Hillary set to receive the second most votes ever in US history

[DrewStevens 5,249]

Just now, Spyro said:

I don't see how it's relevant since OF COURSE candidates today will receive more votes than candidates in the past, because the number of eligible voters grows every year.  Of course Clinton will get more votes than Kennedy and Nixon..  Hell, even Obama in 2008 got more votes than Nixon & Kennedy COMBINED backed in 1960, but Obama only got 53% (which would've been close or over 100% in 1960) of the vote.  I focused on percentage because the what % of voters voted for a candidate is much more important than the number of votes.  The number will grow in the future but percentages are always based on how much of your candidate is of good quality.  Sorry if this doesn't make sense.  

Well it's not an achievement or anything like that. It's just showing that Hillary won the vote of the people.

[Spyro 8,438]

2 minutes ago, HOTNGaga said:

You wouldn't be complaining if it were Hillary that won only because of the electoral college. 

But this sh** only happens to democrats.. Republicans have won the popular vote once since 1992 and we now had three republican president terms since then.

[Morphine Prince 109,968]

2 minutes ago, reysus said:

I'm pretty sure I know the difference between cities and states, lol.

And I know how the electoral college works, too. Everyone knows that CA, NY, and TX are heavyweights, and they should be. But the fact is that the US has a very skewed population distribution and people living on the coasts and in big cities have much different concerns than people living in middle America. The electoral college system forces politicians to care about the very real problems facing those Americans as well. Without it, they would endlessly pander to the urban areas to get the most votes.

This is so true. 

[Yuuri 21,636]

26 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

It just doesn't make sense for someone to lead in the popular vote but lose the electoral college.

I get Aglore losing by just half a million votes, but Hillary is set to win the popular vote by more than 2M. Our system is flawed and Trump proves that we need change. #LoveTrumpsHate

[DrewStevens 5,249]

2 minutes ago, reysus said:

I'm pretty sure I know the difference between cities and states, lol.

And I know how the electoral college works, too. Everyone knows that CA, NY, and TX are heavyweights, and they should be. But the fact is that the US has a very skewed population distribution and people living on the coasts and in big cities have much different concerns than people living in middle America. The electoral college system forces politicians to care about the very real problems facing those Americans as well. Without it, they would endlessly pander to the urban areas to get the most votes.

Lol no it doesn't. The system doesn't force politicians to do anything. They never do anything for smaller towns, all they do it more pointless rallies in swing states to pander people. It's quite illogical to think they are being forced to care about small towns because they can't do anything as candidates.

[Guest]

This analysis is flawed: the US population has doubled in 60 years, of course candidates today tend to get more votes.

that said #imstillwithher

[Luc 4,776]

3 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

The number of states is not meaningless. The country is called the United STATES. It's also impossible to win the electoral college without the majority of the states. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this) 

As for your 1st paragraph I agree. 

Statistically, the EC has "failed the people" 4/45 times, or ~9% of the time. 

I'm pretty sure you only need a couple of big states to win an election.

 

And yes the amount of states and especially the amount of counties won is meaningless. It tells you only about the distribution of votes rather than the actual votes. I don't see how the name of the US would imply that every state is equal.

 

Here in the EU Malta has 70k votes per seat in the European Parliament whereas France has 800k votes per seat. Malta also has veto rights, just like France and Germany. It's not a good system and could backfire in situayions like this.

Let's just make an imaginary scenario:

Democrats win 90% of the vote in all blue states. They win 49% of the vote in all R states.

What happens? The presidency goes to the Republicans despite over 70% of the coutry voting Dem.

It's also pretty ridiculous that California has as many senators as Wyoming. 

How the US would become a real democracy:

- (Supreme Court) Judges are not elected. 

- All Senate powers brought to the House. Senate removed.

- House voted on by proportional representation

- Electoral College removed. President voted on by popular vote.

- No more registering bullshit.

- Not showing up to the polls becomes a  crime.

the US needs change. Time for a REAL anti-establishment candidate.

[reysus 1,064]

2 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

Lol no it doesn't. The system doesn't force politicians to do anything. They never do anything for smaller towns, all they do it more pointless rallies in swing states to pander people. It's quite illogical to think they are being forced to care about small towns because they can't do anything as candidates.

But it does. Just one example, Obama mandated ethanol made from corn to be included in gasoline in order to garner midwest support when he was running. Corn farmers in the midwest who own their own farmland were loaded as a result for the increased demand for corn, and they definitely liked the Dems for that boost.

[Luc 4,776]

19 minutes ago, HOTNGaga said:

You wouldn't be complaining if it were Hillary that won only because of the electoral college. 

 

 

#revolution #changetheconstitution #voiceofthepeople #protest

[Luc 4,776]

18 minutes ago, reysus said:

I'm pretty sure I know the difference between cities and states, lol.

And I know how the electoral college works, too. Everyone knows that CA, NY, and TX are heavyweights, and they should be. But the fact is that the US has a very skewed population distribution and people living on the coasts and in big cities have much different concerns than people living in middle America. The electoral college system forces politicians to care about the very real problems facing those Americans as well. Without it, they would endlessly pander to the urban areas to get the most votes.

Not true. With this system there's only a few relevant states aka the swing states. Republicans could care less about Alaska and Democrats could care less about Vermont. Vhanging the system would force both parties to actually bring ideas for the whole country rather than just ideas that are relevant to Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania only.

[The Fame Joanne 5,985]

30 minutes ago, reysus said:

How is it a "joke"? Without it, NYC, Chicago, and LA would control the entire country. The smaller states are just as important to this country (they are Americans too) and their struggles need to be addressed. Trust me, I live in Illinois, and the fact that politicians only care about Chicago has created huge division and inequality in the state. I don't want that to happen to the whole country.

But why should the vote from people who live in those cities count less? That would be undemokratic. If every vote counts the same, the system is the fairest

[Morphine Prince 109,968]

10 minutes ago, Luc said:

I'm pretty sure you only need a couple of big states to win an election.

 

And yes the amount of states and especially the amount of counties won is meaningless. It tells you only about the distribution of votes rather than the actual votes. I don't see how the name of the US would imply that every state is equal.

 

Here in the EU Malta has 70k votes per seat in the European Parliament whereas France has 800k votes per seat. Malta also has veto rights, just like France and Germany. It's not a good system and could backfire in situayions like this.

Let's just make an imaginary scenario:

Democrats win 90% of the vote in all blue states. They win 49% of the vote in all R states.

What happens? The presidency goes to the Republicans despite over 70% of the coutry voting Dem.

It's also pretty ridiculous that California has as many senators as Wyoming. 

How the US would become a real democracy:

- (Supreme Court) Judges are not elected. 

- All Senate powers brought to the House. Senate removed.

- House voted on by proportional representation

- Electoral College removed. President voted on by popular vote.

- No more registering bullshit.

- Not showing up to the polls becomes a  crime.

the US needs change. Time for a REAL anti-establishment candidate.

"Not showing up to the polls becomes a crime"  

I agree with some of the stuff in your post but this has me at loss for words. 

[reysus 1,064]

1 minute ago, Luc said:

Not true. With this system there's only a few relevant states aka the swing states. Republicans could care less about Alaska and Democrats could care less about Vermont. Vhanging the system would force both parties to actually bring ideas for the whole country rather than just ideas that are relevant to Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania only.

Swing states change every few elections, and a lot of pretty blue states flipped this election. Trump went to those states and talked about problems specific to them (your stance on his solutions is an entirely different debate). He knew that each state mattered, and that's in part how he won.

[Supersonic 49,376]

28 minutes ago, HOTNGaga said:

You wouldn't be complaining if it were Hillary that won only because of the electoral college. 

This would have never happened because the electoral college by deafault rigs the election in favor of the Republicans.

[Spyro 8,438]

41 minutes ago, reysus said:

How is it a "joke"? Without it, NYC, Chicago, and LA would control the entire country. The smaller states are just as important to this country (they are Americans too) and their struggles need to be addressed. Trust me, I live in Illinois, and the fact that politicians only care about Chicago has created huge division and inequality in the state. I don't want that to happen to the whole country.

Politicians still don't pay attention to those states.

To quote wikipedia: "These maps show the amount of attention given by the campaigns to the close states. At left, each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks. At right, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period."

This is from Bush vs Kerry