• 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

haymarket said:
NO - she still finished first by over a half million votes of citizens and no other candidate bested her among the peoples votes.
Click to expand...

But the competition was not to see who could get the most votes it was a competition to see who could get the most electoral college votes.

That's like saying the football team with the most yards should be the winner even though they scored less points. It's about who has the most points, yards are irrelevant. The popular vote is irrelevant.
 
haymarket said:
The argument is about the 2016 results. And Trumps win was absolutely fueled by lower educated voters.
Click to expand...

So, what's your point? Seem arrogant to me and typically liberal. Lower educated voters are just peachy keen when they vote for Democrats, but they taint an election when they vote Republican - is that it??
 
haymarket said:
Although this election indicates that it was plenty of lower educated voters who voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

Obviously not. If not for the big population centers on the East and West Coast, where the majority of low information voters reside, the popular vote issue the losers are crying about wouldn't be an issue.

These big population centers are where the majority of people dependent on Big Government reside. I haven't seen the latest figures, but California has been ranked at having the highest supplemental poverty in the Nation. It seems logical they would vote for any candidate who promises to continue to provide the benefits they have decided they want to live on.
 
CanadaJohn said:
So, what's your point? Seem arrogant to me and typically liberal. Lower educated voters are just peachy keen when they vote for Democrats, but they taint an election when they vote Republican - is that it??
Click to expand...

No - it is not now and has never been my issue. It has almost always been a right wing issue to disparage black and minority voters voting for Democrats. I only responded to another bringing it up again in this discussion to point out that this time the shoe is on the other foot.

I do not care how much education or information a voter has and it is not an issue for me and never has been as it is not a factor deciding if someone can vote or not.
 
ocean515 said:
Obviously not. If not for the big population centers on the East and West Coast, where the majority of low information voters reside, the popular vote issue the losers are crying about wouldn't be an issue.

These big population centers are where the majority of people dependent on Big Government reside. I haven't seen the latest figures, but California has been ranked at having the highest supplemental poverty in the Nation. It seems logical they would vote for any candidate who promises to continue to provide the benefits they have decided they want to live on.
Click to expand...

Could you please provide the standards for what constitutes a LOW INFORMATION VOTER so that it is understood when you use the term?
 
haymarket said:
The argument is about the 2016 results. And Trumps win was absolutely fueled by lower educated voters.
Click to expand...
I disagree wholly with that characterization of Trump voters being lower educated voters. That is also a wholly prejudiced statement (and maybe bitter). Maybe, just maybe, Trump voters don't have the benefit of primary, secondary and college education that emphasizes progressive education and attitudes and that is what has you upset?

If you ask me, the 'higher educated' folks are the more indoctrinated folks. The ones who go to college and have their safe spaces. The ones who can't think for themselves.
 
Crovax said:
But the competition was not to see who could get the most votes it was a competition to see who could get the most electoral college votes.

That's like saying the football team with the most yards should be the winner even though they scored less points. It's about who has the most points, yards are irrelevant. The popular vote is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Again, I understand that and accept that Trump won by the EC rules. Please go back to the OP to see the issues I think this opens up for discussion.
 
haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...

Since no one on the left has even begun to petition for such a change, there is no way of knowing what the republicans will do. But it requires a constitutional amendment so if all liberals are going to do is whine and riot in the streets, I don't see the electoral process ending any time soon.
 
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...


The endeavor is to win >269 electoral votes, not win the popular vote, I reject your premise entirely. Since the election is structured around the EC the first place winner there wins so long as s/he surpasses 269 electoral votes. So Trump is the first place winner.
 
CanadaJohn said:
So, what's your point? Seem arrogant to me and typically liberal. Lower educated voters are just peachy keen when they vote for Democrats, but they taint an election when they vote Republican - is that it??
Click to expand...

Argue with the stats - not me.

In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980. For example, in 2012, there was hardly any difference between the two groups: College graduates backed Obama over Romney by 50%-48%, and those without a college degree also supported Obama 51%-47%.
Click to expand...

That is from the Pew Research site.
 
Fletch said:
Since no one on the left has even begun to petition for such a change, there is no way of knowing what the republicans will do. But it requires a constitutional amendment so if all liberals are going to do is whine and riot in the streets, I don't see the electoral process ending any time soon.
Click to expand...

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has passed in ten states (comprising 165 votes) thus far.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The endeavor is to win >269 electoral votes, not win the popular vote, I reject your premise entirely. Since the election is structured around the EC the first place winner there wins so long as s/he surpasses 269 electoral votes. So Trump is the first place winner.
Click to expand...

Again, I am NOT arguing who won this election. I am asking if the results will spur an effort to get rid of the Electoral College and impact the perception of Trump as President.
 
Fletch said:
Since no one on the left has even begun to petition for such a change, there is no way of knowing what the republicans will do. But it requires a constitutional amendment so if all liberals are going to do is whine and riot in the streets, I don't see the electoral process ending any time soon.
Click to expand...

Good point. But the election is just days past so lets wait and see if an effort springs up. But without Republican support, it will die in its infancy and not even get off the ground.
 
RickJames3000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL

It means everything. Under the system liberal/socialist progressives appear to be calling for, the tyranny of the majority would rule. The issues important to the people populating the majority of the country would be ignored.

The desire to eliminate their voice is most certainly inane and revealing.
 
haymarket said:
Again, I understand that and accept that Trump won by the EC rules. Please go back to the OP to see the issues I think this opens up for discussion.
Click to expand...

Obviously you don't as you keep trying to say that Trump finished 2nd in "the competition"

It's going to be the same exact thing as 2000. Democrats are pushing the popular vote because they lost and the GOP is holding the the EC because they won. If the outcome was reversed both sides would be singing a different tune. It's just partisan hackers, nothing more.
 
haymarket said:
Argue with the stats - not me.



That is from the Pew Research site.
Click to expand...

Which simply proves Ocean's point. This time around, the "uneducated" in population centers, who primarily vote in those who promote teat sucking programs decided they didn't like Clinton nearly as much as they liked Obama. That doesn't mean that more uneducated voters came out to support Trump, it just means that large swaths of uneducated Democrat electors stayed home. I won't dredge up the statistics, but I remember clearly watching CNN on election night and John King made a point of it repeatedly that Clinton was not getting anywhere near the margins that Obama got in cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, etc., costing her the election.
 
Crovax said:
The Constitution also allows states to decide how they use that electoral college
Click to expand...
Liberal Governors didn't do anything when they had the chance.
 
haymarket said:
Could you please provide the standards for what constitutes a LOW INFORMATION VOTER so that it is understood when you use the term?
Click to expand...

I didn't introduce the phrase into the conversation, so you'll have to ask the person who did. Perhaps that poster can give you the details.

Personally I think of low information voters as those who focus on a single issue.

For example, here in California, where liberal/progressive policies have resulted in the highest supplemental poverty rate in the Nation, these voters tend to focus on one primary issue - how much do I get from the Government, and who promises to provide me more. This could manifest itself as money, or preferential treatment.
 
RickJames3000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe the simple answer is for more liberal/Democrats to move away from the teat sucking centers of America and populate parts of the great Midwest, changing the demographics of those voting constituencies. That would require most of them to get jobs and give up their protest cottage industries, but it could be done. And guess what, if they started getting jobs and paying taxes, they might stop being liberal/Democrats in the long run - win, win!!
 
Crovax said:
The Constitution also allows states to decide how they use that electoral college
Click to expand...
I misunderstood your previous post and I agree. How a state's electoral votes can 'hold weight' can be determined by states. There is, however, no doing away with electoral college without an amendment or decree from SCOTUS (which everyone except the sore losers of this election seem to posit).
 
Last edited:
Greenbeard said:
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has passed in ten states (comprising 165 votes) thus far.
Click to expand...

Well you are on your way then. Best of luck
 
ocean515 said:
I didn't introduce the phrase into the conversation, so you'll have to ask the person who did. Perhaps that poster can give you the details.

Personally I think of low information voters as those who focus on a single issue.

For example, here in California, where liberal/progressive policies have resulted in the highest supplemental poverty rate in the Nation, these voters tend to focus on one primary issue - how much do I get from the Government, and who promises to provide me more. This could manifest itself as money, or preferential treatment.
Click to expand...

Haymarket introduced the term lower educated or uneducated and now wants you to define it because it's blown up in his face.
 
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...

A heck of a lot of the time in actual racing..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom