proportional EC doesn't yield different results than pure popular vote unless you have different ratios of citizens:electoral votes.

(which happens today and means that a Wyoming citizen's vote is three times as effective as a Californian's vote)
 
JackA said:
Pssst. Hillary won the vote. Tell your friends.
Click to expand...

Psst, the Hillary hardcore don't understand how US presidential Elections work-must be the NEA dumbing down the students again.
 
Topical

 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not so. Using three states A, B and C with 10, 20 and 31 EC votes, respectively, and 2 candidates (#1 and #2):

Popular vote results - #1 gets 70% in A, #1 gets 80% in B and #2 gets 51% in C.

Winner take all EC version - EC votes are (10+20) 30 total for #1 and 31 total for #2.

Proportional EC version - EC votes are (7+16+15) or 38 total for #1 and (3+4+16) or 23 total for #2.

As you can see, the same popular vote can generate a different EC winning candidate - using each EC system.
Click to expand...
You just confirmed what I said.


That is nothing more than the same thing as a direct election by the people instead of an Election by the States.​


Maybe you didn't understand that when I said "instead of an Election by the States", it meant as it is supposed to be now (winner take all) in each state, who then cast their vote for that winner regardless on the number of electors.

The way you proposed is still the same as a direct election of the people which is not what the Presidential Election is supposed to be.
 
Last edited:
ThoughtEx. said:
Republicans have won only a single popular vote since 1988 and generally recieve 1 million less votes than Republicans in congressional elections across the country, so the data would suggest the opposite is true. It's almost impossible for a democrat to overcome the multiple low pop districts, without an overwhelming city turnout. I'm for the electoral college, but it needs to be rezoned to represent actual population levels. A few states deserve more electoral, both red and blue.
Click to expand...

what was "Gore's margin" vs the number of votes that were uncounted because it wouldn't have changed the electoral college

How many people in time zones behind the Eastern Time zone didn't vote because the MSM Gore slurpers called Florida (and basically the election) for Gore?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Thank you, I was trying to show that running a campaign to win C (the urban state?) even by a few votes would be a no brainer and the other (rural and suburban?) states could have no say in the matter. ;)
Click to expand...
Yep, saw that!
 
Deuce said:
Um, yeah. Proportional EC yields different results than the winner-take-all EC system.

But Proportional EC doesn't yield different results than pure popular vote unless you have different ratios of citizens:electoral votes.

(which happens today and means that a Wyoming citizen's vote is three times as effective as a Californian's vote)
Click to expand...

That was the intent but folks never envisioned such vast differences in population density. The majority of the US population now lives in just 146 of of our 3000 counties.
 
Casper said:
Really? Well Then, We Shall See, Now Won't We.
Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what you are referring to. Trump won, Hillary lost. The outcome may have not been to your liking, but it was outcome according to the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom