Hillary won the popular vote by over 150,000 votes.
185 replies, posted
Florida going red was predictable; choosing that gutless, spineless shitweasel to represent us after not giving a shit during his first term is salt in the wound.
[QUOTE=wystan;51341328]This is really just excess Californians. The founding fathers designed the electoral college to protect the minorities against the majority, giving low population states value to contend with giant population centers. This was a fair win.[/QUOTE]
When 30% of Oklahoma wants Hillary and all 7 of our votes are going to Trump I think they did a shit job.
This fucking walking toupee outsmarted everyone, his entire campaign appealed to Rust Belt population which just so happened to have a few swing states in them.
Add the fact that Florida is full of old racist retired people and cubans who hate illegal immigrants it's no surprise he pulled an upset. We should've seen it fucking coming.
He's going to be the fucking Hoover of our generation.
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;51342122]Yes, elections that are sensibly run completely ignore the fact that the loser got 150,000 more votes than the winner[/QUOTE]
[url=https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=popular+vote&eob=enn/p//0/1///////////]It's over 204,000 now according to Google[/url]. For comparison, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000]Gore beat Bush in the 2000 election by over 543,000 votes[/url].
It pays to be against the electoral college. We should've learned that and acted on it after 2000.
[editline]9 November 2016[/editline]
But oh well, HERE WE GO AGAIN LOL :D
And with a duo worse than Bush/Cheney to boot. Fun times are in store.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51342131]that's three major parties.
We still have our super minorities like the bloc and the greens[/QUOTE]
Look: What I'm basically saying is - the US just had to choose between the two most disliked candidates in a long time, perhaps ever. Considering how many people even considered voting for a goofball like Johnson, do you really think it's purely because no one, out of a population of 320 million people, could come up with a new party?
Having FPTP the post is barrier to entry - it doesn't make third parties complete impossible, but it's a pretty hard punch. On top of that, in countries with many parties, it will inherently create large issues of representation; the Tories or UKIP in the UK, for example. It's a pretty shit system even if it doesn't always result in two parties only.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51342151]welp guess i'm evil now[/QUOTE]
yep, and white
I made a comparison with the situation if my country had electoral votes vs the current popular vote.
[URL="http://imgur.com/uBFHCf6"]http://imgur.com/uBFHCf6
[/URL]
[IMG]http://imgur.com/uBFHCf6[/IMG]
Embedding doesnt work?
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51342131]that's three major parties.
We still have our super minorities like the bloc and the greens[/QUOTE]
You also have a parliamentary system buddy
the US has only really managed to have one viable third party in history, the populists, in states recently granted statehood that were getting absolutely fucked over by the robber barons of the gilded age and didn't have much in common with the northern republicans or the democrats. Even at their peak they could hardly field a presidential candidate, but they did control state legislatures and governorships.
The US vote just [B]might[/B] turn out differently if 15,000 dumbasses didn't vote for Harambe :v:
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51342054]That video assumes every single citizen of voting age, or the entire population, will vote. The total population stated in that video is 309 million, but in this election only a total of 125,040,961 people voted which is the norm for each election.
The total of the top ten cities is 24.7 million votes. That right there is one fifth of the voters only counting those ten cities, or 20%. He says 20% of the [I]total population[/I] in that video when referring to all 100 cities. 20% of the total population is 61 million which is at right about half of the popular vote. He is not being completely specific when he uses population or popular vote, switching from one to the other when they aren't interchangeable.[/QUOTE]
So everyone in cities vote?
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;51342309]So everyone in cities vote?[/QUOTE]
Much more likely than the entire national population, but good point.
[editline]9th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;51342309]So everyone in cities vote?[/QUOTE]
In fact election results show around 2.2 million people voted just counting Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, and Brooklyn, and I'm looking at the new york times results. You could include the other major areas just next to those and it will skyrocket.
[QUOTE=FreyasFighter;51342273]The US vote just [B]might[/B] turn out differently if 15,000 dumbasses didn't vote for Harambe :v:[/QUOTE]
11,000.
11,000 ADULTS woke up yesterday. Got dressed (presumably, by themselves). They went to their polling location (again, I assume they drove). They waited in line for 20 minutes to multiple hours. They then decided to write in a fucking dead gorilla.
I hate this fucking country.
[QUOTE=KaptonJack;51342493]11,000.
11,000 ADULTS woke up yesterday. Got dressed (presumably, by themselves). They went to their polling location (again, I assume they drove). They waited in line for 20 minutes to multiple hours. They then decided to write in a fucking dead gorilla.
I hate this fucking country.[/QUOTE]
They could have just hated the presidential election so much that they wrote harambe, but then actually voted on other issues and local representatives.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51342338]Much more likely than the entire national population, but good point.
In fact election results show around 2.2 million people voted just counting Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, and Brooklyn, and I'm looking at the new york times results. You could include the other major areas just next to those and it will skyrocket.[/QUOTE]
The thing is rural parts don't have much of a significant difference in voter turnout. In some cases its higher than cities, in other lower.
150,000 votes is nothing, especially when you consider that Gary Johnson was more likely to pull votes away from Trump than he would Hillary. Evan McMullin voters are more likely to align with Trump and he pulled in 160,000 votes in Utah.
So if you really wanted to look at it, the right wing was the popular vote.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51341307]We democrats need ti stand together and try our damnedest to get the electoral college abolished. Write your representative. Pass out flyers. Protest outside your town hall. Spread the word to every American[/QUOTE]
You know if this happened Republicans would actually have an advantage right? If the east coast and west coast weren't left wing havens then Republicans would actually bother to go out and vote.
The whole idea that Hilary would win the election if it was decided by popular vote is ridiculous. If it was determined by popular vote then the candidates would have campaigned in a totally different way. Who knows what might have happened.
[editline]9th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51342114]Spot fucking on.
The poor working class whites are being exploited by fucking Trump and his lies with only the upper class knowing the truth and going with it. (example: the college educated guys in Michigan)
If the Democrats had actually tried to reach out to the fucking white working class and say 'hey, we know times are hard for you since your jobs have left the country but we can help you!'
No, instead they ignored them and Trump preyed on their circumstances and now the white working class is fucking hated by everyone because the white nationalists just so happen to support Trump and now they're guilty by association.
I've never been more motivated to go get involved in politics god damn it.[/QUOTE]
Same as the minority groups in the country are exploited by Democratic lies. Its the exact same shit dude you have to see this.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51341439]It's basically the leftist version of Breitbart.[/QUOTE]
Not even remotely fucking comparable. Christ.
HuffPo don't go out of their way to blame everything wrong (or perceived wrong) on "the jews", "the gays" and "the blacks" like Breitbart. They very rarely outright lie about stuff, and I can't recall any total fabrications from them.
My fucking left nut is a more respectable news source than Breitbart, and it doesn't even do news. HuffPo fucked up a prediction super hard and have a somewhat ugly looking home page. But it's still not Breitbart. It's still not The Drudge Report. It's still actually somewhat competent for actual news.
[QUOTE=igamiwarr;51342871]
Same as the minority groups in the country are exploited by Democratic lies. Its the exact same shit dude you have to see this.[/QUOTE]
Expand on this.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51341307]We democrats need ti stand together and try our damnedest to get the electoral college abolished. Write your representative. Pass out flyers. Protest outside your town hall. Spread the word to every American[/QUOTE]
Sometimes rules need to be changed, but I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who promotes changing the rules only after their side loses. That shows an unwillingness to look inward for your failure and instead looking to blame someone or something else.
Hilary lost this election, the electoral college didn't lose it for her. She should have wiped the floor with Trump yet she didn't. We Democrats won't do any better in future elections if we refuse to accept responsibility for our poor performance.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51342054]That video assumes every single citizen of voting age, or the entire population, will vote. The total population stated in that video is 309 million, but in this election only a total of 125,040,961 people voted which is the norm for each election.
The total of the top ten cities is 24.7 million votes. That right there is one fifth of the voters only counting those ten cities, or 20%. He says 20% of the [I]total population[/I] in that video when referring to all 100 cities. 20% of the total population is 61 million which is at right about half of the popular vote. He is not being completely specific when he uses population or popular vote, switching from one to the other when they aren't interchangeable.[/QUOTE]
For both top 10 cities and top 100 he uses figures for total population, so I'm assuming when the top 10 is referred to as "% of popular vote" that's just an error in writing the video.
[QUOTE=Charades;51342865]150,000 votes is nothing, especially when you consider that Gary Johnson was more likely to pull votes away from Trump than he would Hillary. Evan McMullin voters are more likely to align with Trump and he pulled in 160,000 votes in Utah.
So if you really wanted to look at it, the right wing was the popular vote.[/QUOTE]
150k votes is not nothing lol
imagine if those votes were concentrated in one of the nearly deadlocked swing states (e.g. Florida), it could have drastically changed the election in terms of electoral votes. Clinton lost by rougly 120k votes in Florida. if those votes were there Trump would not have reached 270 and in fact Clinton would have a higher number of electoral votes than him. even PA was a margin of 68k votes and michigan was decided by only a gap of 12k votes.
I didn't even bother going out to vote because I live in California. This is what happens when you vote based on the electoral system.
so when's the referendum on abolishing the electoral system
we're going crazy with referenda it seems
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;51343877]so when's the referendum on abolishing the electoral system
we're going crazy with referenda it seems[/QUOTE]
You would have to pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. And good luck with that.
The danger with banning unpopular sources is that when you lock yourself up in an echo chamber like that, you eventually start unquestionably believing everything you agree with and you will one day wake up to find that it was all bullshit.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51343896]You would have to pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. And good luck with that.[/QUOTE]
I think it can be done softly by requiring state electorates to vote as proportionally as possible towards their populations demands
but it still leaves some states with more votes than they deserve
How many times has this happened in history? Legit question
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;51341353]This time however the problem is the tyranny of the minority on the majority.
Why should my vote as a Californian be worth less than the vote of some random farmer whose whole subsistence is in the town in bumfuck Nebraska?[/QUOTE]
Not sure if it's correct, but I've heard that the majority of the population of this country lives in the little Bumshart towns scattered around. And those towns tend to be conservative, and almost always vote Republican.
[QUOTE=wystan;51341328]This is really just excess Californians. The founding fathers designed the electoral college to protect the minorities against the majority, giving low population states value to contend with giant population centers. This was a fair win.[/QUOTE]
So it's meant to protect the minority from the majority in a system that relies on majority votes to determine the winner. :huh:
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;51343999]How many times has this happened in history? Legit question[/QUOTE]
4 times
5 if you count 1824
google 1824's election and decide if you want to count that
Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections. Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama, Obama, Clinton.
Electoral college needs some major reform. Dems need to make that a priority - gerrymandered federal districts just make it worse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.