• 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!

What the election results mean

ludin said:
I do not see it possible to do what you described. the reason for Hillary popular vote win came down to huge urban votes in CA and NY.
There is no reason that 3 or 4 major cities in the US should get to decide who is president and that is exactly why the EC works.
Click to expand...

Not long ago, I would have though it unlikely (if not practically impossible) that a candidate could win the popular vote by over 2 million ballots while still losing the electoral vote by 74 votes--both of which are pretty big margins. I get why Trump supporters are happy, and it's not my way to have a knee-jerk reaction. But I do think it's just unreasonable to dismiss these numbers altogether. This is a much bigger electoral win coupled with a much bigger popular loss than any we've ever seen.

The hypothetical scenario I described would probably require either a massive population shift, or would require that rural counties in blue states vote with the major cities in those states and not with other rural counties in other states.

IIRC, somewhere in one of the Federalist papers, the major concern the Electoral College was meant to address is the divide in concerns between rural and urban (though at that time, the balance of power tilted the other way). I think it would be problematic if a candidate won not only the popular vote in a huge landslide, but also an equitable portion of rural counties, while still losing the election overall.
 
Reed95 said:
Looking back to the surprising November 8th election results, there have been all kinds of statements, reviews, and declarations. They range from “ democrats detached from the reality of so many blue-collar working people suffering in pain”, to “fake news helped shaping the election results”, “new rules of politics”, … to “ backlash towards changes from past decades”.

But the truth is, on November 8, the majority of Americans chose Hillary Clinton ( 48.2% : 46.3% ) for the next POTUS. Trump won the election by winning the electoral votes ( 306 : 232 ).

A subset of American people, who happen to be in the “battle-ground” states, decided the election outcome for the entire country with their over- proportional power. That was what happened.

Here is a comparison. In 2000, Bush became President by winning the electoral votes 271 - 266. But Al Gore won the popular votes also just barely, 48.4% - 47.9%.

This time Hillary Clinton won American people’s support with a clear margin. Yet, Trump was imposed on the majority of Americans.

Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …

Also, about those new rules, I don’t think America will tolerate Trump’s ‘new rules’ much longer.
Click to expand...

Take away New York, Chicago, and LA, and well, No, American's oicked their next president by an outstanding majority... ;()

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Take away New York, Chicago, and LA, and well, No, American's oicked their next president by an outstanding majority... ;()

Tim-
Click to expand...

Yeah, remove 15 million people from the equation and it's different! Are people from NYC, Chicago and LA not Americans?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Not long ago, I would have though it unlikely (if not practically impossible) that a candidate could win the popular vote by over 2 million ballots while still losing the electoral vote by 74 votes--both of which are pretty big margins. I get why Trump supporters are happy, and it's not my way to have a knee-jerk reaction. But I do think it's just unreasonable to dismiss these numbers altogether. This is a much bigger electoral win coupled with a much bigger popular loss than any we've ever seen.
Click to expand...

When you look where the votes actually came from which the majority were from CA and NY then she really didn't capture a wide section of the popular vote from the US. it was few major large cities.

The hypothetical scenario I described would probably require either a massive population shift, or would require that rural counties in blue states vote with the major cities in those states and not with other rural counties in other states.
Click to expand...

that is exactly what lost her the election. She lost the surubs of major cities. in some places like FL and OH it was enough to carry it for trump.

IIRC, somewhere in one of the Federalist papers, the major concern the Electoral College was meant to address is the divide in concerns between rural and urban (though at that time, the balance of power tilted the other way). I think it would be problematic if a candidate won not only the popular vote in a huge landslide, but also an equitable portion of rural counties, while still losing the election overall.
Click to expand...

the EC was a compromise of those wanting a popular vote (which was the first thing proposed) and those that objected because they feared large population centers would carry a bigger voice.
this objection came from southern states that didn't want to see candidate ignore them because all the votes were in the north.

Clinton did just that if you look at the election maps by county.
 
TurtleDude said:
sounds like sore loser nonsense. "new rules"? LOL, its the Hillary fan boys and fluffers who think the popular vote actually means something.
Click to expand...

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

Donald J. Trump, Nov. 6, 2012
 
Kobie said:
Yeah, remove 15 million people from the equation and it's different! Are people from NYC, Chicago and LA not Americans?
Click to expand...

why do people continue to make up this stuff? not one person has said this.

There is a direct link between those cities and the amount of the popular vote that Clinton won.
if you wish for 4 or 5 major cities in the US to decide the presidency then good for you.

I do not. I prefer a more equal footing of representation. where all voices are heard not just 5 major US cities.
 
ludin said:
that is exactly what lost her the election. She lost the surubs of major cities. in some places like FL and OH it was enough to carry it for trump.
Click to expand...

Which is why you won't find me calling for the EC to be abolished. I get what happened, and I agree there is merit in your point. But there is also some merit in the counterpoint, especially given the disparity in result between popular vote and electoral college.
 
Kobie said:
Yeah, remove 15 million people from the equation and it's different! Are people from NYC, Chicago and LA not Americans?
Click to expand...

Hey, aren't those the sanctuary cities? So, maybe not. :shrug:
 
ludin said:
it doesn't matter how much you win by a win is a win.
Click to expand...

It matters when someone can lose the election despite a significant lead in popular vote.

ludin said:
Good thing the presidency isn't about a popularity contest.
It is a national election in which all voices should be heard not just a few major cities in the US.
Click to expand...

... which is precisely why each person should get one vote, regardless of where they live, with every vote in the country having exactly the same weight and influence. My state leans heavily Dem, so the votes of Trump voters have almost no chance of having any influence on the election outcome. Likewise for heavily Rep states and people voting for Hillary there. Giving such a disproportionate influence to voters in swing states does a disservice to the huge number of voters in the rest of the country who are in the minority in their non-swing states.

Reed95 said:
We all give him our open minds and a chance to lead, for the sake of the nation and the country.

But watching him behavior over the past month, I see nothing that signals hopes, either for the country, or for him being less egomania, and more rational and responsible. Do you think he has enough personal depth to be the leader of this great country?
Click to expand...

He is very atypical for a US President, so I think we need to try to understand him on his own terms, rather than comparing with past Presidents who have usually been career politicians. I've gone from being repulsed by Trump to now having some hope that he could wind up being a good President. I suggest reading 'The Art of the Deal' to get some insight into who Trump is, how he thinks, and why it has worked well for him for the past several decades. IMO, he has increased downside risks, but also increased upside potential - such is the nature of change.
 
Kobie said:
Yeah, remove 15 million people from the equation and it's different! Are people from NYC, Chicago and LA not Americans?
Click to expand...

Sure, they just think different than us sane American's, and they tend to all hang with each other in close quarters :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Sure, they just think different than us sane American's, and they tend to all hang with each other in close quarters :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
LessBiased? said:
It matters when someone can lose the election despite a significant lead in popular vote.



... which is precisely why each person should get one vote, regardless of where they live, with every vote in the country having exactly the same weight and influence. My state leans heavily Dem, so the votes of Trump voters have almost no chance of having any influence on the election outcome. Likewise for heavily Rep states and people voting for Hillary there. Giving such a disproportionate influence to voters in swing states does a disservice to the huge number of voters in the rest of the country who are in the minority in their non-swing states.



He is very atypical for a US President, so I think we need to try to understand him on his own terms, rather than comparing with past Presidents who have usually been career politicians. I've gone from being repulsed by Trump to now having some hope that he could wind up being a good President. I suggest reading 'The Art of the Deal' to get some insight into who Trump is, how he thinks, and why it has worked well for him for the past several decades. IMO, he has increased downside risks, but also increased upside potential - such is the nature of change.
Click to expand...

I've read The Art of the Deal, and it did give me some insight into who Trump is and how he thinks.

He's an asshole.
 
Kobie said:
I've read The Art of the Deal, and it did give me some insight into who Trump is and how he thinks.

He's an asshole.
Click to expand...

He's certainly brash and not PC. Understandably, many people will always hate him. But as a business owner myself, I can see how his approach can be effective. I don't see him as a role model for children, but I think and hope he can be an effective President.
 
Kobie said:
"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

Donald J. Trump, Nov. 6, 2012
Click to expand...

Vote Barry Goldwater

The hildabeast circa 1964

BFD.
 
Kobie said:
TurtleDude uses deflect! It's not very effective.
Click to expand...

what relevance does your quote from Trump have to the sore loser nonsense? Trump was not a candidate in 2012. Trump wasn't an official for any party in 2012. Politicians change their minds all the time. Obama as a candidate and a politician and an office holder did so with gay marriage.

BFD. you all lost, Trump won, get over it
 
TurtleDude said:
what relevance does your quote from Trump have to the sore loser nonsense? Trump was not a candidate in 2012. Trump wasn't an official for any party in 2012. Politicians change their minds all the time. Obama as a candidate and a politician and an office holder did so with gay marriage.

BFD. you all lost, Trump won, get over it
Click to expand...

So you claim it's only "Hillary slurpers" who care about the popular vote; I show you Trump's statement from four years ago; and all you do is make excuses. Pretty pathetic argument, TD.
 
celticwar17 said:
The electoral college is a compromise of a democracy and a republic of states, it is meant to keep mob rule in check
Click to expand...

What mob would that be? Protestant Whites are the dominant group in the US, and we all know who they voted for.
 
Orly? said:
It's a mandate!! Trump won in a landslide!!

Rs rule all of the free world..
Click to expand...

What is your definition of a landslide?
 
Reed95 said:
Looking back to the surprising November 8th election results, there have been all kinds of statements, reviews, and declarations. They range from “ democrats detached from the reality of so many blue-collar working people suffering in pain”, to “fake news helped shaping the election results”, “new rules of politics”, … to “ backlash towards changes from past decades”.

But the truth is, on November 8, the majority of Americans chose Hillary Clinton ( 48.2% : 46.3% ) for the next POTUS. Trump won the election by winning the electoral votes ( 306 : 232 ).

A subset of American people, who happen to be in the “battle-ground” states, decided the election outcome for the entire country with their over- proportional power. That was what happened.

Here is a comparison. In 2000, Bush became President by winning the electoral votes 271 - 266. But Al Gore won the popular votes also just barely, 48.4% - 47.9%.

This time Hillary Clinton won American people’s support with a clear margin. Yet, Trump was imposed on the majority of Americans.

Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …

Also, about those new rules, I don’t think America will tolerate Trump’s ‘new rules’ much longer.
Click to expand...

Which is why in the year 2016 we no longer need a mechanism from the 1700's designed to thwart the will of the people should the elites not approve of the choice of the people. Abolish the EC and do it asap. Sadly this will not be done until the Republicans candidate gets bit in the ass by the EC and loses the White House after winning the popular vote due to the Dem winning the EC.
 
LessBiased? said:
He's certainly brash and not PC. Understandably, many people will always hate him. But as a business owner myself, I can see how his approach can be effective. I don't see him as a role model for children, but I think and hope he can be an effective President.
Click to expand...

Why on Earth would you want a president who isn't a role model for children?
 
LessBiased? said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/

Forbes Welcome

It's true that Trump's margin based on the EC was fairly large. However, that was the result of winning multiple swing states by a very small margin (less than 2%). It just happened that several of the swings tipped his way, kind of like flipping a coin and getting heads four times in a row - that's unlikely, but it can happen, and it's a surprise when it does.

Trump generally had about as many votes as Romney and McCain. What was different for Hillary was she got less votes than Obama, which reflects a slight drop in turnout for her - enough to tip the several swing states, and the EC, to Trump.

So two of the problems with the EC system are (a) it can give a result opposite of the overall popular vote, and (b) the margin of difference between the EC and popular vote can be large, which gives a misleading impression of voter sentiment.

Ask this question: if we had only the popular vote system all along, would the public support a suggestion to switch to something like the EC system? I strongly doubt it.
Click to expand...

I will give you the very real fact, had Trump been a better person, then he would have won even higher numbers and not just squeaked by the swing states.

What made the difference for him is the very real fact Hillary was an even worse human being than he.

Trump has a dirty mouth and used dirty words.

Hillary, OTOH had a 30 year history of dirty DEEDS. yet the Dems were almost zombie-like in picking her. It was like they were in a trance and could not see or say anything else.

It cost them dearly.
 
Kobie said:
So you claim it's only "Hillary slurpers" who care about the popular vote; I show you Trump's statement from four years ago; and all you do is make excuses. Pretty pathetic argument, TD.
Click to expand...

what is pathetic is you thinking what Trump said 4 years ago even remotely matters now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom