Clinton's Popular Vote Lead Surpasses 1 Million - Polidicks

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51397173]I just find it so ironic that that dumbass George Soros said "Donald Trump will win the popular vote, but he will not win the electoral vote"[/QUOTE] The most incompetent evil mastermind that has ever existed.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51397173]I just find it so ironic that that dumbass George Soros said "Donald Trump will win the popular vote, but he will not win the electoral vote"[/QUOTE] So is he a bumbling moron who can't even get his dog to do tricks, or is he a Zionist mastermind pulling all the strings behind the politicians of the world? Can you guys please make your minds up, it's actually getting hard to follow this complex equation of "how the left is awful i swear guys!"

[QUOTE=hexpunK;51398127]So is he a bumbling moron who can't even get his dog to do tricks, or is he a Zionist mastermind pulling all the strings behind the politicians of the world? Can you guys please make your minds up, it's actually getting hard to follow this complex equation of "how the left is awful i swear guys!"[/QUOTE] Who is "you guys"? You're putting words in my mouth, I've never even mentioned George Soros before. "You guys" sure love your strawmen.

[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;51378364]Yeah the one million Clinton voters got silenced lmao Christ do you have to agree with EVERYTHING Trump says? The electoral college is objectively a bad thing why does living in a less populated area give your vote more power for the presidency? Why do the citizens of more populated areas have less power? Why do republicans in california pretty much have no say in the presidency? It's a blue lock every year, meaning their votes went to waste. You can apply the same logic to Dems in red states. Seriously: TRUMP CAN KEEP THE PRESIDENCY, BUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NEEDS TO BE GONE. This flawed system is only good right now because your candidate won, if the circumstances we're reversed Trump would be calling the electoral college a rigged system getting in the way of the popular vote (Again)[/QUOTE] I don't know if getting rid of the electoral college is the best way to do this. Wouldn't it be better to just have it so states aren't "winner take all"? The point of the electoral college is so the smaller/minority states aren't completed smothered. If you were to get rid of the electoral college, the small states would be ignored even more than they are now since they'd be worth even less and the larger states worth even more. If they just split the points differently instead of winner take all, then each vote really does matter. If electoral college disappears then it's just candidates running around to big cities where they have a chance of pulling more votes. Nothing too different than we have now, really. If you just want popular vote to decide everything, well, the other point of the electoral college is that most people don't follow politics or understand it very well. So the electoral college holds the right to vote against the population to avoid moronic votes for a candidate promising things that are insane or impossible. Like the campaign that's based solely around "fucking immigrants to death" from South Park. Even if the population voted for that guy, the electoral college would stop it. I didn't really care who won this election, but everyone complaining so loudly that the system needs to be changed now and not the last 8 years really needs to remember this is a democratic system. Not just the election, but the laws that dictate it as well. If for some reason the electoral college flips their decision and Clinton wins anyways, I bet almost everyone complaining about the system would instantly stop asking for these changes.

But the problem with that is, why do smaller states DESERVE more voting power, and why can't we make the case that say the financial capital of the country (NY) deserves more votes than it already gets, and why don't some small states deserve more than the other small states regardless of population. Also most states ban the electors from going against what their state voted for, so while the case for that is stronger, it's already a borderline dead issue.

[QUOTE=TreasoN.avi;51407769]I don't know if getting rid of the electoral college is the best way to do this. Wouldn't it be better to just have it so states aren't "winner take all"? The point of the electoral college is so the smaller/minority states aren't completed smothered. If you were to get rid of the electoral college, the small states would be ignored even more than they are now since they'd be worth even less and the larger states worth even more. If they just split the points differently instead of winner take all, then each vote really does matter. If electoral college disappears then it's just candidates running around to big cities where they have a chance of pulling more votes. Nothing too different than we have now, really.[/QUOTE] "Removing the electoral college is unfair to small states" is a huge fallacy and I wonder why it's so commonplace among US posters: [QUOTE=_Axel;51383253]States are irrelevant in a direct democracy since everybody's vote is worth the same regardless of where they live. If California was suddenly split into 21 separate states, would it make the combined political inclinations of the 21 states any different from those of California? No, people would still have the same beliefs and political convictions. Same thing if the 21 least populous states suddenly fused into a big one, nothing would change except for the fact people from there wouldn't have the lame, stupid excuse of "we're a small state so we have no power please give us more".[/QUOTE] The small state "argument" really only appeals to people who see a population density map of the US and go "wow all those hectares of land aren't getting proper representation". [QUOTE]If you just want popular vote to decide everything, well, the other point of the electoral college is that most people don't follow politics or understand it very well. So the electoral college holds the right to vote against the population to avoid moronic votes for a candidate promising things that are insane or impossible. Like the campaign that's based solely around "fucking immigrants to death" from South Park. Even if the population voted for that guy, the electoral college would stop it.[/QUOTE] The election of Donald Trump is a textbook case of a scenario where that should happen. Watch as it doesn't, though. Another argument for the electoral college down the drain. [QUOTE]I didn't really care who won this election, but everyone complaining so loudly that the system needs to be changed now and not the last 8 years really needs to remember this is a democratic system.[/QUOTE] It really isn't. It's probably one of the least democratic system among developed countries.

[QUOTE=Govna;51397231]You saw those Tweets from earlier right? [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798521053551140864[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798519600413601792[/media] Again, compare the above to what he had to say in 2012: [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082[/media] When he stands to benefit from a thing, then that thing is good. But if that thing works against him and his interests somehow, then it's bad. He's not going to do shit to abolish or reform the electoral college, just as he's completely going back on his word to "drain the swamp" in his administration... conveniently packing it with careerist politicians/Washington insiders, loyalists, and his own family members. He's a hypocritical piece of human garbage.[/QUOTE] To be fair his opinion [i]could[/i] have changed within 4 years but i doubt it this just gives donald supporters fuel to say the electoral college is great and can do no wrong

[QUOTE=_Axel;51408305]words[/QUOTE] two things: 1. the electoral college was designed to fight against mob rule, which both candidates certainly showed, but the way these butthurt liberals are reacting makes me think they're the more vicious mob (regardless of paid rioters) since they're the majority of registered voters in the country, thought who's to say a trump defeat wouldn't spark worse shit? we won't know because it won't happen, and can only go by what's going on now. 2. take a look at the number of states each candidate gained. trump has more states altogether (29 vs clinton's 21), yet clinton has the states with higher populations and more electoral votes. this is a typical rep vs dem election and usually balances things out, only this time trump gained a few states that normally would go clinton's way, and it was enough to give him the lead in the EC. it was by all means a fair election.

[QUOTE=Pops;51408962]two things: 1. the electoral college was designed to fight against mob rule, which both candidates certainly showed, but the way these butthurt liberals are reacting makes me think they're the more vicious mob (regardless of paid rioters) since they're the majority of registered voters in the country, thought who's to say a trump defeat wouldn't spark worse shit? we won't know because it won't happen, and can only go by what's going on now.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the idea is to prevent demagogues from manipulating the people to gain the presidency, not really to prevent mob rule or riots or something. But I support direct democracy when it comes to presidential elections so it's not like I believe in the electoral college having a purpose anyway. [QUOTE]2. take a look at the number of states each candidate gained. trump has more states altogether (29 vs clinton's 21), yet clinton has the states with higher populations and more electoral votes. this is a typical rep vs dem election and usually balances things out, only this time trump gained a few states that normally would go clinton's way, and it was enough to give him the lead in the EC. it was by all means a fair election.[/QUOTE] Fair as in it was won according to the system's rules, that doesn't mean it was democratic. Sure, it's hypocritical to complain about it after the fact, but I'm not really talking about this election in particular, this electoral system is just generally retarded.

yeah, but we were never a direct democracy, this country was always set up as a federal republic. so no, it isn't retarded, it's how the shit was set up.

[QUOTE=Pops;51409389]yeah, but we were never a direct democracy, this country was always set up as a federal republic. so no, it isn't retarded, it's how the shit was set up.[/QUOTE] A direct tally election of a representative candidate isn't a direct democracy, it's still a representative democracy and in no way mutually exclusive with the idea of a federal republic afaik. As for how 'this shit was set it', yeah it was set up in a time before modern communication technology where the electoral college made sense. Now it doesn't.

[QUOTE=Pops;51409389]yeah, but we were never a direct democracy, this country was always set up as a federal republic. so no, it isn't retarded, it's how the shit was set up.[/QUOTE] Just because shit was set up this way doesn't mean it should remain so.

Question for those who want to abolish the electoral college: Do you also want to get rid of the 2 per state senators and make them proportional as well?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51409474]Question for those who want to abolish the electoral college: Do you also want to get rid of the 2 per state senators and make them proportional as well?[/QUOTE] Well it's a bit fucked that Vermont gets just as many senators as California, the fuck's the point of that?

[QUOTE=_Axel;51409493]Well it's a bit fucked that Vermont gets just as many senators as California, the fuck's the point of that?[/QUOTE] to keep the number of senators even. there's 50 states, so there's 2 senators per state to give it 100 total. also, it keeps the possibility of one party landsliding elections away.

[QUOTE=Pops;51409625]to keep the number of senators even. there's 50 states, so there's 2 senators per state to give it 100 total. also, it keeps the possibility of one party landsliding elections away.[/QUOTE] Uh, what. You can keep the amounts of senators even while still having their number somewhat scale with the population of the state. Also what's that about preventing landslides? If the people wants none of the other party's shit why would you force it down their throat? If you want to prevent landslides that would be unrepresentative of the population's affinities then switch to mixed-member proportional representation. Why would giving small states a ludicrous amount of voting power prevent landslides anyway? It just means you have to cater to a much smaller part of the population to win a majority.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51409493]Well it's a bit fucked that Vermont gets just as many senators as California, the fuck's the point of that?[/QUOTE] Thats the whole point of the house of reps which is proportionate to the population of each state??????? The Senate is so each state has equal say and the House of Reps is so the population is equally represented????

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51409655]Thats the whole point of the house of reps which is proportionate to the population of each state??????? The Senate is so each state has equal say and the House of Reps is so the population is equally represented????[/QUOTE] Mixed up the two, soz.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51409653]Uh, what. You can keep the amounts of senators even while still having their number somewhat scale with the population of the state. Also what's that about preventing landslides? If the people wants none of the other party's shit why would you force it down their throat? If you want to prevent landslides that would be unrepresentative of the population's affinities then switch to mixed-member proportional representation. Why would giving small states a ludicrous amount of voting power prevent landslides anyway? It just means you have to cater to a much smaller part of the population to win a majority.[/QUOTE] oh, what i meant by landslides was that you wouldn't have just one party constantly representing a state in the senate, it's possible to have both seats run by two parties. my bad on the wording.

[QUOTE=Pops;51409869]oh, what i meant by landslides was that you wouldn't have just one party constantly representing a state in the senate, it's possible to have both seats run by two parties. my bad on the wording.[/QUOTE] OK I see what you mean, that way you don't get a single senator represent the state of it's split like 51/49%.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51409474]Question for those who want to abolish the electoral college: Do you also want to get rid of the 2 per state senators and make them proportional as well?[/QUOTE] Not that I've given it much thought but I wouldn't think so. I might argue there's too big a difference between voting for a single representative//leader of a country and voting for members of a senate to fairly compare the two. I'm not really sure what relevance it bears.

[QUOTE=Pops;51408962]two things: 1. the electoral college was designed to fight against mob rule, which both candidates certainly showed, but the way these butthurt liberals are reacting makes me think they're the more vicious mob (regardless of paid rioters) since they're the majority of registered voters in the country, thought who's to say a trump defeat wouldn't spark worse shit? we won't know because it won't happen, and can only go by what's going on now. 2. take a look at the number of states each candidate gained. trump has more states altogether (29 vs clinton's 21), yet clinton has the states with higher populations and more electoral votes. this is a typical rep vs dem election and usually balances things out, only this time trump gained a few states that normally would go clinton's way, and it was enough to give him the lead in the EC. it was by all means a fair election.[/QUOTE] Paid rioters was 100% made-up fake news, admitted to by a Macedonian guy who wrote dozens of fake news articles. He made the craigslist posts himself. It never happened. Fair election, sure. But considering that the [I]only[/I] Republican president who has won the popular vote since 1992 was GW Bush in his second term, it's very reasonable to start talking about "hey maybe this system isn't fair."

[media]https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/801304510492770305[/media] Trump's gonna be the least popular incoming president ever.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51409886]Not that I've given it much thought but I wouldn't think so. I might argue there's too big a difference between voting for a single representative//leader of a country and voting for members of a senate to fairly compare the two. I'm not really sure what relevance it bears.[/QUOTE] It's relevant because it asks the question of how you think an ideal government should work. If you think that 51% of the population of a country ought to decide how the government works, then all sections of government ought to be decided based on popular vote, including the law making body. Currently, the senate is incredibly unfair when it comes to individual citizen representation. It's actually even less fair than the electoral college. If you don't think the government should be run on the basis of the pure population majority, then it's not enough to say that the electoral college doesn't do a good job of representing the total population. [editline]23rd November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;51417646][media]https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/801304510492770305[/media] Trump's gonna be the least popular incoming president ever.[/QUOTE] Interestingly enough, his ratings are going up as we go forward.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51417744]It's relevant because it asks the question of how you think an ideal government should work. If you think that 51% of the population of a country ought to decide how the government works, then all sections of government ought to be decided based on popular vote, including the law making body. Currently, the senate is incredibly unfair when it comes to individual citizen representation. It's actually even less fair than the electoral college. If you don't think the government should be run on the basis of the pure population majority, then it's not enough to say that the electoral college doesn't do a good job of representing the total population. [editline]23rd November 2016[/editline] Interestingly enough, his ratings are going up as we go forward.[/QUOTE] true, the senate is archaic in its misrepresentation. Good point.

I talked to a few guys about this and they all replied the same. "Yeah uh it's rigged she obviously had zero support" ?????

[QUOTE=windows098;51420717]I talked to a few guys about this and they all replied the same. "Yeah uh it's rigged she obviously had zero support" ?????[/QUOTE] She rigged it just enough to not win, dude. Hilary is playing the long game, not the 2d chess you peasants have going on.

The whole concept of the electoral college is fairly new to me, but correct me if I'm wrong on this: Only a bit more than a third of the US population actually voted in this election. This is most likely due to the electoral system. A state like California has 38 million people, and only ~11 million voted. There were probably a lot of Trump supporters who didn't even bother with voting there since California always goes blue, and it's equally possible that there were many Clinton supporters who didn't bother voting since they were sure she'd win. I'm gonna take a guess that this happens in most if not all states. If we account for all these factors, which I assume are correct (though maybe they're not and I'm misinformed), does the popular vote really have any weight to it? Clinton doesn't actually have more individual supporters in the nation, at least not as far as we know. There are almost 200 million Americans who didn't even vote. If neither the voters nor the politicians treat the election system as a direct democracy-type process, what does it matter that Clinton got 1 or 2 million more votes?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51421322]She rigged it just enough to not win, dude. Hilary is playing the long game, not the 2d chess you peasants have going on.[/QUOTE] As far as I can tell she's only plyaing 6d chess, when she gets to 10d we'll see some serious shit.