Trump’s voter suppression apparatus will probably accidentally vote for Biden.
It’s the Republican voter suppression apparatus that I’m worried about.
Votes from California aren’t special – Californians are just as American as any other Americans, and vice versa.
Sorry. My bad.
Nicest mod note I’ve seen in a while
WTF are you talking about?
There is no “electoral college election” that is distinct from the general election. Going on and on about how Hillary would have won if we used a different measuring stick is like complaining that that you lost the football game even though you ran more yards. The yards are not what wins football games and if it were, the winning team might have spent more energy non racking up yards rather than points. Similarly, Trump focused on swing states that mattered rather than large safe states that didn’t. He spent 50% mnore time in swing states in the last 100 days while Hillary didn’t even visit states like Wisconsin in the last 100 days.
I am not opposed to a poplar vote for president. The constitution has an amendment process that can be used to eliminate the electoral college college. We used the amendment process to change how we elect presidents, vice presidents and senators.
There are pros and cons to both approaches.
Despite being one of 5 Presidents that won the electoral college while losing the popular vote, Trump also supports presidential popular votes. So you have some company in your populist opinion.
In the meantime California will have to console themselves with 55 electoral votes, more than any other state in the union.
Yes, there is.
The general election is on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That will be on November 3 this year.
The electoral college election is set on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. That will be on December 14 this year.
The point is, is that what you are saying is utterly irrelevant.
It is like saying that our team got more runs in the last world series, so we do have the capability of winning the next one.
Then you are saying, “No, you lost the world series, because the number of runs doesn’t matter.” Do you see how your reply is not even slightly addressing the post you chose to respond to?
No one is confused by this. No one at all. Except maybe those who insist on bringing it up every time they see anyone say anything about the popular vote.
Is there actually a reason that you would jump on anyone pointing out that Clinton did have more popular support, and therefore, the Democrats are not actually less favored? It’s not even nitpicking, even if your objection were accurate, which it is not. At this point, it’s just pure obstinance.
[quote=“k9bfriender, post:229, topic:919092, full:true”]
The point is, is that what you are saying is utterly irrelevant.[/quote]
It seems to me that arguments that Clinton really won the election because of her popular vote advantage are utterly irrelevant.
[quote]It is like saying that our team got more runs in the last world series, so we do have the capability of winning the next one.
Then you are saying, “No, you lost the world series, because the number of runs doesn’t matter.” Do you see how your reply is not even slightly addressing the post you chose to respond to?[/quote]
Can you rephrase that because I’m not following what your analogy is trying to say.
That’s not true. When people say “we should use the popular vote” my response is “meh”
When people act like the popular vote means that hillary was the actual winner, I take exception because you can’t know what would have happened if trump pursued the popular vote instead of the electoral vote.
It would be weird for me to say that a popular vote advantage for the Democrats somehow means that there isn’t popular support for the Democrats. Perhaps that is why i didn’t say that.
ETA: I can’t figure out why the quote function is not working correctly.
So I googled electoral college election and that’s not a thing:
https://www.google.com/search?client=avg&q=electoral+college+election
Sure, the electoral college is a thing but that is all part of the general election.
Noone said on November 3rd 2016, Hillary won the general election but trunp won the electoral college election. words are not as malleable as you people seem to think. They have to maintain a certain consistency for communication to be clear. You can’t just keep redefining words to make yourself right.
Who said that? Anyone? Nope.
No. It is straightforward.
Great, but that has nothing to do with what was stated in this thread. It is irrelevant.
No, what you did say was utterly irrelevant.
All you are saying is that you are completely missing the point of what @Little_Nemo said.
We already got that.
We don’t need you to go on and on about how you keep missing the point. You’ve driven that point home enough.
I guess it was pointless for me to have provided a cite to the actual law. Because you googled it.
If the electoral college election is just a part of the general election, why do they produce different results? It’s pretty obvious they’re two different elections.
But conservatives keep trying.
You have to have the quote tags on their own line.
{quote}
This does not work.{/quote}
{quote}
This is what you have to do.
{/quote}
If you don’t want to clarify yourself after I say that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, I guess I can’t force you. But that sort of attitude might be a large part of the reason that biden isn’t running away with this election
The electoral college vote is part of the general election. There is no separate electoral college election.
The electoral college election does not produce different result than the general election because the entire point of the general election is to count electoral votes, not the popular vote.
Sure, both sides do it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Thanks, I’m still getting used to this new platform.
It’s two different electorates voting on two different days and producing two independent results. I don’t see any basis for claiming they’re not separate elections.
I have so much power!!!
Don’t want it to go to my head.
I don’t know how to break it down any simpler. If you have questions, ask, but don’t just ask someone to rephrase their argument because you didn’t understand it. That’s pretty preposterous.
If you could explain what it was that you didn’t understand, then maybe I can help you out.
You do realize that on November 3rd, the president is not elected, right?
That then, representatives that have been selected by the states then go to Washington to then actually vote for the president?
Not that what you are saying here is relevant at all, and in fact, this is a hijack that I’m tired of, not just this time but every time that you or someone like you chooses to pounce on someone that you think said something wrong about the way we do elections in the US. But I’m not sure if you actually understand the process, from what you are saying.
Can you explain the reason that you have chosen to pounce on this? Is it just because you thought you saw a chance to show off your knowledge, and try to put others down as though you know better than them, or is there any sort of substantial point you are trying to make here.
Keep in mind that @Little_Nemo did not say anything along the lines that you are claiming that he did. He didn’t say she won, he didn’t say she should have won. All he said was that Trump didn’t have as much support as some seem to claim, given that more people voted for Clinton than for him.
Let’s not pretend the two sides are equal. One side - the conservative one - is doing the overwhelming majority of deception.