Hillary challenges election results

[Dawgonit]

You are getting some really bad information.

If you think I'm wrong ill do the math for you.

20 million - New York State population
40 million - California population
319 million - USA population

That means the total population of the two states equals about 19% of the country. No where near enough to have a majority in a popular vote. That's also supposing that everyone in these states votes the same, which has never and will never happen.

Again people like to think the population in these states is where the majority of the country lives but it's far from the truth.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Because that system prevents liberals in New York and California from controlling the elections every term.

100% correct! Libs will try and really put the fix in if they change the law.
It's pure sour grapes once again.

[Dixonfor6]

If you think I'm wrong ill do the math for you.

20 million - New York State population
40 million - California population
319 million - USA population

That means the total population of the two states equals about 19% of the country. No where near enough to have a majority in a popular vote. That's also supposing that everyone in these states votes the same, which has never and will never happen.

Again people like to think the population in these states is where the majority of the country lives but it's far from the truth.

Please, please stop the logical thinking Doug. Trump man. Trump (it's like a South Park episode)

[Dixonfor6]

Also, I find it quite odd to not want a popular vote. What's the issue?

[PawDawg]

Also, I find it quite odd to not want a popular vote. What's the issue?

People in the Northeast and on the left coast (where the majority of the popular vote is) think differently than those in other regions. They've had their way for the past 8 years. How's that working out?

[RhythmDawg]

Also, I find it quite odd to not want a popular vote. What's the issue?

With the electoral college, swing states change often, forcing shifts in campaign strategy and investment of resources. This maintains the opportunity for relevance for smaller and more rural states. In a direct election, smaller and rural states would be completely irrelevant. Campaigns would spend 100% of their time in populous areas on the coasts and Texas. There would be no coalition building or "grass roots" campaigning, and voter turnout would decrease dramatically. For a party built on tolerance and equality for everyone, the democrats screaming about abolishing the EC is quite inconsistent.

[DONW]

Why are democrats wanting to change the way we elect our presidents this year and they haven't complained in the past?

[DawgyNWindow]

With the electoral college, swing states change often, forcing shifts in campaign strategy and investment of resources. This maintains the opportunity for relevance for smaller and more rural states. In a direct election, smaller and rural states would be completely irrelevant. Campaigns would spend 100% of their time in populous areas on the coasts and Texas. There would be no coalition building or "grass roots" campaigning, and voter turnout would decrease dramatically. For a party built on tolerance and equality for everyone, the democrats screaming about abolishing the EC is quite inconsistent.

Exactly.

Getting rid of the EC would silence the rural areas, making them political slaves of the larger urban areas. There would be pandering to the coasts at the expense of the heartland (and the heartland has completely different issues than the urban jungles on both coasts), and the laws would reflect this.

It's the EC and the fact that the senate is comprised of two senators from each state regardless of population that makes our government representative of the entire country and not just the special interests of certain areas.

It's a pretty good system.

[RhythmDawg]

Why are democrats wanting to change the way we elect our presidents this year and they haven't complained in the past?

I'm pretty sure they complained in 2000.

[Dawgonit]

With the electoral college, swing states change often, forcing shifts in campaign strategy and investment of resources.

This means only swing states get good campaigns and investments in resources. That leaves the majority of the country pretty barren. Awful system if the candidates focus on swing states and ignore the majority of the country, population and state-wise.

This maintains the opportunity for relevance for smaller and more rural states.

I'll agree it allows an opportunity. But just like the rules of football allow an opportunity to let programs score 300 points, it never happens.

Big and small states are extremely ignored by candidates in the EC, but small states are hurt the worst. They receive the smallest amount of visits from presidential candidates in the months leading up to the election. Candidates campaign in states with more votes. The EC is inadequate in protecting small states. I don't know why people keep believing the EC helps small states. It doesn't, they are ignored.

In a direct election, smaller and rural states would be completely irrelevant.

If we do a first past the vote system (most americans think of this for a direct election), all minorities would. Should minorities be given a bit more power because it feels unfair? Sounds like affirmative action in voting for rural people.

Campaigns would spend 100% of their time in populous areas on the coasts and Texas.

Possibly. But we do know right now that a minority of states in the country is given an unequal amount of campaigning. Is it fair that a system makes an extreme minority more important than the majority?

There would be no coalition building or "grass roots" campaigning, and voter turnout would decrease dramatically.

Voter turnout is low enough as it is and the EC causes this problem in many states. A Republican in California has no reason to vote for his candidate and neither does a Democrat in Texas. People stop voting because of the first past the post voting system. With the exception of two states, whether the majority has 51% or 100%, the candidate earns all the electoral votes. This disincentives people from voting if they are a part of the minority. There's a lack of "coalition building and grass roots campaigning" in these states because of the Electoral College. If you are against a lack of coalition building, grass roots campaigning, and voter turnout then you should be against the EC.



Again I hope we can stop defending the Electoral College. It fails at almost every reason people can come up with for why it exists. It's an archaic system that is a shame on our country if we claim to be defenders of freedom or democracy in the world. There are better systems that we could adopt. Systems that could be better for a republic and/or better for a democracy. As a democratic republic, we shouldn't have a system that fails at being both democratic and republican.

[RhythmDawg]

This means only swing states get good campaigns and investments in resources. That leaves the majority of the country pretty barren. Awful system if the candidates focus on swing states and ignore the majority of the country, population and state-wise.


I'll agree it allows an opportunity. But just like the rules of football allow an opportunity to let programs score 300 points, it never happens.

Big and small states are extremely ignored by candidates in the EC, but small states are hurt the worst. They receive the smallest amount of visits from presidential candidates in the months leading up to the election. Candidates campaign in states with more votes. The EC is inadequate in protecting small states. I don't know why people keep believing the EC helps small states. It doesn't, they are ignored.




If we do a first past the vote system (most americans think of this for a direct election), all minorities would. Should minorities be given a bit more power because it feels unfair? Sounds like affirmative action in voting for rural people.



Possibly. But we do know right now that a minority of states in the country is given an unequal amount of campaigning. Is it fair that a system makes an extreme minority more important than the majority?




Voter turnout is low enough as it is and the EC causes this problem in many states. A Republican in California has no reason to vote for his candidate and neither does a Democrat in Texas. People stop voting because of the first past the post voting system. With the exception of two states, whether the majority has 51% or 100%, the candidate earns all the electoral votes. This disincentives people from voting if they are a part of the minority. There's a lack of "coalition building and grass roots campaigning" in these states because of the Electoral College. If you are against a lack of coalition building, grass roots campaigning, and voter turnout then you should be against the EC.



Again I hope we can stop defending the Electoral College. It fails at almost every reason people can come up with for why it exists. It's an archaic system that is a shame on our country if we claim to be defenders of freedom or democracy in the world. There are better systems that we could adopt. Systems that could be better for a republic and/or better for a democracy. As a democratic republic, we shouldn't have a system that fails at being both democratic and republican.

Most of your post is correct in the context of one election. Everything you posted is completely wrong in the context of history.

Come up with a better system, but a direct election isn't better. No pure democracy with a direct election has survived.

[RhythmDawg]

This means only swing states get good campaigns and investments in resources. That leaves the majority of the country pretty barren. Awful system if the candidates focus on swing states and ignore the majority of the country, population and state-wise.

This is an exaggeration. It would be much worse in a direct election.



I'll agree it allows an opportunity. But just like the rules of football allow an opportunity to let programs score 300 points, it never happens.

Yes, it does happen, and has many elections.

Big and small states are extremely ignored by candidates in the EC, but small states are hurt the worst. They receive the smallest amount of visits from presidential candidates in the months leading up to the election. Candidates campaign in states with more votes. The EC is inadequate in protecting small states. I don't know why people keep believing the EC helps small states. It doesn't, they are ignored.

Again, an exaggeration. A direct election would be much worse.



If we do a first past the vote system (most americans think of this for a direct election), all minorities would. Should minorities be given a bit more power because it feels unfair? Sounds like affirmative action in voting for rural people.

It isn't affirmative action. It's checks and balances. It allows our country to correct itself. Without it our country would fail.

Possibly. But we do know right now that a minority of states in the country is given an unequal amount of campaigning. Is it fair that a system makes an extreme minority more important than the majority?

Extreme? Not exactly.




Voter turnout is low enough as it is and the EC causes this problem in many states. A Republican in California has no reason to vote for his candidate and neither does a Democrat in Texas. People stop voting because of the first past the post voting system. With the exception of two states, whether the majority has 51% or 100%, the candidate earns all the electoral votes. This disincentives people from voting if they are a part of the minority. There's a lack of "coalition building and grass roots campaigning" in these states because of the Electoral College. If you are against a lack of coalition building, grass roots campaigning, and voter turnout then you should be against the EC.

So how do you reconcile this with the fact that in previous elections Texas has gone democrat and California has gone republican?

Again I hope we can stop defending the Electoral College. It fails at almost every reason people can come up with for why it exists. It's an archaic system that is a shame on our country if we claim to be defenders of freedom or democracy in the world. There are better systems that we could adopt. Systems that could be better for a republic and/or better for a democracy. As a democratic republic, we shouldn't have a system that fails at being both democratic and republican.

Like what?

.

[dawg80]

We are not a democracy. We are not a representative democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, and be thankful that we are.

The problem has become the disregard of the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment, and a disregard for how the three branches are supposed to operate. The Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch are NOT supposed to make laws. Undo the bastardization of our Constitutional Republic and you will see the brilliance of it, and how well it works.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

She's just another narcissistic, lying and hypocritical liberal. That stupid, evil B$tch!!

George Soros is leading and paying these packs of feral animals.


ELECTORAL COLLEGE DEATH THREATS...


HILLARY CHALLENGES ELECTION RESULTS

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...state-recounts

You just knew this was the case the instant you heard it.

George Soros Financed Hillary Clinton’s Recount Lawyer Marc Elias


http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...count-efforts/

[RhythmDawg]

In the 2003 MLB regular season, the Yankees won 101 games...tied for the most wins and 10 more wins than the Marlins. The Yankees won their division. The Marlins were a wild card team. In the World Series, the Yankees scored 21 total runs. The Marlins scored 17 runs. The Marlins took the series 4 games to 2. We should really rethink how MLB determines its champion.