"Win with less votes?? Revolution!!!"

I'm sure he is smarter than that. I think he is just lashing out. Similar to when my buddies 5 year old doesn't get his ice cream.

I've seen a few posts from him that indicate he is capable of reasonable, rational discussion. He just chooses not to.

 

The short answer is yes. The fact that our system is designed so that the popular vote doesn't determine the outcome of a presidential election is simply one more indication that it wasn't actually designed to be an authentically democratic system by those colonial elites known as the Founding Fathers whom our society has dishonestly mythologized into democratic visionaries. We indeed need a revolution that rejects their elitism and the plutocratic system that they devised, and that replaces it with something more genuinely democratic.

 

Oy vey! More right-wing conspiracist caca about the danger of Democrats rigging elections! And you even work your racist pet peeve, illegal immigration, into your argument! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Why do most of you fail to realize this ? They only wanted the smart and educated people voting

You favor mob rule. What if most vote to make being gay a crime or to ban abortion ?

 

Education has little to do with the morality of social issues. It's possible to be a genius, and despise gay people.

Now when it comes to economics, science. Etc. Then I agree, educated people, in those areas should be revered.

But otherwise, everyone should have a voice.

 

He may have been brave but he was ignorant of our system of government. Should we change and radically shift our system of government because of sour grapes by the losers?

You win the Presidency by winning the most states and their electors and it appears Trump did that in a landslide.

Give it up.

 

if you want the popular vote to determine the election tell people beforehand. Don't set the expectation that your state is locked if its deep blue or deep red because of the electoral college so they can stay home and then say the popular vote is all that matters after.

It is very dishonest.

 

There were 51 popular votes and Trump won the most winning a landslide in the electors who will elect the President.

That's how you win.

Clinton lost.

Get over it.

- - - Updated - - -

The founding fathers and the great compromise got it right no need to change it especially because of hurt emotions.

- - - Updated - - -

He won enough, and more, electors to win the election when it is held in a few weeks.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting trivia but a moot point.

- - - Updated - - -

So your answer when you lose an election is anarchy?

 

Why do you want the electors to ignore the will of the citizens of their respective states I thought you were all about the will of the People and even if you could get a few the switch the best you could hope for would be to throw it to the House.

- - - Updated - - -

And he wouldn't get the Presidency so what's your point?

- - - Updated - - -

Fight for what?

 

It WAS debated and the founding fathers came up with a brilliant system that has worked just fine all these many years and should not be mucked with because of a bunch of sore losers.

Exactly.

It would require an Amendment with 2/3's of both Houses of the Federal Congress and then 2/3's of each house of each state legislature to change it. The Supreme Court would have no role in that process.

Guess what? It ain't gonna happen.

The Constitution says it is meaningless and the Federal government has no role in the selection of the electors that is STRICTLY a State matter.

 

There were 58 popular votes and there were very few landslide victories.

 

THERE WAS SINGLE VOTE. There were 51 separate and unique votes taken. Tallying them all up and declaring that was the popular vote is utter folly, it does NOT reflect the outcome had we had national popular vote.

No one can say with certainty what that outcome would have been as the campaigning and voting patterns would have been entirely different.

- - - Updated - - -

So you do not believe the electors should honor the will of the citizens who elected them because you lost........gothca! Kinda explains the rest of your post too.

- - - Updated - - -

No they can't most are bound by state law to vote the will of their respective citizens. Why would you NOT want them to respect the decision of their respective citizens?

- - - Updated - - -

No they cannot in most states and no it is not a national election. It is the electoral college carrying out the decision of each state to select the Pres and VP.

- - - Updated - - -

In most states they can't and in many if they do not vote the will of the people the state voids their vote and it is cast for the person who won.

And why on earth do you believe for a second that Republican electors are going to vote for Clinton? That's absurd.

 

Perhaps you should wait until he forms his administration and governs for a while before you arrive at any premature conclusions. Campaigns and actual governing are quite different, as many should understand, but with everything pointed against him this man still won. All the many billions spent by PACs, the MSM, the Clinton machine were defeated. Quite soundly in fact. It was an undeniable accomplishment, no matter your politics, and he deserves great credit for it.

That should strongly suggest that he is not to be underestimated and, given his record of success, might be an excellent President.

 

There were 51, the 50 states and the District. Trump won a landslide in electors who actually elect the President and in the number of states he won.

- - - Updated - - -

No most states have them bound to the state results.

 

The Democrats were fine with the system while leading in the polls but against it after they lost. This juvenile way of looking at the issues may have contributed a great deal to why the electorate didn't trust their judgement, and why they lost the election.

 

We didn't have a popular vote, fallacious statement.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what the were elected to do, they were elected to represent the will of the citizens of their state, PERIOD. Why do you insist they not honor the will of the people of their respective state.

- - - Updated - - -

The state legislature does, the only body who has a say in the matter.

 

Actually he did because we voted for the committed ELECTORS for each candidate.

 

Thank you....I think a lot of people just don't understand our system. We vote for the ELECTORS who have already committed to their candidate and party and for them (the electors) to go against what they already politically committed to do could be political suicide for them and their party.

 

Wrong. 48 states, DC, and 5 districts in Maine and 4 in Nebraska. That makes 58 individual races.

20 states are bound to the popular vote with several of them canceling the vote of the elector and replacing him/her.

 

I was only pointing out that under the electoral college if evil doers manage to swamp a particular blue state with bogus votes all they would get is the state's allotted electoral votes which they would have probably gotten anyway. Makes cheating less of a big deal. And please don't call me a racist again.


/.

 

I completely agree with you. I'm pretty sure you misread or took what I said out of context.

 

A group of very intelligent men said one time that the President should be elected by an electoral college in case to many low information voters go to the polls.

 

If you are going to quibble to that degree

56

The 48 states, DC, the MA and NB popular election for 2 of their electors and the the 2 MA districts and 3 NB districts.

"Although it is possible for an Elector to cast his or her vote for someone other than for the popular vote winner in their state, this is quite rare in modern times. As a result, Electoral Votes for a state tend to be "all or nothing".

Maine and Nebraska have taken a slightly different approach in recent years. These states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote. "
http://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/

But then let's not get mired down in quibbling.

 

...FEWER