MerryMom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,539 
|
Post by MerryMom on Nov 9, 2016 16:39:54 GMT
Hmmm, Trumpers so silent now about popular vote versus electoral college.
|
|
Anita
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,646
Location: Kansas City -ish
|
Post by Anita on Nov 9, 2016 17:29:00 GMT
Well I will give him this...he was right about the campaign being rigged after all!
|
|
|
|
Post by mom on Nov 9, 2016 17:29:46 GMT
Well I will give him this...he was right about the campaign being rigged after all! How was it rigged? I haven't heard anything about it being rigged? |
|
|
|
Post by sugarmama on Nov 9, 2016 17:36:06 GMT
They were some reports of voter fraud in various places. Personally, I think that because he mentioned it, people were in high alert to report any sign of irregularity. I personally had a problem with my machine changing my vote, but managed to correct it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 9, 2016 17:52:37 GMT
I'm not understanding this post - the electoral college over weighs, rural and small states - historic Republican strongholds. In modern history, only Gore won the popular vote without winning the electoral college and can't see how anyone would argue a scenario where a Republican would win the popular vote and not the electoral college - with California and New York being the Democratic strongholds, the math just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by terri on Nov 9, 2016 17:54:02 GMT
It was rigged in the sense that voting districts were changed so white candidates would have the advantage. It has been going on for years. In NC where I live a judge recently said it was done with "surgical precision" to discriminate against black voters.
Also remember the Voters Right Act was dismantled in 2013 which meant less polling places in minority populations making it much harder for them to vote.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Nov 9, 2016 17:56:59 GMT
Does the popular vote count as of this morning include states that have not yet been called leaning red??
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 9, 2016 18:19:00 GMT
It was rigged in the sense that voting districts were changed so white candidates would have the advantage. It has been going on for years. In NC where I live a judge recently said it was done with "surgical precision" to discriminate against black voters. Also remember the Voters Right Act was dismantled in 2013 which meant less polling places in minority populations making it much harder for them to vote. Voting districts have no impact on the presidential election. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska every single other state awards all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote of the state. |
|
|
|
Post by snowsilver on Nov 9, 2016 18:22:37 GMT
I am a conservative and I have NEVER advocated the repeal of the Electoral College. I am and always will be a strong supporter of this system wisely put in place by our Founding Fathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Nov 9, 2016 18:23:38 GMT
I'm not understanding this post - the electoral college over weighs, rural and small states - historic Republican strongholds. In modern history, only Gore won the popular vote without winning the electoral college and can't see how anyone would argue a scenario where a Republican would win the popular vote and not the electoral college - with California and New York being the Democratic strongholds, the math just doesn't make sense. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Nov 9, 2016 18:24:56 GMT
I'm not understanding this post - the electoral college over weighs, rural and small states - historic Republican strongholds. In modern history, only Gore won the popular vote without winning the electoral college and can't see how anyone would argue a scenario where a Republican would win the popular vote and not the electoral college - with California and New York being the Democratic strongholds, the math just doesn't make sense. I am having trouble posting but do you realize that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote? |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Nov 9, 2016 18:25:05 GMT
Does the popular vote count as of this morning include states that have not yet been called leaning red?? No, I do not believe it does. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 18:34:59 GMT
Hmmm, Trumpers so silent now about popular vote versus electoral college. I said that state electoral votes need to reflect the people who live in less densely populated areas just as our other votes do. Really take a look at this map and tell me if all of these people in the red states shouldn't have a say in how they are governed even though they live in areas that are less densely populated. ******* Colorado should be blue, not red and Pennsylvania should be red, not blue ***************  |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 9, 2016 18:35:15 GMT
I'm not understanding this post - the electoral college over weighs, rural and small states - historic Republican strongholds. In modern history, only Gore won the popular vote without winning the electoral college and can't see how anyone would argue a scenario where a Republican would win the popular vote and not the electoral college - with California and New York being the Democratic strongholds, the math just doesn't make sense. I am having trouble posting but do you realize that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote? Sure - but why the insinuation in the OP that Trump supporters were once talking about popular vs electoral college - I hadn't heard anything of the sort running up to the election and wouldn't have expected to based on the historic voting of the different regions and how they're impacted by the electoral college. Voting patterns would have to change dramatically for a Republican to win the popular vote, but not the electoral college. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 9, 2016 18:37:49 GMT
Hmmm, Trumpers so silent now about popular vote versus electoral college. I said that state electoral votes need to reflect the people who live in less densely populated areas just as our other votes do. Really take a look at this map and tell me if all of these people in the red states shouldn't have a say in how they are governed even though they live in areas that are less densely populated. Did CO flip? Last night it was one of the few swing states that went for Hillary. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Nov 9, 2016 18:39:35 GMT
I said that state electoral votes need to reflect the people who live in less densely populated areas just as our other votes do. Really take a look at this map and tell me if all of these people in the red states shouldn't have a say in how they are governed even though they live in areas that are less densely populated. Did CO flip? Last night it was one of the few swing states that went for Hillary. No, it went to HRC. |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Nov 9, 2016 18:42:06 GMT
In modern history, only Gore won the popular vote without winning the electoral college Including Clinton, there are a total of f ive candidates who won the poplar vote but lost the electoral vote:1. Andrew Jackson in 1824 (lost to John Quincy Adams) 2. Samuel Tilden in 1876 (lost to Rutherford B. Hayes) 3. Grover Cleveland in 1888 (lost to Benjamin Harrison) 4. Al Gore in 2000 (lost to George W. Bush) 5. Hillary Clinton |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 18:44:06 GMT
I am a conservative and I have NEVER advocated the repeal of the Electoral College. I am and always will be a strong supporter of this system wisely put in place by our Founding Fathers. I'd just like states to be able to split their electoral votes, but that's up to each state to determine and I have great respect for individual state's rights. Dividing their votes would change the nature of all this pandering that goes on to the people in the more densely populated areas. All of these polls and commentators that got this election so wrong got it wrong because they just wouldn't listen to all the rest of the people who were very clearly showing their support by turning out in the tens of thousands 4,5,6 times a day, every day, at all times of the day, just to hear Trump stand on the stage and speak without benefit of free concerts by huge superstars. Imagine what today would look like if the news actually showed the size of each crowd versus the sizes of the crowds that Hillary drew! |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 18:46:00 GMT
Did CO flip? Last night it was one of the few swing states that went for Hillary. I don't know. I haven't closely checked the map for accuracy. It's generally correct and that was what I was looking for. I apologize if it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 9, 2016 18:47:10 GMT
In modern history, only Gore won the popular vote without winning the electoral college Including Clinton, there are a total of f ive candidates who won the poplar vote but lost the electoral vote:1. Andrew Jackson in 1824 (lost to John Quincy Adams) 2. Samuel Tilden in 1876 (lost to Rutherford B. Hayes) 3. Grover Cleveland in 1888 (lost to Benjamin Harrison) 4. Al Gore in 2000 (lost to George W. Bush) 5. Hillary Clinton Exactly - only once in modern history. I don't think discussing voting patterns in the 1800s is too relevant. As long as small and/or less populous states continue to vote Republican and large and/or densely populated states vote Democratic - it's a real possibility for Democratic candidate - less so for a Republican candidate. A Republican candidate that is wildly unpopular in California can easily win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote just because of the concentration of voters in that state. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Nov 9, 2016 18:49:08 GMT
All of these polls and commentators that got this election so wrong got it wrong because they just wouldn't listen to all the rest of the people who were very clearly showing their support by turning out in the tens of thousands 4,5,6 times a day, every day, at all times of the day, just to hear Trump stand on the stage and speak without benefit of free concerts by huge superstars. Imagine what today would look like if the news actually showed the size of each crowd versus the sizes of the crowds that Hillary drew! I completely agree. People were only hearing what they wanted to hear (and see). People were showing their support - but even more so, their refusal of support for Hillary. But no one listened. And when they did, they were told they were un-American, deplorable, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 9, 2016 18:52:08 GMT
I am a conservative and I have NEVER advocated the repeal of the Electoral College. I am and always will be a strong supporter of this system wisely put in place by our Founding Fathers. I'd just like states to be able to split their electoral votes, but that's up to each state to determine and I have great respect for individual state's rights. Dividing their votes would change the nature of all this pandering that goes on to the people in the more densely populated areas. All of these polls and commentators that got this election so wrong got it wrong because they just wouldn't listen to all the rest of the people who were very clearly showing their support by turning out in the tens of thousands 4,5,6 times a day, every day, at all times of the day, just to hear Trump stand on the stage and speak without benefit of free concerts by huge superstars. Imagine what today would look like if the news actually showed the size of each crowd versus the sizes of the crowds that Hillary drew! I do wonder if some states should consider proportional of their electoral college votes. I know for many states they feel the winner takes all makes them more relevant than their small vote count would garner. But I think the people in California and New York would be better served with proportional. Make the candidates actually care about those states instead of taking them for granted. And the electoral college count in those states is so rich it would make the difference between 30% and 40% for a Republican candidate matter a whole lot - and of course inversely the size of the Democratic victory. But the big states won't move as it would disadvantage the Democratic party - particularly if all those small states don't reciprocate. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 18:52:53 GMT
OK, Colorado should be blue and Pennsylvania should be red on the map. I edited my post to state that directly above the map. This is a link to the more accurate updating map at Google. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 9, 2016 18:57:32 GMT
OK, Colorado should be blue and Pennsylvania should be red on the map. I edited my post to state that directly above the map. This is a link to the more accurate updating map at Google. No worries - I should have just looked it up. I was just surprised when I saw the map as an ex-Coloradan I was watching that race. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 9, 2016 18:59:09 GMT
I'm not understanding this post - the electoral college over weighs, rural and small states - historic Republican strongholds. In modern history, only Gore won the popular vote without winning the electoral college and can't see how anyone would argue a scenario where a Republican would win the popular vote and not the electoral college - with California and New York being the Democratic strongholds, the math just doesn't make sense. I am having trouble posting but do you realize that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote? I understand that. I also understand that our system was never set up as a straight Democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Nov 9, 2016 19:16:54 GMT
Exactly - only once in modern history. I don't think discussing voting patterns in the 1800s is too relevant. As long as small and/or less populous states continue to vote Republican and large and/or densely populated states vote Democratic - it's a real possibility for Democratic candidate - less so for a Republican candidate. A Republican candidate that is wildly unpopular in California can easily win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote just because of the concentration of voters in that state. Twice in modern history. 2 out of 5 times. Gore and Clinton. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 9, 2016 19:21:45 GMT
Exactly - only once in modern history. I don't think discussing voting patterns in the 1800s is too relevant. As long as small and/or less populous states continue to vote Republican and large and/or densely populated states vote Democratic - it's a real possibility for Democratic candidate - less so for a Republican candidate. A Republican candidate that is wildly unpopular in California can easily win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote just because of the concentration of voters in that state. Twice in modern history. 2 out of 5 times. Gore and Clinton. I was waiting for final results before adding Clinton. But again - the OP makes no sense. This is not a feasible outcome for a Republican candidate based on historic voting patterns. I didn't understand the insinuation that "Trumpers" would ever be advocating for a straight popular vote - the math just doesn't make sense. |
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 9, 2016 19:27:00 GMT
It was rigged in the sense that voting districts were changed so white candidates would have the advantage. It has been going on for years. In NC where I live a judge recently said it was done with "surgical precision" to discriminate against black voters. Also remember the Voters Right Act was dismantled in 2013 which meant less polling places in minority populations making it much harder for them to vote. Voting districts have no impact on the presidential election. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska every single other state awards all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote of the state. Which is why I feel it is not representative of the voters. I have no problem with them consolidating the popular vote into electoral votes, but only if it reflects the popular vote. My state's 6 votes went to the R side, but the popular vote would have been reflected as 4-2.
When a candidate can trail (even if it's only slightly) in the popular vote, but win by a large margin in the electoral vote, well it just doesn't sit well with me. And then the electors themselves can pay a fee and vote for whoever they want?
Yea, they say every vote counts, but 40% of the votes in my state didn't.
But as I said in another thread, it's been going on this way since the get-go. Who am I to complain?
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 9, 2016 19:36:05 GMT
Voting districts have no impact on the presidential election. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska every single other state awards all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote of the state. Which is why I feel it is not representative of the voters. I have no problem with them consolidating the popular vote into electoral votes, but only if it reflects the popular vote. My state's 6 votes went to the R side, but the popular vote would have been reflected as 4-2.
When a candidate can trail (even if it's only slightly) in the popular vote, but win by a large margin in the electoral vote, well it just doesn't sit well with me. And then the electors themselves can pay a fee and vote for whoever they want?
Yea, they say every vote counts, but 40% of the votes in my state didn't.
But as I said in another thread, it's been going on this way since the get-go. Who am I to complain?
Your state can change it's allocation of their electoral votes on the state level - as well as require the electors to abide by the voters of the state. They can go proportional, based on congressional districts, or some other combination. It just takes a vote by that particular state. It's only a change to the electoral college system itself that would require a constitutional amendment. |
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Nov 9, 2016 19:53:11 GMT
I'm not understanding this post - the electoral college over weighs, rural and small states - historic Republican strongholds. In modern history, only Gore won the popular vote without winning the electoral college and can't see how anyone would argue a scenario where a Republican would win the popular vote and not the electoral college - with California and New York being the Democratic strongholds, the math just doesn't make sense. I don't get this post either.  Why would the Republicans make noise about electoral vs. popular votes? The last time this happened it worked in their favour too.
If you think the system is inequitable, change it before an election, don't bitch about it afterwards.
|
|
My original pea date was November 1999 and my number was 1803
Why would the Republicans make noise about electoral vs. popular votes? The last time this happened it worked in their favour too. 