Yeah, don’t make assumptions. truthSeeker2, as far as I’ve seen him post here, has been supporting Trump, which is why I was surprised by this thread. I certainly did not support Trump, but have no real opinion regarding the EC. I can see the plusses and minuses of it; this election it didn’t benefit my candidate but, oh well, them’s the breaks.
Wouldn’t be a problem if the human race were not comprised largely of hypocrites. Or if the assholes who didn’t even get half the votes wouldn’t go around talking about “mandates” and pretending that “the people have spoken!”.
Well, I suppose you could argue that the non-voters should be credited to whoever won. If you didn’t vote, that means you’re okay with whoever your fellow citizens choose, right?
(But that’s assuming they had the opportunity to vote and just chose not to.)
Eggs-actly. The World Series winner is the first team which wins 4 games in a 7 games series, regardless of the total number of runs scored by either team.
During the 2016 season, thru post-season play, and according to the existing rules, the Cleveland Indians and Chicago Cubs advanced to the World Series playoff.
game
1 - Indians 6, Cubs 0
2 - Cubs 5, Indians 1
3 - Indians 1, Cubs 0
4 - Indians 7, Cubs 2
5 - Cubs 3, Indians 2
6 - Cubs 9, Indians 3
7 - Cubs 8, Indians 7
Cubs win 4 games to 3.
However, both teams scored 27 runs.
According to the existing rules, the Cubs won the World Series.
According to the number of runs scored, the series is a tie.
Should the Indians and Cubs be declared the co-World Champions? What if would make the Democrat collective happy? Or at least get them to stop whining?
Dial it back. If you feel you must go down this path The BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Or it should be like golf, maybe, where they guy who scores the fewest strokes wins? Or maybe a direct comparison between sports scoring systems and the fate of our nation is stupid, vacuous, and self-serving?
Did she? As I understand it, not all votes have yet been counted.
They haven’t, but she will. Her popular vote lead has been increasing as the votes left are from strongly Democratic areas. She’s up by 700K now and increasing.
None of this would be a problem if we had decent and respectful politics. Like GeeDubya did in 2000, ruefully acknowledging that he failed the popular vote, and the Republicans committed themselves to centrism and respectful attention to the Dems.
But they didn’t, did they? “Mandate!”, they said. “The people have spoken!” they said.
Come to think on it, what became of those honest conservatives, saying “Never Trump!”? Have they had their Come to Donald moment and repented their sinful ways?
So Clinton right now is closer to 1 million votes ahead, the close to 2 million number I have seen elsewhere is based on estimates of the votes that still need to be counted and the fact that most are coming from very blue states based on the current numbers. So, Trump is unlikely to win the popular vote.
Thanks; I thought the OP was premature.
Both candidates campaigned to try and win the Electoral College. So the popular vote in these elections are irrelevant, since the candidates were not campaigning for the popular vote. It’s sort of dirty pool to want to change the rules midstream.
Given the raw numbers of illegal aliens in say, California alone who voted it would be unlikely that Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote anyway. Voter fraud is legendary with democrats, in the 60s and 70s it was said that any republican would have to pick up a million votes just to break even, undoubtedly the number is much higher today.
The EC does a good job of balancing the ticket in the sense that any candidate has to appeal to a cross section of the country, and is more representative of the country as a whole. Also consider that in the event of a recount, it would have to be national, in all 57 states. This would be a disaster.
It’s bad to use the popular vote because then politicians would spend most of their time campaigning in the most populous regions of the country. It’s better this way, where they spend most of their time campaigning in certain swing states, where less people live. If you think about it, Hillary is simply running up the score in areas that don’t matter, just to make Trump’s election look less legitimate. Such a nasty woman.
Legitimate cite?
Or we could continue to use the current Electoral College system that’s been in use since the creation of the U.S.A.? At least until “those people” can gather enough votes to actually change to another system.
Particularly when the only actual examples of voter fraud, this year, were by Trump supporters. 
Trump won.
But the sort of silliness that Common Tater posted is not helpful and serves no legitimate purpose.
Pressure is increasing on the electoral college and on the unity of the states.
Pressure from whom? A few thousand protestors currently terrorizing the voters in cities that voted for Hillary? Is there anything other than a call on social media?
Since this is a State’s Rights issue, you’ll need a referendum in all (most of the) 50 states in order to create a federal election. The original 13 former colonies/states refused to relinquish their exclusive right to hold general elections, and created the Electoral College as a place where state representatives would vote for a POTUS.
How many States has your side lined up so far? How many States has your side even seriously attempted to convince? Wishful thinking is a wonderful time waster but it doesn’t get the chickens fed, or the dishes washed. Someone has got to actually do the hard work. Any idea who are your side is willing to get the ball rolling?
“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”
November 6, 2012 Twitter
Guess who?
Sonja Henie?