Jump to content

Thugs refuse to accept Election Result


Rozalia
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's really not my fault you're unable to comprehend "electoral college reform" instead of 'abolishment'. No one wants a pure majority-rule democracy.

 

The problem is that, as it is right now, a president could theoretically win the election with as little as 22% of the popular vote, the electors in some states can vote for whoever they want, there is a possibility of a tie, which goes to the house of representives - which is gerrymandered to hell by both democrats and republicans. Also, in theory, this would mean that in a 3 way race someone with 17% of the popular vote could win the election despite 83% not voting for him. Oh, and it can also be tied again.

These situations are unlikely, but they shouldn't even be possible. This election just shows the discrepency between the EC & the popular vote. A candidate shouldn't win in a landslide while also losing the majority vote.

 

The supposed goal of the electoral college is to protect smaller states, only in factuality presidential candidates rarely campaign or even consider the smaller states - perhaps with one state as an exception in every election. This is further exacerbated when you consider that these candidates don't campaign in the biggest states either. It's a bit funny when you post these maps, but you fail to recognize that in the electoral college system, winning the 11 biggest states will net you the presidency, completely nullifying the vote from the 40 other states.

 

In other words, it's all down to the swing states. 

 

 

 

 

From what I recall its just the Democrat Superdelegates thing, where if say LITERALLY HITLER won the election then the electors can say no and go for someone else. In reality though that ain't happening.

 

 

Why didn't Democrats in these last 8 years not work heavily on changing it? I mean they famously even had the Bush-Gore thing as justification and with the narrative of "The Iraq war wouldn't have happened if Bush had lost" I'm sure they could make a strong case. To most people only bothering to make a fuss after losing comes off as sour grapes.

 

California stacks it towards the Democrats end yes which some even believe has allowed illegals (who naturally will vote against Trump) to vote due to getting "accidentally registered". The electoral college gives the smaller states a voice in the choosing of the next President, and if you make it just a popular vote then you give the big (Democratic) states/cities overwhelming power and you may as well get a 1 party state in America unless Trump really works on reversing this "process" as they say that has been going on there.

 

Also from my understanding the whole "all votes should have the same value, it ain't fair" is actually is a misunderstanding of how the election is. You vote to tell your state to support a candidate, not so much directly in a technical sense. 

 

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with democrats. I'm not a democrat, nor do I care about democrats. I'm saying the system is really stupid and a candidate shouldn't be winning in a landslide while having over a million less votes. 

 

Also, illegals don't vote in elections, literally every study about voter fraud in the US concluded that voter, or election fraud, is extremely rare.

 

Edited by Beatrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really not my fault you're unable to comprehend "electoral college reform" instead of 'abolishment'. No one wants a pure majority-rule democracy.

I do realize that you are not the one who wanted to eliminate the Electoral college.

 

The problem is that, as it is right now, a president could theoretically win the election with as little as 22% of the popular vote, the electors in some states can vote for whoever they want, there is a possibility of a tie, which goes to the house of representives - which is gerrymandered to hell by both democrats and republicans. Also, in theory, this would mean that in a 3 way race someone with 17% of the popular vote could win the election despite 83% not voting for him. Oh, and it can also be tied again.

These situations are unlikely, but they shouldn't even be possible. This election just shows the discrepency between the EC & the popular vote. A candidate shouldn't win in a landslide while also losing the majority vote.

 

The supposed goal of the electoral college is to protect smaller states, only in factuality presidential candidates rarely campaign or even consider the smaller states - perhaps with one state as an exception in every election. This is further exacerbated when you consider that these candidates don't campaign in the biggest states either. It's a bit funny when you post these maps, but you fail to recognize that in the electoral college system, winning the 11 biggest states will net you the presidency, completely nullifying the vote from the 40 other states.

 

In other words, it's all down to the swing states.

Yes, however you do mention the extreme cases.

 

If you demand reform then start a campaign to reform it. Contact your Congressperson and Senator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what this has to do with democrats. I'm not a democrat, nor do I care about democrats. I'm saying the system is really stupid and a candidate shouldn't be winning in a landslide while having over a million less votes. 

 

Also, illegals don't vote in elections, literally every study about voter fraud in the US concluded that voter, or election fraud, is extremely rare.

 

Ultimately they/their supporters are the ones who can get such a movement going. Complaining about it for a while, no longer caring, and then complaining again 16 years later or something tends to not get anything done. 

 

I don't put much trust in those myself however arguing on that is pointless so lets not. Main point is the system as is helps not make it a matter of who California (and some others) thinks should be President. 

 

As for that campaigning thing you mentioned what you said is true, due to logic thats how it goes. However there are exceptions especially in the primaries where even though I believe he'd already won Trump went and did a rally in California which is as time wasting as you can get. In the election itself Clinton lost some "Democrat" states she didn't bother to campaign in while Trump did and he ran her close in others.

In a popular vote only however campaigning would likely focus on the more populated areas only anyway and that would be no better. As for your reform without any specifications we can't know if it would be better or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans have essentially declared war on Democrats and the Constitution. 

 

Also, buy some guns.  

1%2B1%2B1ninetymileswLGi41qaoso9o1_540.j

 

As a HRC voter, I support the electoral college.  It goes against my specific policies, in that it is more likely to enable Republicans to win then Democrats,

 

I advise everyone who wants it gone to read a few of the federalist papers and then rethink it.

Am I missing something?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/

 

Either way, I agree that the EC should be kept, but it really favors Democrats more. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Am I missing something?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/

 

Either way, I agree that the EC should be kept, but it really favors Democrats more. 

 

Its odd because before Trump won it was something you often heard which was in the current system it is very difficult for Republicans to win. Now that he has there is talk that the system actually favours the Republicans...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Am I missing something?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/

 

Either way, I agree that the EC should be kept, but it really favors Democrats more. 

 

Well, Republican voters in Utah, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho...

 

All these teensy states whose population is really worth about 1 electoral vote...they get 3.

 

So I think that favors Republicans.

 

Looking at recent history, Hillary Clinton should win by nearly 1M popular votes, but the EC says Trump wins(unless they do the unthinkable).

 

In 2000, Gore won by more then 500,000 votes, but the EC(and the Supreme Court) said Bush wins.

 

So, twice in recent history, when the EC broke from the popular vote, it went to the Republican.

 

Two times is not a compelling trend, to be sure.  And these are close votes really.  I don't have a problem if a close vote breaks one way or the other.  I would have a HUGE PROBLEM with a 40/60 split going to the side that got 40 though.

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately they/their supporters are the ones who can get such a movement going. Complaining about it for a while, no longer caring, and then complaining again 16 years later or something tends to not get anything done. 

 

I don't put much trust in those myself however arguing on that is pointless so lets not. Main point is the system as is helps not make it a matter of who California (and some others) thinks should be President. 

 

As for that campaigning thing you mentioned what you said is true, due to logic thats how it goes. However there are exceptions especially in the primaries where even though I believe he'd already won Trump went and did a rally in California which is as time wasting as you can get. In the election itself Clinton lost some "Democrat" states she didn't bother to campaign in while Trump did and he ran her close in others.

In a popular vote only however campaigning would likely focus on the more populated areas only anyway and that would be no better. As for your reform without any specifications we can't know if it would be better or not. 

 

 

Ultimately they/their supporters are the ones who can get such a movement going. Complaining about it for a while, no longer caring, and then complaining again 16 years later or something tends to not get anything done. 

 

If democrats were the ones winning the electoral college and losing the popular votes all the time you would see republicans complain about it.

 

 

As for that campaigning thing you mentioned what you said is true, due to logic thats how it goes. However there are exceptions especially in the primaries where even though I believe he'd already won Trump went and did a rally in California which is as time wasting as you can get. In the election itself Clinton lost some "Democrat" states she didn't bother to campaign in while Trump did and he ran her close in others.

In a popular vote only however campaigning would likely focus on the more populated areas only anyway and that would be no better. As for your reform without any specifications we can't know if it would be better or not. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

SxgLKVm.jpg

 

 

 

 

I get the message you're trying to get across with that image, but - unless I miss counted - 35 of those states would apparently be voting against me.  That's majority there both in population and states.  I haven't bothered to look at delegate counts either, but I'm sure those 35 states would win that too.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the message you're trying to get across with that image, but - unless I miss counted - 35 of those states would apparently be voting against me.  That's majority there both in population and states.  I haven't bothered to look at delegate counts either, but I'm sure those 35 states would win that too.

...and that is why we do have an Electoral College. Sure, throw in some reform, but what we have is the better alternative to mob rule, also known as the popular vote or straight up democracy. This is why we have a Democratically-elected Republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and that is why we do have an Electoral College. Sure, throw in some reform, but what we have is the better alternative to mob rule, also known as the popular vote or straight up democracy. This is why we have a Democratically-elected Republic.

Yes, and the Electoral College is supposed to intervene when an unqualified person is supported by the people.

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and that is why we do have an Electoral College. Sure, throw in some reform, but what we have is the better alternative to mob rule, also known as the popular vote or straight up democracy. This is why we have a Democratically-elected Republic.

 

 

Again, if you look, those counties will most likely dominate the vote for their own state.  35 states.  Pretty sure the 15 other states and other minor areas, will not have enough to even contest the outcome.

 

That image is stating that if all those counties voted against you (Which is 35 separate states those counties are in), then you lost and that's why we have the Electoral College.  What that image doesn't consider is the delegate number of each state in that image.

 

If all those areas voted against you, you wouldn't just lose by popular vote - you will also lose by the Electoral College decision too.  That image shows a secured win by both popularity and Electoral vote if all those states/counties voted against you.  ( There's Texas, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, Mass, Washington - that's pretty much domination of the EC delegates )

 

While I agree that the Electoral College is a necessary evil, that image doesn't do the argument any justice to anybody who really looks at it from a bigger perspective.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and the Electoral College is supposed to intervene when an unqualified person is supported by the people.

If we go off of what many consider educated or qualified, President Harry Truman would never have been elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-snip-

While I agree that the Electoral College is a necessary evil, that image doesn't do the argument any justice to anybody who really looks at it from a bigger perspective.

What the bigger perspective shows is that the larger populated areas in blue have controlled the grey areas multiple times in the election process.

Out of my entire life living in California, I think one person I ever voted for won an election out of voting in sixteen elections. Reason being is the large blue areas always controlled the vote. Same thing when I lived in Illinois, as Chicago outweighs the rest of the State. Here in Wisconsin, Madison and Milwaukee weigh the vote and take the majority. Do you see the pattern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Republican voters in Utah, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho...

All these teensy states whose population is really worth about 1 electoral vote...they get 3.

So I think that favors Republicans.

Looking at recent history, Hillary Clinton should win by nearly 1M popular votes, but the EC says Trump wins(unless they do the unthinkable).

In 2000, Gore won by more then 500,000 votes, but the EC(and the Supreme Court) said Bush wins.

 

So, twice in recent history, when the EC broke from the popular vote, it went to the Republican. Two times is not a compelling trend, to be sure.  And these are close votes really.  I don't have a problem if a close vote breaks one way or the other.  I would have a HUGE PROBLEM with a 40/60 split going to the side that got 40 though.

You didn't even read the article, did you? Including all of those, "If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271... There are 13 states that have gone for the GOP presidential nominee in each of the last six elections. But they only total 102 electorate votes." 

 

Yes. The EC has only gone the other way 6.9% of the times. You are making it sound like it happens almost every other election. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't even read the article, did you? Including all of those, "If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271... There are 13 states that have gone for the GOP presidential nominee in each of the last six elections. But they only total 102 electorate votes." 

 

Yes. The EC has only gone the other way 6.9% of the times. You are making it sound like it happens almost every other election. 

I'm saying, when the EC differs from the popular vote, it should go Republican because of how Rural voters are more important in the EC then urban voters..  I'm saying, these elections have all been close and that's not a good reason to get rid of the EC.

 

The EC is there to stop guys like Trump.  Of course, our electors are probably too cowardly to do their duty and put in 2 dozen votes for Pence to send it to the House floor.

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying, when the EC differs from the popular vote, it should go Republican because of how Rural voters are more important in the EC then urban voters..  I'm saying, these elections have all been close and that's not a good reason to get rid of the EC.

 

The EC is there to stop guys like Trump.  Of course, our electors are probably too cowardly to do their duty and put in 2 dozen votes for Pence to send it to the House floor.

 

You want a civil war? Because thats how you get a civil war in this day and age. If you don't like President Trump then the people can give you Emperor Trump instead if you prefer that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, a civil war would only happen if commie lefty negro-lovers stole it from the great white hope.  If it was old white conservative who took it from Trump, I don't think you'd see a civil war.  Who would the kkk and neo-nazi's go shoot?  old white guys?  Don't think so.

 

But I think its 100% untenable to even suggest HRC should get it through "faithless electors".  That would lead to a civil war, or at the very least, massive civil unrest.

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, a civil war would only happen if commie lefty negro-lovers stole it from the great white hope.  If it was old white conservative who took it from Trump, I don't think you'd see a civil war.  Who would the kkk and neo-nazi's go shoot?  old white guys?  Don't think so.

 

But I think its 100% untenable to even suggest HRC should get it through "faithless electors".  That would lead to a civil war, or at the very least, massive civil unrest.

 

You're under the assumption Trump voters are satisfied with the traditional right in America who are by the large globalists (with some exceptions obviously). They elected someone who had as one of his main messages being that he is against globalism so if such a thing happens then all those angry about globalism will see it as "the globalists have stolen it".

Also groups like that killing white people is not such a odd thing as you make out, one of them killed a white person in Britain not that long ago for one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying, when the EC differs from the popular vote, it should go Republican because of how Rural voters are more important in the EC then urban voters.. 

And those odds are very low. All a Democrat has to do is win everything that they are practically guaranteed to win and Florida. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol at all this !@#$ing about the electoral college and how HITLER 2.0 needs to be stopped AT ALL COSTS before he starts deporting Mexicans and Muslims.  You are all just salty that you lost for once in your life, because your parents kept telling you that you are always a winner no matter what.  Sorry but you don't get a participation award for this one.  Grow up, because our Glorious God Emperor isn't going anywhere and nothing you do will change that.

when-you-see-posts-by-anti-gun-liberals-

looks-like-a-bumper-crop-of-liberal-tear

  • Upvote 2

"Your cattle will die, your friends will die, you will die. But your reputation, if it is good, will never die."  -excerpt from the Havamal

 

"We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man."  -Oswald Spengler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.