Clinton will win the popular vote

[homersapien 11,362]

7 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Sorry, but you arguments are falling on deaf ears over here. Its not about relevance its about political power and you simply cannot see even after posting that Hillary ONLY won 57 counties out of 3141 nationwide that it accomplishes precisely what it was designed to accomplish.

Trust me, I realize that. That's why I am really writing for other people who might be reading this.

 

[TheBlueVue 177]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Just now, homersapien said:

Trust me, I realize that. That's why I am really writing for other people who might be reading this.

 

It's not my party.  I am not a member and have no say-so in how they run their primary. My "sincerity" has nothing to do with the Democratic party nor Hillary Clinton, nor Donald Trump for that matter.

I personally believe the electoral college is a vestigial system that is no longer relevant.

So you can accept my word for that or not.  There's nothing I can do to force you to believe me, even though your word has always been good enough for me.

 

And all the while you completely ignore the reality that Hillary won a measly 57 counties out of 3141 and you cant process the fact that the EC worked exactly as it was envisioned. I get it. You're upset that Trump won under a socalled "vestigial system" but he's your President now. The reality is the EC is hardly vestigial in fact it worked exactly how it was intended by not letting the population centers of 57 counties control the outcome of a national election.

[cptau 169]

Can you name a country  the size of or near the size of the United States that uses direct popular vote to elect a chief executive?   The only one I know of is Russia.   Where you get Putin!    The mob likes Putin.   

The notion of popular vote is not even mentioned in the US Constitution concerning election of the President.  The states can individually select their electors in almost any manner they choose.    Initially the electors were appointed by the state legislators. All states now use state level popular vote, but some states have even partially separated their electors by Congressional districts (Maine and Nebraska).  Good luck with the states agreeing to change all this with a constitutional amendment.  

One option is to select Presidential electors totally based on individual Congressional district popular votes.  Trump probably still wins as the House of Representatives has a Republican majority.  The DNC actually pushed this idea several years ago and abandoned it when they discovered they were better off with the current elector selection method. Congressional districts in upstate NY,  rural California, Michigan, Oregon, Illinois, Washington, etc. would go Republican.  

If popular vote is used for Presidential election, why not use it to directly vote on lots of issues.   Constitutional amendments,  tax increases, impeachment trials, etc.      How do you think the country would vote on amendments concerning abortion, same sex marriage, legalizing drugs, etc...............    Mob rule?

 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

22 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

And all the while you completely ignore the reality that Hillary won a measly 57 counties out of 3141 and you cant process the fact that the EC worked exactly as it was envisioned. I get it. You're upset that Trump won under a so called "vestigial system" but he's your President now. The reality is the EC is hardly vestigial in fact it worked exactly how it was intended by not letting the population centers of 57 counties control the outcome of a national election.

Is there something in the constitution about the county's role in presidential elections I have missed?

And why should I be talking to someone with a self-admitted "deaf ear" in the first place?

Stop making up stuff about me. I said my feelings about the electoral college have nothing to do with this election.  If anything I am glad Trump won.  I didn't want to endure 4 or 8 years of Clinton. She was obviously the wrong candidate at the wrong time.  Trump was the wrong candidate at the right time. As such, Trump will set up the future for progressives nicely IMO.  I don't think he will get through 4 years.

And as far as the electoral college working the way it was intended, if it did, it would reject Trump as our next president.  Read the article I posted earlier for an explanation of that.

Thus the irony of your insistence about the electoral college working "as intended".  It's a vestigial system that in no way works as it was intended. 

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, cptau said:

Can you name a country  the size of or near the size of the United States that uses direct popular vote to elect a chief executive?   The only one I know of is Russia.   Where you get Putin!    The mob likes Putin.   

The notion of popular vote is not even mentioned in the US Constitution concerning election of the President.  The states can individually select their electors in almost any manner they choose.    Initially the electors were appointed by the state legislators. All states now use state level popular vote, but some states have even partially separated their electors by Congressional districts (Maine and Nebraska).  Good luck with the states agreeing to change all this with a constitutional amendment.  

One option is to select Presidential electors totally based on individual Congressional district popular votes.  Trump probably still wins as the House of Representatives has a Republican majority.  The DNC actually pushed this idea several years ago and abandoned it when they discovered they were better off with the current elector selection method. Congressional districts in upstate NY,  rural California, Michigan, Oregon, Illinois, Washington, etc. would go Republican.  

If popular vote is used for Presidential election, why not use it to directly vote on lots of issues.   Constitutional amendments,  tax increases, impeachment trials, etc.      How do you think the country would vote on amendments concerning abortion, same sex marriage, legalizing drugs, etc...............    Mob rule?

1. Russia has nothing like a free press.  Without honest information, popular elections are meaningless.

2. Republicans may have a majority of seats in the house, thanks to extreme gerrymandering - another systemic problem that plagues our country - but they certainly don't enjoy the popular vote there either. Of course, we already discussed the the impact of the Senate (which as it should be).  The Republicans may be in power, but they are a minority party nevertheless.

3. We are a democratic republic. A pure democracy would have voters voting on every individual piece of legislation proposed, which is obviously a bad idea. That doesn't mean that we should not elect our representatives by popular vote.  That's the way we vote for every other office, why not the presidency?

[cptau 169]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1. Russia has nothing like a free press.  Without honest information, popular elections are meaningless.

2. Republicans may have a majority of seats in the house, thanks to extreme gerrymandering - another systemic problem that plagues our country - but they certainly don't have the popular vote there either. The Republicans may be in power, but they are a minority party nevertheless.

3. We are a democratic republic. A pure democracy would have the voters voting on every piece of legislation that is proposed, which is obviously a bad idea. That doesn't mean that we should not elect our representatives by popular vote.

Based on the last election, the press maybe free, but its honesty is in question.

Mandated Gerrymandering to ensure election of minority representatives?    At this point, there is not a real majority party.  

You don't approve of the California ballot proposition method and the mess it's caused them?    That process was added by the state legislature by vote of 72 to 1 back 1911.  

[homersapien 11,362]

38 minutes ago, cptau said:

Based on the last election, the press maybe free, but its honesty is in question.

Mandated Gerrymandering to ensure election of minority representatives?    At this point, there is not a real majority party.  

You don't approve of the California ballot proposition method and the mess it's caused them?    That process was added by the state legislature by vote of 72 to 1 back 1911.  

1. There's conservative press, there's liberal press, there's neutral press.  That's the way it's always been.

The idea of a generalized statement like "its (press) honesty is in question" is nothing but a reflection of your reaction to various political "spins" of a given topic.  It says nothing about the press as a whole.

Granted a good part of the press can be wrong - see Iraqi invasion - but it's rather simple to call the press dishonest.

The simple facts are usually available if you look for them.   

2. Yes, gerrymandering is exactly designed to empower one party - the party that controls the process.  "Empowerment" translates to organizing districts to ensure a majority for that party, thus reciprocally enforcing a minority on their opposition in that district. This, in effect enforces the election of representatives that are not represented by the majority of people in that area - say a county - when taken as a whole. 

3. I don't have an opinion on California's method of introducing ballot issues as I am not familiar with it.

While can I imagine scenarios when I might favor a given initiative, I generally oppose the idea as a way of passing legislation directly.  But they could provide a way of dealing with an intractable situation concerning a popular issue that a legislature is stonewalling or promoting against popular opinion.   

[AURaptor 1,122]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

1. There's conservative press, there's liberal press, there's neutral press.  That's the way it's always been.

Is this the world you actually believe exists ? Because before FOX News, at least when it came to t.v. news, the " mainstream " has always been Left leaning, but posing as ' neutral '.  Sure, there may have been some more Right leaning newspapers, publications,  but even those were vastly outnumbered by the Left. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

Is there something in the constitution about county's role in presidential elections I have missed?

And why should I be talking to someone with a self-admitted "deaf ear" in the first place?

Stop making up stuff about me. I said my feelings about the electoral college have nothing to do with this election.  If anything I am glad Trump won.  I didn't want to endure 4 or 8 years of Clinton. She was obviously the wrong candidate at the wrong time.  Trump was the wrong candidate at the right time. As such, Trump will set up the future for progressives nicely IMO.  I don't think he will get through 4 years.

And as far as the electoral college working the way it was intended, if it did, it would reject Trump as our next president.  Read the article I posted earlier for an explanation of that.

Thus the irony of your insistence about the electoral college working "as intended".  It's a vestigial system that in no way works as it was intended. 

That article is editorialized by the writer. Having a "deaf ear" is a euphemism used to signal your arguments aren't making much of an impression not, that I'm not hearing them. I am; they are simply flawed because they're ALL based on a false premise.

The point of the counties is NOT the significant role they play constitutionally. The win comparisons 3084 counties nationally to 57 shows you how much influence the major population centers have in elections. In the end, the raced looked a lot closer, in every sense, than it really was.The EC worked EXACTLY as it was intended. In closing you are so entangled with your point of view apparently you cant see the forest for the trees.

Keep in mind, if you can, the popular is how one accumulates electoral votes state by state. That's the rules of the game and Clinton KNEW that but in her supreme arrogance she honestly bought into her narrative that it was simply her turn and she didn't work the states she should have. That's all.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

18 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

And all the while you completely ignore the reality that Hillary won a measly 57 counties out of 3141 and you cant process the fact that the EC worked exactly as it was envisioned. I get it. You're upset that Trump won under a socalled "vestigial system" but he's your President now. The reality is the EC is hardly vestigial in fact it worked exactly how it was intended by not letting the population centers of 57 counties control the outcome of a national election.

You're quoting and spreading lies again from your propagandists. Look up a real source of info on the counties carried.

[TheBlueVue 177]

30 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

 according to ALlen WestYou're quoting and spreading lies again from your propagandists. Look up a real source of info on the counties carried.

Why dont you provide one to discredit that source? You've got one, right? I will concede w/o argument the number Clinton won according to Allen West seems WAY low and it probably is but, for the sake of argument, lets just say she won 570 which is 10 times what the source says. Even that still supports the efficacy of  the EC in terms of not letting the major population centers have too much political clout.

 This map would certainly support the assertion that Trump won an overwhelming majority of the counties which is significant in a national election. I would also argue the most important point being discounted by those who favor a strictly popular vote is that the system was set up to reflect the "voices" of the states not necessarily the voices of the most people.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

49 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Why dont you provide one to discredit that source? You've got one, right? I will concede w/o argument the number Clinton won according to Allen West seems WAY low and it probably is but, for the sake of argument, lets just say she won 570 which is 10 times what the source says. Even that still supports the efficacy of  the EC in terms of not letting the major population centers have too much political clout.

 This map would certainly support the assertion that Trump won an overwhelming majority of the counties which is significant in a national election. I would also argue the most important point being discounted by those who favor a strictly popular vote is that the system was set up to reflect the "voices" of the states not necessarily the voices of the most people.

Hillary won just under 500 counties. The two key points are 1) the counties she won represents 64% of US GDP; and 2) are you the least bit concerned that you continue to trust sites that lie to you this much? An error of that magnitude isn't simply a mistake. Sites like Allen West rely on trusting useful idiots to spread their disinformation for them-- doesn't that give you at least a bit of pause to engage in some reflection?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/22/donald-trump-lost-most-of-the-american-economy-in-this-election/?client=safari

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

55 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Why dont you provide one to discredit that source? You've got one, right? I will concede w/o argument the number Clinton won according to Allen West seems WAY low and it probably is but, for the sake of argument, lets just say she won 570 which is 10 times what the source says. Even that still supports the efficacy of  the EC in terms of not letting the major population centers have too much political clout.

 This map would certainly support the assertion that Trump won an overwhelming majority of the counties which is significant in a national election. I would also argue the most important point being discounted by those who favor a strictly popular vote is that the system was set up to reflect the "voices" of the states not necessarily the voices of the most people.

Here you go.  It literally took me 30 seconds to google actual facts with historical detail.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3748311/donald-trump-won-2600-counties-compared-to-clintons-500-winning-83-of-the-geographic-nation/

[AURaptor 1,122]

51 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

... the system was set up to reflect the "voices" of the states not necessarily the voices of the most people.

Because that is what the Founders were most concerned with, that the mob rule mentality , mainly in a few heavily populated parts of the country, would control the fate of the country as a whole. 

I even reminded some folks, after the election, that we do NOT have a national vote for the office of President. There are 50 ( primarily ) separate state elections, each of the governed voting their respective wishes.  It caught them off guard, to hear me say we have not just ONE election , but 50. I think it's not said often enough, and when folks look at it as the Foudners intended,  it catches some off guard. Like having been taught something like this long ago, in school, and it emerging from way back in their memory. 

[quietfan 233]

Land area does not vote.  Counties do not vote.

Does anyone really think the 710,000 people living in Alaska should be able to dictate to the 107 Million people living in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New York, and California simply because Alaskans live in a state with three times the land area of all those other states combined?  If Alaska were split into 50 separate states, would those 710,000 people really deserve 150 Electoral College votes? ( http://www.ipl.org/div/stateknow/popchart.html#statesbysize )

Baldwin County, Al, is the 12th largest county by area east of the Mississippi and has a population of about 204,000. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_County,_Alabama) If Alaskans chose to they could divide their state into counties the size of Baldwin, creating 316 such counties in that state alone.  Should Alaskans get 316 times the voice of Baldwin County even though they have only 3 1/2 times the population?  Actually, if number of counties mattered, any state could increase its influence simply by subdividing itself into smaller and smaller, but more numerous, counties.

Democracy is supposed to be based on the will of the people.  You don't get to discount anyone's vote just because of where they live. No one's vote should count less because they live in a metropolitan area, and no one's vote should count more just because they don't have any neighbors within 100-200 square miles!  If 'mob rule' by a majority is a danger, how much more dangerous is 'mob rule' by a minority of the people?

[AURaptor 1,122]

Land area does not vote blah blah blah... electoral votes are proportional to citizens, equaling the total Representatives & Senators of a State. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Hillary won just under 500 counties. The two key points are 1) the counties she won represents 64% of US GDP; and 2) are you the least bit concerned that you continue to trust sites that lie to you this much? An error of that magnitude isn't simply a mistake. Sites like Allen West rely on trusting useful idiots to spread their disinformation for them-- doesn't that give you at least a bit of pause to engage in some reflection?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/22/donald-trump-lost-most-of-the-american-economy-in-this-election/?client=safari

 

Not really. If she won 500 counties that means she won the popular vote in about 16% of the total. Presumably, even you will agree that's pathetic and reflective a failed campaign. Allen West was technically wrong but his thesis was absolutely correct. I understand that you don't like the electoral college, especially this year but ,again, even with the adjusted total to reflect a number that you're happy with it has proven to effectively do EXACTLY what it was designed to do.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

11 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Land area does not vote blah blah blah... electoral votes are proportional to citizens, equaling the total Representatives & Senators of a State. 

Not proportional.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Land area does not vote blah blah blah... electoral votes are proportional to citizens, equaling the total Representatives & Senators of a State. 

This is a false assertion.  Because the Senate seats are included in electoral votes, it automatically makes them disproportional to citizens, giving smaller states a larger per capita influence on the election.

[TheBlueVue 177]

19 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This is a false assertion.  Because the Senate seats are included in electoral votes, it automatically makes them disproportional to citizens, giving smaller states a larger per capita influence on the election.

Giving the smaller states a "larger per capita influence on the election" balances the power with the states with the largest populations. Obviously, the detractors of the EC will never concede the genius of the founders in devising a system that doesn't place disproportionate political power in the hands of the heaviest  population centers

[homersapien 11,362]

7 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Is this the world you actually believe exists ? Because before FOX News, at least when it came to t.v. news, the " mainstream " has always been Left leaning, but posing as ' neutral '.  Sure, there may have been some more Right leaning newspapers, publications,  but even those were vastly outnumbered by the Left. 

Like I've said, in your mind, reality is "left leaning".  

To say Fox is the only conservative news source that ever existed is breathtaking in its ignorance.

But at least you're not trying to say Fox is "fair and balanced"

[TexasTiger 12,828]

39 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Giving the smaller states a "larger per capita influence on the election" balances the power with the states with the largest populations. Obviously, the detractors of the EC will never concede the genius of the founders in devising a system that doesn't place disproportionate political power in the hands of the heaviest  population centers

States with big empty ranch landowners are more powerful than states with workers that contribute more to our GDP. Brilliant.

[homersapien 11,362]

4 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

That article is editorialized by the writer. Having a "deaf ear" is a euphemism used to signal your arguments aren't making much of an impression not, that I'm not hearing them. I am; they are simply flawed because they're ALL based on a false premise.

The point of the counties is NOT the significant role they play constitutionally. The win comparisons 3084 counties nationally to 57 shows you how much influence the major population centers have in elections. In the end, the raced looked a lot closer, in every sense, than it really was.The EC worked EXACTLY as it was intended. In closing you are so entangled with your point of view apparently you cant see the forest for the trees.

Keep in mind, if you can, the popular is how one accumulates electoral votes state by state. That's the rules of the game and Clinton KNEW that but in her supreme arrogance she honestly bought into her narrative that it was simply her turn and she didn't work the states she should have. That's all.

The electoral college was never intended to balance out areas of dense population.  Hell, there weren't areas of dense population to be balanced when the constitution was written. 

The electoral college certainly wasn't intended to distort the electoral math in modern America.  The original reasons for the electoral college no longer exist in a modern America. 

And again, Clinton has nothing to do with the argument.

[AURaptor 1,122]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Like I've said, in your mind, reality is "left leaning".  

To say Fox is the only conservative news source that ever existed is breathtaking in its ignorance.

But at least you're not trying to say Fox is "fair and balanced"

 It's cute that you really do believe what you post. Thanks for the laugh. 

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, AURaptor said:

Land area does not vote blah blah blah... electoral votes are proportional to citizens, equaling the total Representatives & Senators of a State. 

False