Civil War

[taykair]

I've heard of sore losers before (Hillary Clinton comes to mind) but sore winners? C'mon, fellas.

 

[Kairos]

I can't say this any more clearly: there was NO popular vote. It was an electoral college vote. If there was a popular vote, then many millions of republican voters who did not vote in 2016 would have voted.

You cannot look at the outcome of an electoral college vote and claim there exists data for a popular vote. It's a completely different animal. People's voting patterns would be totally different if we had a popular vote. Republican voters in every city stay home during electoral college elections. Republicans voters in states that make no distinction in an electoral college election tend to vote third party as a form of strategic voting. If all our votes actually counted equally, all those republicans would vote republican.

And, no, the democrats would lose very badly right now if America went to a popular vote. They would get totally crushed. They'd need to murder the American people for good with total demographic replacement for that to work.

 

[taykair]

 

[Harte]

In other words: Without the electoral college, candidates would have to campaign in the most densely populated areas, and would have to receive a plurality of all of the voters' votes instead of a majority of the votes of 535 selected party hacks. Got it.

And this is better, how?

People in Los Angeles don't give a rat's ass what's happening in Montana or Kansas, or a multitude of other examples I could give you.
Without the Electoral college, every president would be elected by less than 10% of the number of counties extant in the US.
That's how.

I've heard of sore losers before (Hillary Clinton comes to mind) but sore winners? C'mon, fellas.

The point being made is that Republicans in Republican districts don't turn out often, as those districts are usually safe Republican districts. Same goes for the Dems, though, so I don't see how it would have affected the popular vote much either way, percentage-wise anyway.

I can offer you this website with a legitimate map of voting by county though:
NYTimes
I say "legitimate" because this county map (which you'll have to click on at the left of that website's page) is not one of the ones used for the internet memes that claim Clinton only won 57 counties.
She won hundreds of counties, but there are over 3,000 counties in the USA.

Harte

 

[taykair]

Just three things, and then I'm done with this rather silly topic:

1. I'm sure that the good folks of Butte and Topeka care deeply about the folks in Los Angeles. (I also have this bridge for sale, if you're interested.)

2. Counties do not vote. People do.

3. Safe district or not, if Republicans (or Democrats, or whoever) won't bother to get off their asses and vote, then grousing after the fact about how things would have been much different if they had voted just doesn't make very much sense.

 

[Harte]

Just three things, and then I'm done with this rather silly topic:

1. I'm sure that the good folks of Butte and Topeka care deeply about the folks in Los Angeles. (I also have this bridge for sale, if you're interested.)

Who the hell cares? The point is that the people in Topeka and Butte wouldn't have a voice in the election of a president.

2. Counties do not vote. People do.

Yeah. And?
I mean it's kind of hard to see individual votes on a map that shows the entire country.

3. Safe district or not, if Republicans (or Democrats, or whoever) won't bother to get off their asses and vote, then grousing after the fact about how things would have been much different if they had voted just doesn't make very much sense.

I just said that.

Harte

 

[Cirrus]

I can't say this any more clearly: there was NO popular vote. It was an electoral college vote.

It still kinda is a "popular vote". 29 states (and D.C.) have laws that require electors to cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote in that particular state. In the 2016 election, there was a bit of a movement to have electors "go rogue" and vote against party and popular vote lines. The movement didn't do much of anything because the outcome of the election stayed the same.

I've heard of sore losers before (Hillary Clinton comes to mind) but sore winners? C'mon, fellas.

This is one of the things that I still don't get about Trump (there's a large running list). Dude won the election, but he can't shut up about winning the election. Usually when people say crap like this it's because they know that they didn't win legitimately.

 

[Harte]

You don't think maybe it's because he's being challenged about it on a daily basis then?

Harte

 

[Kairos]

These people are truly deranged. This gas lighting is off the charts.

 

[Kairos]

It still kinda is a "popular vote". 29 states (and D.C.) have laws that require electors to cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote in that particular state. In the 2016 election, there was a bit of a movement to have electors "go rogue" and vote against party and popular vote lines. The movement didn't do much of anything because the outcome of the election stayed the same.



This is one of the things that I still don't get about Trump (there's a large running list). Dude won the election, but he can't shut up about winning the election. Usually when people say crap like this it's because they know that they didn't win legitimately.

Not in any sense of the term "popular election" was that a popular election. You cannot discern the outcome of a popular vote from the results of an electoral college vote, and vice versa. The voting patterns and behaviors are completely different.

The case for why a popular vote would be a disaster for the democratic party with current demographics is straightforward and demonstrable. Go ahead and switch to popular vote. Please. I would love to destroy the democratic party right now.