Okay....now that he is President.

There is no problem. Trump didn't campaign to win a popular vote, because that's not how you win an election. We're all good. Only Hillary was that stupid

- - - Updated - - -

You're telling us the founding fathers would like your way better, yet they INTENTIONALLY didn't want to use a popular vote. I'll take my theory over yours any day

 

Yes, he won the race he was actually running.

Yes, more than half of the country voted for someone other than Trump; more than half of the country voted for someone other than Clinton. The two candidates we demonstrably unpopular.

The point is, getting less than 50% of the vote doesn't make you popular.

According to some unwritten rule that doesn't exist. The losers never write the history books, for a reason.

 

States do not vote for president, AS. People do.

That said...there is no way the Electoral College will ever get changed...and the incredible advantage conservatives get from the rural states in the EC and in the Senate...is with us until we fold as a Republic.

That is the bad news.

The good news is that our time as a Republic may well end soon...and all this will be moot.

Oh, the other bad news is: Whether you like the Electoral College or not...Donald Trump won this election fair and square and is now our president. I expect he will do his best to make all that stuff moot as quickly as possible.

 

And they will be about covering his *ss.

 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ...

[video=youtube;SHhrZgojY1Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q[/video]

Promise everything, deliver the opposite. What else is new?

 

Had to laugh at this.

GBR Prime Minister: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom
GER Chancellor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_Germany_(1949–)
CAN Prime Minister: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada#Qualifications_and_selection

I love it when people do not know that they're talking about.

 

Despite your fearmongering, majority of the gains in the electoral college appointments have gone to the West, not the rural America

I remember all of the America R.I.P 1776 - 2008 going around eight years ago as well. I guess we can chalk that up to another one of the failed predictions that have been going on this election cycle.

If you expect that he will do his best, why is that bad news? Just can't stop fearmongering, can you?

 

Much more importantly, do you see it as PRESIDENTIAL, the first thing we want to know about our President is that he is OUR President, ALL of us, not just a select few.

This is probably the first post of yours that I've even sort of agreed with. IF Trump is what you say then you are right, problem is, I think he's far from that. I think he's decided to take over the American economy and state in much the same way that Putin has taken over Russia

If the people I elect are to be tough, aggressive and downright mean then I am more concerned than ever that they are on my side, I think Trump is on nobody's side but Trump's

His two grown sons look like either used car salesmen or stand ins for the starring role in American Psycho. I feel sorry for his daughter who looks like the only nice person in the whole family, reminding me of Marilyn Munster

If you have to rely upon his family and don't have any idea of what he is really like after the last two years I truly don't know what to say.

I don't think Trump is going to be governing any less at all. I think he is going to be governing a lot more, particularly with Spence to help. I think all you libertarians who supported him as not being a social conservative are in for a big and very unpleasant surprise.

Disagreeing with someone on political matters is not being disrespectful, but Trump and many Republicans don't seem to realize this

You say it yourself, BC's don't convince you and NOTHING would, you've made your mind up and don't want to be bothered with the facts. Why don't you go stage a moon landing? Oh, and it's after the Inauguration, Obama's orders to declare Martial Law must have been late.

The Hittites were the first put their generals in the last rank. They were regarded as the best strategists in the Ancient World.

Hopefully, I am reminded of what Tom Hanks says he wants, he hopes Trump will do such a good job that he'll vote for him in 2020.

 

Not sure of your point there???

The disparity of the value of individual votes is what has to be assessed.

Are you saying that the value of a vote from a citizen in Wyoming as compared with the value of a vote from a citizen in California has decreased?

Be careful with the answer, now!

The Republic may survive Donald Trump.

Okay?

So...if he will do his best to make the rich richer and the poor poorer...I should consider that to be good news?

Not sure I'm following you.

I don't think I am "fear mongering." I think I am discussing something that is being discussed all over the United States right now.

You do realize that...right?

 

Every vote counts equally in determining the electors of each individual state.

Are you asking me or telling me.

The gap between the rich and the poor has been widening for decades.

If Trump facilitates in that disparity, then you honestly have nothing to worry about.

"Our time in the republic may end." Why don't you just campaign for Meteor O' Death 2020…

 

Have to laugh at this.

1992: Clinton 43%

 

Okay...but they don't count equally in determining who is going to be president. And since I asked, "Are you saying that the value of a vote from a citizen in Wyoming as compared with the value of a vote from a citizen in California has decreased?"...even you should have been able to figure out that is what was being discussed.

Telling AND asking.

I am telling you that the Republic may indeed survive Donald Trump.

The "Okay?" was asking if you understand that I understand that.

Yup.

Huh?

Can you try this thought in comprehensible English. I'll respond if you do.

 

You don't vote directly for the president and you know that, so that point is moot.

And I do know what point you are attempting to get at. It's not worth addressing because that point is based on a incorrect understanding of how Electoral Votes are appointed.

I wouldn't know that by all the fearmongering you've been doing.

If Trump facilities in the disparty between rich and poor, then you have nothing to worry about.

You replied before the post was editted. Why don't you look at it post if you really want to know what was being said.

 

I know we do not vote directly for the president. How does that make the point moot? My point is that a vote for president from someone in Wyoming has a value worth three times the value of a vote from someone in California.

If there is an "incorrect understanding" it is yours, not mine.

You are saying that the Electoral votes are appointed. Perhaps you mean apportioned. Either way...the value of a single vote in California is worth one-third of what a single vote in Wyoming is valued.

I have been doing no fear mongering. I am speaking out in an Internet forum about a topic being discussed all over the United States today.

Once again, I say...HUH???

I looked...and I came away thinking that you quoted something (I saw the quote marks)...but it sure as hell was not something I said that you quoted.

Try doing another edit...and maybe you will get it right.

 

No they don't.

No, it isn't.

They're fearmongering; you're fearmongering.

Both of these things can be/are true at the same time.

Is English your second languag?. I don't see any issues with the statement.

All your time spent here, you should know by now that I can't do that, so I'm afraid any statements you've misconstrued is your issue.

 

Yeah, they do.

Yeah, it is. What's the matter...couldn't acknowledge that you made a mistake?

One man's "fear mongering" is another's "freedom of speech."

Live with it.

Well...I say I am not fear mongering...I am expressing my right to freedom of expression.

If you were asking if English is my second "language"...no. Is it yours?

Yeah, I can see that. So the question remains...is English YOUR second language?

You should have done it right the first time.

No misconstruction on my part. You apparently screwed up a quote.

Try to get it correct the next time.

 

No, I just referred to the census on how electoral votes are apportioned, and I simply looked at the history of the electorates in each state. The fact that Wyoming has never had a single increase in electoral votes blows your argument out of the water.

Not that it was much of an argment anyway. The only people who are inept enough to believe that the votes in Wyoming are somehow worth more are the same people who believe that the popular vote should determine the presidency.

It's entirely possible for someone to engage in fearmongering and freedom of expression at the same time.

Some people are just more honest about it, I guess.

Then why do you have such a difficult time understanding a simple sentence?

It is; the question remains why do you have such a difficult time understanding a simple sentence?

People make mistakes, which is why the edit feature exist. I simply didn't know what the time limit was. We can't all spend our time on here to find out.

 

You actually are clueless on this, aren't you?

Wyoming will not get an increase until its population rises considerably.

In the meantime, they will continue to have 2 senators (and the corresponding 2 electors votes for those senators) for their less than 600,000 citizens...while the over 39,000,000 California citizens will have that same number.

Wake up.

By the way, congratulations on using "apportioned" rather than "appointed." You could have handled that a lot better.

It also is possible for someone to engage in freedom of expression...and not be indulging in fear mongering. I guess some people can understand that...and some cannot.

Read the sentence over. It makes no sense...unless you are telling me that Trump making things worse should not bother me.

Refer to above.

Get it right...or acknowledge that you made a mistake sooner than you did.

 

You know, you can always tell who has never studied statistics by what they say.

The two electoral votes for the Senate has no bearing on how votes are apportioned throughout the electoral college, whatsoever. The 100 electoral votes are not involved in the apportionment whatsoever. Also, each state regardless of their population has one electoral vote. This means that 385 electoral votes are apportioned throughout the entire electoral. This is based on a state’s apportionment population and the number of its next potential seat. More importantly, the methodology in determining apportionment population divided by the geometric mean of its current (n–1) and next (n) potential seat number.

It has nothing to do with the senator electoral votes; whatever you think is happening with the electoral college, isn't. There are ways of sounding uninformed without sounding completely clueless.

I understand how the terms work, so I think I've handled it pretty well.

Well, failed in making that clear.

That is exactly what I said; anyone with a modicum of comprehension could have understood that.

Refer above.

I did; couldn't do anything about it, and here you are complaining about it. Oh well…

 

I wait for him to attack one of our posters on twitter, lol, let the reality show begin

 

Clinton won the popular vote.... in other words more people voted for him then anyone else... something Trump can not say

the majority of people did not pick Trump, the electoral college did

.

 

Majoirty of the people didn't pick Clinton (both of them). Most people voted for someone besides them.

 

I said more people voted for Clinton back than which is true, same as more voted for his wife this election then Trump

 

I took two courses in statistic as an undergrad...one in math statistics...and one in my major, economic statistic. I did my grad work in psychology...and took a psych statistics course there also.

You do not know what you are talking about. The electoral votes for each state are determined by the number of people the state sends to the congress. Each gets 2 electoral votes for their senators...and then the number of representative determines how many more they get.

Wyoming gets three...because they have 2 senators...and 1 representative.

http://www.fairvote.org/the_electoral_college#how_the_electoral_college_works_today

Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of its U.S. House representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each state's population as determined in the census).

And thank you for showing how that is done. You just gave a totally incorrect response.

 

Hypotheticals are such fun