Topic: Electoral college
started by: Self-Banished
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 19 2016,2:56 pm
It seems more and more dems are calling for the repeal of the electoral college saying it would be more fair to go by the popular vote. Of course this comes up now that Clinton won the popular vote by a little more than a million votes (peanuts in percentage when one crunches the numbers)< http://www.breitbart.com/2016-pr...college >
< http://www.zerohedge.com/news...college >
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 19 2016,4:50 pm
Phaack that. Without the EC, the election would most often be decided by NYC, Chicago and LA, bastions of liberal voters. People in flyover and rural areas would have no say at all.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 19 2016,5:07 pm
^^ I very much agree with that.
Posted by hymiebravo on Nov. 21 2016,6:25 pm
Instead bigoted northern hillbillies, the religious fanatical right and the Amish get to decide instead. 
Yeah that's so much better.
Posted by hymiebravo on Nov. 21 2016,6:28 pm
But Trump said it's all corrupt anyway, didn't he?
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 22 2016,5:03 am
No one seemed to bitch when Billy won in 1992 with less than 50%.All in all it's fair, otherwise we'd have the population center like New York, Cailifornia etc. deciding for the rest of the country. I suppose it's a moot point but if you'd like to change this Hymen all you need to do is get 2/3's of congress and the senate and 38 of the states to change this.
Good luck with that.
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 22 2016,6:25 am
Don't know where you think you're going with the 1992 election.. only 52% of eligible voters even bothered to vote, of those, Clinton took the Popular Vote as well as the Electoral College... you continue to post your parroted factoid propaganda..
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 22 2016,6:53 am
(Expatriate @ Nov. 22 2016,6:25 am)
QUOTE
Don't know where you think you're going with the 1992 election.. only 52% of eligible voters even bothered to vote, of those, Clinton took the Popular Vote as well as the Electoral College... you continue to post your parroted factoid propaganda..
< https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...n,_1992 >
No, Billy took about 43%, Bush and Perot about 57%, this Billy didn't pull the popular vote. It doesn't really matter though, it's all "water under the bridge "
Just like this election is.
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 22 2016,7:34 am
Spin yourself into a tissy idgit, Bush and Perot weren't on the same ticket, before you start your next spin I voted Perot..Clinton carried the popular vote majority of all the candidates as well as the electoral college in 92, totally different from the situation in the 2016 election cycle.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 22 2016,12:04 pm
^^ I know Bush and Perot weren't on the same ticket, Bush ran with Quayle, Perot with Stockdale. Once again Clinton did'nt carry the popular vote meaning he didn't have more than 50%, pay attention moron 
Turnout for election night was 58%. I even used PBS for a source, perhaps if you ask nice they can get Big Bird to explain it to you.
Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Nov. 22 2016,2:23 pm
(Botto 82 @ Nov. 19 2016,4:50 pm)
QUOTE
Phaack that. Without the EC, the election would most often be decided by NYC, Chicago and LA, bastions of liberal voters. People in flyover and rural areas would have no say at all.
I guess I am dumb but I've never understood this argument. Are you saying that the vote by a person from those places counts more than anywhere else? That is pretty much what the EC does. Makes certain places votes mean more (swing states anyone?). How does winning the popular vote, which by definition means the most people voted for that person, mean that a certain section of the population is having their own way? If you want to beat a certain party you just need more people to vote for that person. Seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.
I know people who say they don't bother voting because their vote doesn't even count with the EC.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 22 2016,3:22 pm
Usually is in MN that the dem wins and the repub isn't even close but this time it was close, about a percentage point and a half. If you look at the map in the link MN was awful red.< http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/minnesota/ >
I found it funny that Trump won by over 17% in Freeborn county.
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 23 2016,6:50 am
@ the idgit...FYI for that lonely neuron that bounces around in your skull, the piece of garbage you support lost the popular vote.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 23 2016,7:48 am
(Expatriate @ Nov. 23 2016,6:50 am)
QUOTE
@ the idgit...FYI for that lonely neuron that bounces around in your skull, the piece of garbage you support lost the popular vote.
By about 1.5% , yes he did but in the grand scheme of things he won, now you're stuck with 8 years of him
I know you're going to say he won't get a second term but all he really has to do is improve a weak economy, pretty much nothing else but I'm sure he'll improve a lot more.