Hillary Clinton‘s popular vote lead of more than 2.6 million over D. Trump

[tomsches 17,550]

The American election system is so weird, like how can someone have so much more votes but still lose?

[Economy 52,861]

10 hours ago, PartySick said:

I'm perched to see what happens when Trump actually does end up winning. Not that I want it but it should be entertaining for a few days at least.

The last time a candidate won the college but lost the popular vote was when Bush won in 2000. He lost to Al Gore by 500,000 votes and on his inauguration day, protesters pelted his limo with rocks, eggs, and the like as they chanted stuff about him not being their choice.

I'm expecting that but 100 fold. As long as no one actually gets hurt, it'll be nice to see Trump really soaking in all that presidential love

OT: I love that George is aware that Hillary is not going to be president even if the electors choose her. The GOP controls the house and the house decides in the end. We'll have a Republican president regardless because our democracy is a lie  Republics have their benefits but I say it's high time we overhaul the whole thing and implement a direct democracy where the people actually have the power, not just those that find slummy ways of cheating themselves to the top (gerrymandering, oppressing votes, greasing palms, etc).

Anyway, It's a long shot but I'm pulling for Kasich. I can't get over the GOP voters snubbing him during the primaries even though he was the only candidate that was remotely ready for office on their side

  Hide contents

And he gets bonus points for actually recognizing climate change as a real issue!

It'll probably be someone like Romney or Pence though. Ugh...

He wasnt the only Republican to recognize climate change as a real issue. Carly Fiorina also did

 

She just didnt approve of stopping every single project in fossil fuels and trying to ban everything

 

She prefered we pick our battles on stuff were actually more capable of making a change on such as efficiencies or Green Energy where it made sense (like Solar in sunny regions where the price-return ratio is best)

[Economy 52,861]

6 hours ago, tomsches said:

The American election system is so weird, like how can someone have so much more votes but still lose?

In Canada we have the same issue too to an extent

 

Our Prime Minister is simply the Leader of the Party in power (we dont have independants)

 

Because the Party that is in power is the one with most seats, skewed numbers can also exist because an MP that represents a party for a region can win by 50% or 90% it doesnt matter either way its his vote

 

So sometimes in Canada the winning party and therefore the Prime Minister can also win without the popular vote so its not an issue exclusive to America

 

Although our seats are better proportioned by population region than in the US so when the popular vote fails to elect the proper party at least its never off by a huge margin like in the US  

[Yuuri 21,636]

8 hours ago, Goosey said:

The (unofficial) mascot of the Democratic Party is actually the ass (or donkey, Latin name equus africanus asinus).

(Little late) But it's from a song by Paint on Youtube where he, Hillary Clinton,where republicans are often represented by elephants, while democrats are represented as donkeys. Hillary is not only identifying as a donkey, she’s taking it one step further and saying that she is the republican’s nemesis; a lion (while implying that though elephants are big she can indeed ‘kill’ them)