Trump Administration

[Tacachale]

^Oh, look. Its the "large liberal cities pushed her ahead in the popular vote, lulz" argument. That doesn't win elections, sport & its one of the reason the electoral college exists.

And since the popular means dick, Trump won 3084 out of 3141 counties (including Duval). Let that sink in. Or don't.

She didn't just win in "large liberal cities", sport, and she lost pretty narrowly in many of the individual states she lost in. Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 100k *total*. Any number of things could have changed that. Sure, maybe fewer ads with rich celebrities preaching to the choir, but also, you know, better economic messaging on Clinton's part, better GOTV, not underestimating Trump's appeal in rust belt blue states would probably have had an even bigger impact.

[MusicMan]

Can you imagine a country, declaring itself to be a democracy, where they set up an electoral process that would allow a person who gets fewer votes wins?


Me neither.


And what other nations in the world have a similar process?

Republican motto:  "It's not how many votes you get, it's where you get them."

Headlines: "Rustbelt Rednecks get to choose the PREZ. Yippee KaiYaY M@therF%ucker!!!"

[peestandingup]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."

That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.

[BridgeTroll]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."

That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.

It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace.  There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it.  It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.

[Adam White]

The USA is a democracy. Seriously - quit with that "republic, not a democracy" shit. It's not clever.

Second - The current "winner take all" approach to apportioning electoral votes is down to the individual states and has nothing to do with the intent of the so-called "founding fathers". If the electors were split and awarded on percentage of votes in each state, the outcome would be fairer.

[Adam White]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."

That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.

It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace.  There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it.  It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.

It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.

[BridgeTroll]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."

That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.

It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace.  There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it.  It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.

It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.

It has worked exactly as designed.  Apparently not in your favor on this occasion...

[vicupstate]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."

That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.

It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace.  There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it.  It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.

It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.

Five times it has picked the loser of the Popular vote. Each time it cost the Democratic party the Presidency. It has outlived its usefulness but when has that ever stop anything. 

[BridgeTroll]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."

That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.

It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace.  There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it.  It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.

It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.

Five times it has picked the loser of the Popular vote. Each time it cost the Democratic party the Presidency. It has outlived its usefulness but when has that ever stop anything. 

The Constitution provides the means to change it... I suggest that those who have an issue with the Electoral College actually... you know... do what you say needs to be done...

[finehoe]

"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."

"Omg, why can't sparsely populated reactionary rural counties impose their will onto the rest of the country?!"

Why does that make any more sense?

Try to keep up.

Believe me, keeping up with you isn't very hard.

... or ignore huge swaths of the populace. 

So let's see, having the person with fewer votes win isn't ignoring huge swaths of the populace.  Got it.

[Adam White]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."

That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.

It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace.  There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it.  It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.

It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.

Five times it has picked the loser of the Popular vote. Each time it cost the Democratic party the Presidency. It has outlived its usefulness but when has that ever stop anything. 

The Constitution provides the means to change it... I suggest that those who have an issue with the Electoral College actually... you know... do what you say needs to be done...

The constitution doesn't address how electoral votes are apportioned by the states. I don't know what would be easier - get each state to make changes to distribute the votes based on percentage of popular votes or to get a constitutional amendment passed that would address it.

All that aside - no one is saying there aren't methods to fix the issue. So I don't get your response - the commentary is simply a discussion of how it is flawed.

[Adam White]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."

That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.

It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace.  There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it.  It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.

It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.

It has worked exactly as designed.  Apparently not in your favor on this occasion...

I didn't vote and had I voted, it wouldn't have been for Clinton. So try again.

[Tacachale]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

What's beyond me is that people actually think "a couple of big cities in New York and California" would be enough to decide an election.

[BridgeTroll]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

What's beyond me is that people actually think "a couple of big cities in New York and California" would be enough to decide an election.

Taca... if not apparent my quip it was a bit of an exaggeration in response to the "woe is us" folks who still seem unwilling to address the fundamental issues as to why they lost... referring to huge portions of the country as rustbelt rednecks. 

Meh... its over... let it go or fix it...

[finehoe]

if not apparent my quip it was a bit of an exaggeration in response to the "woe is us" folks who still seem unwilling to address the fundamental issues as to why they lost... referring to huge portions of the country as rustbelt rednecks. 

But that's the whole point.  How can you say they lost "huge portions of the country" when they received more votes than the "winner"?  The government exists to serve human beings, not empty space. Continuing to deflect the fact that a larger number of voters picked the "loser" by defaulting to lectures on how to change the electoral college and then following up with the idea that they lost because of their message when more people chose that message is willful blindness.