Trump: Our New President

[Josiah]

Highlander, more than 100 million people voted in the 2016 election. The population of NYC a few million, California went for Hillary Clinton 60% or so. Your claim is obviously incorrect. Hillary Clinton received 62,115,634 votes. That is far more than the entire population California and NYC combined. I suspect that you know your claim is absurd.

Of course, you are choosing to evade the Rule of Law in the USA; we don't elect our president by majority of national vote - just as Australia does not select your queen and PM (or anyone for that matter) by majority of national vote. If you think that's wrong, work to change it in your own country before you start trying to change things in another country.

And of course, you are choosing to evade and ignore that the campaign of both Trump and Clinton was focused on one singular goal: winning the 271 votes of the electoral college. Good reason: for 240 years, that's how our country selects our president. BOTH of them accepted the rules going in, BOTH of them played by those rules, BOTH of them conducted their campaigns in that way. WE HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW how the national vote might have gone if the rules were different, if the campaign was different. That's why the national vote is irrelevant - NO ONE sought to win the national vote, NO ONE ran a campaign to win the national vote. For me in California - the most populous state in the USA - this is obvious because neither candidate ran much of a campaign here.... both knew Clinton would get all the electoral votes here, so neither wasted much time or money here. What if they had? We have no way to know..... it's not the campaigne that happened because it's now how we select our presidents. Thus, your noting the national vote just shows your ignorance of the Rule of Law in the USA.

You can claim that the process we use is not democratic enough.... and frankly, you wouldn't get any argument from me.... but it is the law of our land. And I find your spamming on this to be hypocrisy since it's much worse in your country, neither Elizabeth or Malcolm (or anyone) serves because they won the majority of a national vote in your country! "Physician, heal thyself." You have a LOT more to do in your country in this regard than we do in the USA....



- Josiah

 

[tango]

Highlander, more than 100 million people voted in the 2016 election. The population of NYC a few million, California went for Hillary Clinton 60% or so. Your claim is obviously incorrect. Hillary Clinton received 62,115,634 votes. That is far more than the entire population California and NYC combined. I suspect that you know your claim is absurd.

Except Highlander's post said:

1- The extra Hillary votes are essentially from California and New York City. The vast majority of Americans, between the coasts, voted for Trump. That is why he beat her so badly in the electoral votes -- which is what really matters in terms of it being a landslide victory for Trump.

2- There probably were 2-3 million illegals who voted for Hillary -- votes that should not be counted. So, if we count only the votes of American citizens, Trump actually landslided Hillary in the popular vote also.

Your posts are essentially showing Hillary Clinton something in the region of 1.5m votes ahead, in the popular vote (which isn't relevant to the final result however many times you comment on it). The population of NYC is approximately 8m. Given the way densely populated urban areas tend to vote Democrat it's entirely reasonable to figure, even without looking up specific numbers, that if you removed NYC from the vote that lead in the popular vote (did I mention it's irrelevant?) you could easily see that modest lead disappear.

Highlander's second point, about the possibility of illegal aliens voting (for the record lawful aliens who aren't citizens aren't allowed to vote in federal elections either), also casts doubt on the figure. I don't suppose anyone will ever figure out how many, if indeed any, illegal aliens cast a vote but if his (unsourced) figure of 2-3m is accurate that alone could account for a marginal lead.

 

[Highlander]

Except Highlander's post said:



Your posts are essentially showing Hillary Clinton something in the region of 1.5m votes ahead, in the popular vote (which isn't relevant to the final result however many times you comment on it). The population of NYC is approximately 8m. Given the way densely populated urban areas tend to vote Democrat it's entirely reasonable to figure, even without looking up specific numbers, that if you removed NYC from the vote that lead in the popular vote (did I mention it's irrelevant?) you could easily see that modest lead disappear.

Highlander's second point, about the possibility of illegal aliens voting (for the record lawful aliens who aren't citizens aren't allowed to vote in federal elections either), also casts doubt on the figure. I don't suppose anyone will ever figure out how many, if indeed any, illegal aliens cast a vote but if his (unsourced) figure of 2-3m is accurate that alone could account for a marginal lead.

Thank you, Tango.

 

[Josiah]

I agree....


There is always a "margin of error" in a popular vote. It's disturbing that a nation such as ours would have that - but we do. Yes, illegal aliens do vote (likely in great numbers in California) because we have "motor-voter" registration - anyone can get a driver's license (no citizenship required) AND thus, also register to vote - it means we have an UNKNOWN number of voters who aren't American citizens. They likely ARE over 18 (proof of age is needed for teens to get a driver's license) but no way to know if they are Americans. We also have a lot of provisional votes that can be quite subjective as to whether they are legit or not. None of this matters until the vote gets very close - within 1% at most. But the national election might be within the margin.


But all this is irrelevant. There is a silly assumption that IF we elected presidents by majority of national vote, THIS would have been the outcome. That's absurd. It's a silly and wrong assumption. We have rules for this. BOTH candidates accepted the rules and played by the rules. BOTH candidates ran campaigns directed to one and only one objective: to get past the 270 number of electoral votes - and thus win. NEITHER gave a rip who won the national vote because that's not how we elect our president. And in all but 3 states, it's "winner-take-all" so how many votes a candidate wins by is entirely irrelevant - they just need to win (by one vote is as good as by all the votes). Both candidates ran their campaigns in such a way as to get to the 271 number - NOT to get the most votes. IF, IF, IF the rules were different, the campaigns would have been different - and the result would have been different. We have no way to know what the vote would have been had the rules been different and thus the campaigns been different: only one thing is certain - the vote count would be DIFFERENT than it is.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Donald Trump: 62,020,213
Hillary Clinton: 63,747,686

Hillary Clinton leads by 1,727,473

 

[Josiah]

And we'll never know what the tally would be if the rules were different and thus the two campaigns had been different... maybe Trump would be ahead by ten million? We have NO WAY to know.... Kind of like we'll never know if the World Series rules were best out of 10 games... maybe Cleveland would have won, we'll never know, we can't know... and it's irrelevant: both teams accepted the rules, played by the rules - and the Cubs won best of out Seven. And Cleveland is not whining about how it should have been best out of ten cuz MAYBE they would have won.

 

[MarkFL]

And we'll never know what the tally would be if the rules were different and thus the two campaigns had been different... maybe Trump would be ahead by ten million? We have NO WAY to know.... Kind of like we'll never know if the World Series rules were best out of 10 games... maybe Cleveland would have won, we'll never know, we can't know... and it's irrelevant: both teams accepted the rules, played by the rules - and the Cubs won best of out Seven. And Cleveland is not whining about how it should have been best out of ten cuz MAYBE they would have won.

Yes, it is too late to call for a changing of the rules after the fact. Does it hurt anything to see a counting of the popular vote? Is it really irrelevant? I would agree that it is irrelevant as far as the result of this past election is concerned, but it is relevant to the subject of popular vote vs. electoral college skewing of the same. To those of us who think the people should elect the president rather than some contrived skewing of the votes it is relevant. MC is simply posting what the people voted for vs. what the skewing of the votes has determined. I see no problem with this...yes, we have to live with the rules we have in place, but what is the problem with showing what the people want?

 

[Lamb]

If we had a vote amongst the peoples to see if the electoral college should remain do you think the majority really want to eliminate it?

 

[MoreCoffee]

If we had a vote amongst the peoples to see if the electoral college should remain do you think the majority really want to eliminate it?

Yes, it is wicked and corrupt and part of a gerrymander that leads to stolen elections and crooked president elects like crooked Donald Trump

Impeach lying crooked Donald Trump!

:smirk:

 

[Josiah]

Yes, it is too late to call for a changing of the rules after the fact. Does it hurt anything to see a counting of the popular vote? Is it really irrelevant? I would agree that it is irrelevant as far as the result of this past election is concerned, but it is relevant to the subject of popular vote vs. electoral college skewing of the same. To those of us who think the people should elect the president rather than some contrived skewing of the votes it is relevant. MC is simply posting what the people voted for vs. what the skewing of the votes has determined. I see no problem with this...yes, we have to live with the rules we have in place, but what is the problem with showing what the people want?

As you noted, yes, it is irrelevant. For the reasons you stated, Mark.

The popular vote was certainly impacted by the campaigns of both Clinton and Trump - massive campaigns costing tens of millions of dollars - all spent, all done for one and only one purpose: to win a majority of the ELECTORS of the Electoral College. As you noted, since neither Clinton or Trump did anything whatsoever to win the popular vote, since neither campaign did a thing to try to win the popular vote, since the popular vote was "off the radar" of both campaigns from beginning to end, it's irrelevant to their campaign or candidate. And since, as you noted, it's not how we've been electing presidents for 240 years, it's not the Rule of Law in our nation, it's irrelevant to the election, too.

Yes, IF (and that's not an insignificant word here).... IF the Constitution was different, IF the law was different, IF the process was different - then Clinton and Trump would have conducted very different campaigns (for one thing, they would have campaigned in my state - the most populous in the USA - but neither did), and yes, absolutely, the result would have been different. Can we know what the different result would have been IF the rules were different, IF the Constitution was different, IF the process was different, IF both campaigns were different? No. Looking at the popular vote does NOT tell us what most of the people want, it shows us the result of the campaign.

While I'm aware of the benefits of how we've chosen our presidents for 240 years, I'm in favor of changing it to a simple majority vote (but them I'm a Californian!!!!). But I'm also aware of the process of amending the Constitution and I think there's a reason why there have never been any serious attempt to change this - and there's not this year, either. It's very unlikely to happen. It should - perhaps - but it's not.


I think the real point is all this WHINING after the fact is absurd. And it should stop.

Yes, it is wicked and corrupt

Why not comment about your own nation instead? Can you tell us the POPULAR vote of all voters in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK choosing Elizabeth as your queen - the majority popular vote of all voters in all those nations? In fact, can you show me even ONE vote? Or how about the majority popular vote of all Australians choosing your PM? Did you vote for either? Did anyone you know vote for either? Ah.... me thinks there's a mega dose of hypocrisy here..... me thinks Jesus' log/speck point applies..... Sir, you MIGHT be able to do something about the much, much worse and wicked situation in your country, but you can't do anything about how Americans select our leaders. So maybe you should focus on condemning and changing the much, much, much worse situation in Australia?




- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah, didn't you notice that this thread is about crooked Donald Trump who is president elect by means of a rigged dishonest lying gerrymandered vote?

Impeach lying Donald Trump

:smirk:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Donald Trump: 62,240,741
Hillary Clinton: 64,247,231

Hilary Clinton leads by 2,006,490

Allegations of hacked voting machines in three battle ground states calls election result into question.

 

[Lamb]

Allegations of hacked voting machines in three battle ground states calls election result into question.

Do you think they'll have a recount in those last states that mattered then?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you think they'll have a recount in those last states that mattered then?

No, the electoral cheating in the 2000 election was never rectified. Hacked machines can't be recounted.

 

[psalms 91]

My turkey is in this one has to wait till Jan 20

 

[Lamb]

No, the electoral cheating in the 2000 election was never rectified. Hacked machines can't be recounted.

I did a paper ballot.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I did a paper ballot.

Then your vote wasn't hacked but it could have been interfered with.

Impeach crooked Donald Trump!

:smirk:

 

[NewCreation435]

To me, the campaign that Trump ran was amazing in many ways, it was unconventional to say the least. The many people he seemed to attack and yet his popularity didn't seem to suffer much. The horrible things he said about women and Hispanics and even a veteran's family. He seemed to do everything wrong in yet people still voted for him.
He wasn't the lesser of two evils though because there was the libertarian party and also the green party. People could chose to vote for either Gary or Jill

 

[visionary]

What amazes me is the lack of discernment on the bigger picture here.

 

[psalms 91]

If you mena in terms of end times I do see it Visionary