Posted on Nov 10, 2016
Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead raises questions about the Electoral College
10.6K
221
95
6
6
0
Just a couple of thoughts here, for anyone claiming the silent majority spoke or that the majority supports Trump, that doesn't appear to be true of those that voted. Currently HRC is winning the popular vote, just as Gore did in 2000.
The interesting bit about it is that it was Trump and many of his supporters who seemed to be complaining the most about the electoral college and now ironically enough it looks like Trump will loose the popular vote but was elected due to the electoral collage.
It also unfortunately goes to show how deeply divided we are.
The interesting bit about it is that it was Trump and many of his supporters who seemed to be complaining the most about the electoral college and now ironically enough it looks like Trump will loose the popular vote but was elected due to the electoral collage.
It also unfortunately goes to show how deeply divided we are.
Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead raises questions about the Electoral College
Posted from cbsnews.com
Election 2016
Donald Trump
Republicans
Democrats
Hillary Clinton
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 25
21
21
0
Without picking a side from my end, here is another perspective, because your conclusions are slightly skewed as a result of the election. The people who set up our government from the outset formed the Electoral College to ensure that any one hugely-populated state (e.g., California), or one hugely-populated city, or one hugely-populated city in one hugely-populated state, etc., etc., etc., does not indicate the direction of the country, and the singular desires of that city, state, region, etc. Think about it. Do the folks in Topeka, Kansas (for example), want the folks in Los Angeles, CA, telling them which way they are to go regarding agriculture, or the entire state of Washington telling the folks in Idaho on how they are to be regulated regarding firearms? Again, think about it. There is a reason why each state has 2 Senators for equality, but the number of representatives is based on the populations of the states---and that each state has a BOUNDARY.
(21)
(0)
(3)
(0)
Capt Chris McVeigh
I would say there are arguments for and against. Eliminating the electoral college would not change legislative representation. I think that is apportioned fine (redistricting is a whole separate issue). But as far as the office of president, the one single individual who is supposed to represent the country, there is definitely an argument for making it by popular vote.
Senators and Representatives fill the role of representing each small section of the country, the president is supposed to represent the country as a whole, regardless of where each citizen lives. Why should someone's vote in a national presidential election count less just because they are across state lines?
Again, there's two ways to look at it, I wanted to throw in a counter argument.
Senators and Representatives fill the role of representing each small section of the country, the president is supposed to represent the country as a whole, regardless of where each citizen lives. Why should someone's vote in a national presidential election count less just because they are across state lines?
Again, there's two ways to look at it, I wanted to throw in a counter argument.
(1)
(0)
LCpl Cy Hotchkiss
if you go by Pop vote Clinton wins by 3 million votes ok cool but the largest part of that 3 million votes comes from CA. so going back to CDR John Selberg one states overwhelming amount of voters ends up deciding who will be POTUS.
and as much as I hate saying it I live in CA. this state allows illegal aliens to get a drivers license and when you get your license you can register to vote there is not voter ID law here except that it is illegal to ask someone to show their ID to vote.
So you get illegals that register to vote can not be asked to show ID.
How many of the 3 million votes Clinton got are legal? (voter fraud?) to some extent I am pretty sure there was at least some
and as much as I hate saying it I live in CA. this state allows illegal aliens to get a drivers license and when you get your license you can register to vote there is not voter ID law here except that it is illegal to ask someone to show their ID to vote.
So you get illegals that register to vote can not be asked to show ID.
How many of the 3 million votes Clinton got are legal? (voter fraud?) to some extent I am pretty sure there was at least some
(1)
(0)
11
11
0
MSgt Michael Bischoff
Look at that picture the spots in blue are little better than half of the voting population. So how else would you do it? Some states don't have the population of say Los Angeles!!
(3)
(0)
PO2 Robert Aitchison
SSG (Join to see) - The original intent did not account for political parties or the winner take all system that most states have adopted. It's my opinion that the current system is very far removed from the original intent of the electoral college system and the only reason we're doing it this way is it allows the two parties to more easily manipulate elections (much easier if you only have to campaign in less than a dozen states instead of all 50) and allows them to completely disenfranchise any third parties.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
We as a nation must pull our selves together. Whether you like the Electoral College structure or not it serves a very valid purpose. It helps prevent the " Tryanny of the Majority." Without the EC 36 states' opinion/votes would mean nothing. The majority of the nation live in fourteen states. Since they seem to be in lock step most of the time, their votes would overwhelm the rest of the country. Is that really what you want? I don't, even though I live and vote in one of those 14, I don't want to see the dictatorship of the majority of the states by the east coast and west coast elites.
(8)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Another way of looking at it though is that if you are a republican in a large population blue state like CA, your vote is meaningless. But as a group, more republicans in CA will vote for the republican candidate than those in small population red states. Yet the smaller number of republicans in the red states will contribute EC votes to the repub candidate, while a much larger number of repub votes in CA will contribute none So a republican vote in CA does not contribute the same as a republican vote in say Kansas. Or you can reverse the example to a large red state vs a small blue state.
It definitely detracts from the concept of one person one vote.
It definitely detracts from the concept of one person one vote.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
How long do you think we would survive as a country if the peole in the middle of the country essentially had no say in the government of the country? The founding fathers did this so a few large population centers of the country could not over ride the beliefs of the rest of the country. I think if we got rid of the electoral college e country would not last beyond a few election cycles as people in the center of the country began to feel disenfranchised.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google