• 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!

Clinton popular vote disparity exceeds Gore in 2000

cabse5 said:
You know, one has to convene a Constitutional Convention to begin the process of making an amendment to The Constitution to change voting from electoral college to popular vote. There has to be a 2/3 majority of both houses of congress to bring an amendment up to vote and then 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment for it to be passed as an amendment to The Constitution. There are plenty of 'flyover' states and representatives in congress that wouldn't ratify this popular vote amendment proposal. Case closed.
Click to expand...

You do realize that it could be defacto changed without an amendment. So don't dismiss it so lightly, it is important to stand strong for the EC.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I haven't seen the final totals, if such even exist at this point, but did Clinton receive over 50% of all the ballots cast, including for third party and other candidates? If not, one has the same argument with Clinton, that a majority of the electorate didn't want her as President.

And yes, it is the same argument as with Bush/Gore, and yes, it is equally flawed and the resting place of those who failed and yet are unwilling or unable to accept the blame for their own failure. Al Gore lost in 2000 because the people in his own State of Tennessee rejected him - those electoral college votes from Tennessee for Gore would have made Florida irrelevant, but you never hear much about that when liberals and Democrat whine about the electoral college and the popular vote.

Likewise, this time around, Clinton considered Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa as locks and spent little time there, other than in the main population centers. She got what she deserved and has nobody to blame but herself and the party that cheated to crowned her.
Click to expand...

The fact remains that both Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016 got over a half million more Americans to vote for them than the second place finisher.

In what endeavor of competition do you know of that has the second place finisher go home with the championship?
 
haymarket said:
Do you think Trump and people angry about the EC mechanism are talking about the same thing when they talk about an unfair system?

Because I think it is clear that they are NOT.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree they're not. Progressives are complaining about the mechanics of the election process, they are complaining about the election process, and Trump was complaining about the undue influence certain bodies had on the election process which he feels is legitimate.
 
haymarket said:
The fact remains that both Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016 got over a half million more Americans to vote for them than the second place finisher.

In what endeavor of competition do you know of that has the second place finisher go home with the championship?
Click to expand...

Donald Trump was the first place finisher in the electoral college
 
haymarket said:
The fact remains that both Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016 got over a half million more Americans to vote for them than the second place finisher.

In what endeavor of competition do you know of that has the second place finisher go home with the championship?
Click to expand...
We could start with competition to decide presidential hopefuls for each party. Tell me how that super delegate thing in the dem party works, again. Tell me how the people's vote translates to a vote in congress.
 
RickJames3000 said:
Maybe we shouldn't let low information voters have so much out-sized influence. You don't even listen to your own chosen ruler:

Donald Trump Described the Electoral College as a 'Disaster' in 2012 : snopes.com
Click to expand...


Exactly.

That is why the EC exists, to keep the low information voters from deciding for the rest of the Nation who should President of the United States.

If one looks at the map of the States to see how they voted, one can see that President Elect Trump won far more States than Hillary. Hillary, for the most part, only did well in the big East/West population centers where the majority of low information voters reside.
 
haymarket said:
The fact remains that both Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016 got over a half million more Americans to vote for them than the second place finisher.

In what endeavor of competition do you know of that has the second place finisher go home with the championship?
Click to expand...

In virtually every endeavor where races are held, the favourite isn't guaranteed a win.

Using your analogy, Donald Trump should have been crowned President before the election was even held because Republicans drew more votes than Democrats in the primaries and he drew more votes in the primaries than any other candidate for the Republican nomination.

Liberals hate losing - I get it. Conservatives hate losing too, but generally we don't blame the game when we lose - we try to play better next time. Liberals, on the other hand, have a twisted belief that they have a god given right/entitlement to lead and when that doesn't happen, it isn't their fault, it is the fault of others.

Liberals and Democrats got a good smack upside the head this week. No, they are not chosen to lead - no, they are not entitled to lead - and, no, arrogance is not a tool that decides elections. It's not just American liberals - it's liberals everywhere. It's a fatal personality flaw. You just have to look at the protestors in US cities to see how arrogant and entitled they believe themselves to be. Let's see if they're smart enough to learn from it going forward.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Donald Trump was the first place finisher in the electoral college
Click to expand...

We all know that reality. That is not the question. Trump finished second in the vote of over 120 million American citizens. In what endeavor of competition is the second place finisher awarded the championship?
 
CanadaJohn said:
In virtually every endeavor where races are held.
Click to expand...

Give me several examples where the second place finisher in a competition is awarded the championship over the first place finisher.
 
Crovax said:
You do realize that it could be defacto changed without an amendment. So don't dismiss it so lightly, it is important to stand strong for the EC.
Click to expand...
You mean the Supreme Court?
 
ocean515 said:
Exactly.

That is why the EC exists, to keep the low information voters from deciding for the rest of the Nation who should President of the United States.

If one looks at the map of the States to see how they voted, one can see that President Elect Trump won far more States than Hillary. Hillary, for the most part, only did well in the big East/West population centers where the majority of low information voters reside.
Click to expand...

Although this election indicates that it was plenty of lower educated voters who voted for Trump.
 
cabse5 said:
We could start with competition to decide presidential hopefuls for each party. Tell me how that super delegate thing in the dem party works, again. Tell me how the people's vote translates to a vote in congress.
Click to expand...

The competition is for delegates. And the person who finishes first in that competition is awarded the nomination if they get the majority.

No person is elected to Congress - be it House or Senate - if they finish second to some other candidate who rag against them on the ballot.
 
haymarket said:
We all know that reality. That is not the question. Trump finished second in the vote of over 120 million American citizens. In what endeavor of competition is the second place finisher awarded the championship?
Click to expand...

None. Including this election. Trump came in first in electoral votes and that is how the winner is determined.
 
haymarket said:
Give me several examples where the second place finisher in a competition is awarded the championship over the first place finisher.
Click to expand...

I finished my quote, apparently, after you started to respond. My point was that the leader heading in doesn't always win when there are multiple elements to the championship. Clinton won a plurality of votes, not a majority - she lost a majority of votes in the electoral college. As of this morning, that makes her a loser, officially and otherwise.
 
Fletch said:
None. Including this election. Trump came in first in electoral votes and that is how the winner is determined.
Click to expand...

Yes - we know that. The question is will this sort of result - twice in just the last five elections over 16 years - lead to an effort to change it?

Or will Republicans did in their heels to protect and keep a system which has benefitted themselves?
 
haymarket said:
Give me several examples where the second place finisher in a competition is awarded the championship over the first place finisher.
Click to expand...

In all 7 of Lance Armstrong's tour de France victories :mrgreen:
 
CanadaJohn said:
I finished my quote, apparently, after you started to respond. My point was that the leader heading in doesn't always win when there are multiple elements to the championship. Clinton won a plurality of votes, not a majority - she lost a majority of votes in the electoral college. As of this morning, that makes her a loser, officially and otherwise.
Click to expand...

NO - she still finished first by over a half million votes of citizens and no other candidate bested her among the peoples votes.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If you want to take the supposedly ignorant out of the equation, Obama would never have been President.
Click to expand...

The argument is about the 2016 results. And Trumps win was absolutely fueled by lower educated voters.
 
haymarket said:
The competition is for delegates. And the person who finishes first in that competition is awarded the nomination if they get the majority.

No person is elected to Congress - be it House or Senate - if they finish second to some other candidate who rag against them on the ballot.
Click to expand...
Does every dem delegate's vote hold the same 'power' as a dem super delegate's vote?? No. You know this.
No person within the US is able to file their own personal vote in congress. What are you spouting off about?
 
ocean515 said:
Exactly.

That is why the EC exists, to keep the low information voters from deciding for the rest of the Nation who should President of the United States.

If one looks at the map of the States to see how they voted, one can see that President Elect Trump won far more States than Hillary. Hillary, for the most part, only did well in the big East/West population centers where the majority of low information voters reside.
Click to expand...

Who the hell cares how many states Trump wins? That means nothing.
There's no justifiable reason to give some citizens more influence in choosing our executive than others. Why would we do so based upon where a citizen chooses to live?
Your argument is inane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom