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

[reysus 1,064]

53 minutes ago, uo111 said:

This is an illogical conclusion.

If everyone's vote counted (which is NOT how it is now) then the presendtial candidates would have to campaign EVERYWHERE!

 

This country is not made up of urban and rural. This country is made up of people. Everyone's vote should carry the same weight. The idea that if everyone's vote is equal, city folk would have an advantage literally makes no sense.

No, politicians would spend much more time in urban areas. Why spend time trying to win over a few hundred thousand votes in the midwest states when you can promise the world to basically NY and CA and get millions of votes?

Saying "this country is made up of people" is not an argument. Clearly people make up a country. Urban and rural Americans, however, face different problems and we can't have politicians only addressing urban voters to easily get votes. I don't know why this is so hard for ggd members to understand. 

[uo111 5,285]

22 minutes ago, reysus said:

No, politicians would spend much more time in urban areas. Why spend time trying to win over a few hundred thousand votes in the midwest states when you can promise the world to basically NY and CA and get millions of votes?

Saying "this country is made up of people" is not an argument. Clearly people make up a country. Urban and rural Americans, however, face different problems and we can't have politicians only addressing urban voters to easily get votes. I don't know why this is so hard for ggd members to understand. 

Because they wouldn't address only urban voters?
 

You can't ignore 20% of the US population if you want to win the popular vote. You can ignore well over 50% of the US population if you want to win the electoral college though. The electoral college doesn't actually do the things you say it does, in fact it does the opposite.

[Born Brave 2,072]

3 million votes cast in the US election were not legal. 

Donald Trump actually WON the popular vote (there are still 7 million something ballots to be voted) 

https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/

[TrueWillis 45]

21 minutes ago, Justinn said:

3 million votes cast in the US election were not legal. 

Donald Trump actually WON the popular vote (there are still 7 million something ballots to be voted) 

https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/

That page is citing wikipedia as a source... and CNN still have her ahead in popular vote

[John Slayne 4,154]

21 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

I understand the frustration as I hate that he won too BUT 

we cannot ignore that Trump won 30 states, and she won 20. 

We cannot ignore most counties in the nation voted Trump. 

We cannot ignore that the election was so close percentage wise. 

We cannot ignore she lost in states that were supposed to be blue. 

I don't care, she got 600,000+ more votes than Lord Tangerine and she should be the POTUS

next 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

21 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

I understand the frustration as I hate that he won too BUT 

we cannot ignore that Trump won 30 states, and she won 20. 

We cannot ignore most counties in the nation voted Trump. 

We cannot ignore that the election was so close percentage wise. 

We cannot ignore she lost in states that were supposed to be blue. 

No one denied if that, they're simply saying she won more votes by a considerable margin

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, Justinn said:

3 million votes cast in the US election were not legal. 

Donald Trump actually WON the popular vote (there are still 7 million something ballots to be voted) 

https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/

This guy got his numbers from Twitter and is using Alex Jones as some kind of reputable source. Quit posting propaganda, you know this is BS. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

6 hours ago, uo111 said:

Because they wouldn't address only urban voters?
 

You can't ignore 20% of the US population if you want to win the popular vote. You can ignore well over 50% of the US population if you want to win the electoral college though. The electoral college doesn't actually do the things you say it does, in fact it does the opposite.

 

7 hours ago, reysus said:

No, politicians would spend much more time in urban areas. Why spend time trying to win over a few hundred thousand votes in the midwest states when you can promise the world to basically NY and CA and get millions of votes?

Saying "this country is made up of people" is not an argument. Clearly people make up a country. Urban and rural Americans, however, face different problems and we can't have politicians only addressing urban voters to easily get votes. I don't know why this is so hard for ggd members to understand. 

These two responses both have truth to them, and that is why I think a reformation of the Electoral College is necessary. I don't think simply eliminating it does any justice to the political system because it also creates problems... However, the problems it creates also exist in the current system (though they manifest slightly differently or tangentially).

The Electoral College forces candidates to appeal to those with lesser populations because of the way that votes are awarded, which is fair, but it also has the unfortunate side effect of making some votes more important or less important than others. I live in Missouri, and I am probably more "liberal" than most politicians. My vote means essentially nothing, as this is a decidedly red (and also racist, fun correlation  ) state. I do not really have a say in who wins for my state; even at the local level, there is almost a 0% chance that a Democrat will win. Even in the elections where maybe ~50,000 people vote  If you live in California, your votes will go to the Democratic party, which means that millions of votes are essentially worth nothing. I think, and this is important, that the Electoral College as it currently exists is a major reason why voters feel discouraged and that their vote does not matter. For some people, it literally doesn't, If you happen to live in a swing state, you basically control the state of the country, and if you live in a Red State but are a Democrat, your vote is just a nice "well, you tried", in lieu of the occassional house/senate/local office flip. On the national scale though, its in essence a major middle finger to millions of Americans. I honestly believe that if the electoral college was majorly changed (not necessarily removed), more people would vote and we would have a more honest, fair election where the person we elect is the person who has not only appealed to the most people (in good faith  ) but also made their case that they are the person who is best suited to run the country.

A girl can dream though  

[uo111 5,285]

6 hours ago, Justinn said:

3 million votes cast in the US election were not legal. 

Donald Trump actually WON the popular vote (there are still 7 million something ballots to be voted) 

https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/

"Update: Anyone asking where I got the figures, it was from twitter posts."



"I only know what is on the internet" teas

[PH30 200]

6 hours ago, John Slayne said:

I don't care, she got 600,000+ more votes than Lord Tangerine and she should be the POTUS

next