So the people of California don't get to count? California has more people than Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania combined. And like 100k votes decided those states. In any case he isn't even following what he said. He doesn't seem to be draining the swamp. He is adding more to the swamp. It looks like he is just going to line his pockets and take off.
You're bringing irrelevant data to the discussion. The popular vote is not how the president is decided. Educate yourself.
You're not helping your cause and you are supporting the case for the EC ... which is why its not going anywhere. Do you understand the concept of mob rule? Two wolves and a sheep asking whats for dinner? California uses the most energy, consumes more resources, some of the worst pollution. They are unable to sustain their usage of power, food and water. They have some of the strictest laws on the book for ridiculous things. While they are busying consuming much of the energy, they are telling the rest of the country (ie: the rust belt) to reduce their pollution, shut down their jobs, demanding the auto industry to reduce emissions, ect .. ect .. ect ... So again, why should the hypocritical elitist on the west coast dictate what goes on in the rest of the country?
Popular vote within the state determines the state's EC vote, right? Thus, my data was relevant and it is you not I who needs to educate yourself.
argh, unless you win more than 50% of the population, probably much more, there isn't any mandate. Even if you do win said 60%, I wouldn't even said there is a mandate given that only 50% of the voting population actually voted. But really, why does this matter? Trump will do whatever he wants. And there will be consequences to that.
Talk about beating up a strawman... No one is arguing that California should rule the country or tell other states what to do, the poster you quoted was responding to the ridiculous argument that Trump would win the popular vote if you don't include the votes from the largest state in the country. BTW, states with small populations are already overrepresented in the Senate. So the fact that you think that a system (the EC) that produces a winner that received millions less votes than another candidate is the right way of doing things shows that you care more about the fact that said system benefits your side than the fact that it is very obviously flawed.
So if a president wins every single state by 1 vote, leading to a total vote difference of 50, you would consider that a landslide victory because he won all the electoral college?
The fact is that you do not understand how this country was setup. As another poster once mentioned, this is the United STATES of America, not the United People of America. You should also know the Senate was designed to represent the state, not the people of the state. There is no over representation in the Senate. The House of Representatives was designed to represent the people of the state. Take a civics class. Whining and crying about the popular vote is no different than complaining Kim Jong-un was not elected through the popular vote. Neither of our governments were setup to designed to be elected this way. Why do liberals struggle with accepting they lost the election?
What a sorry backpedal from you. You were making a point about the national popular vote, which is simply irrelevant. LANDSLIDE
Hahaha you're struggling so bad. I was referring to your prior post, but you already knew that. You lose miserably.
Senators are elected by people in their state, when Wyoming has as much pull in the senate as California that is the very definition of over representation. WTF does the name of our country have to do with this? And sure, the electoral college was designed to give less power to the votes of individuals but it was designed that way 230 years ago in a world that was completely different than it is now, and even then it was a source of debate. No one is denying that Trump won with the system that is in place, people are questioning whether it's the right system when 2 of the last 5 elections have resulted in the candidate with the most votes not winning the election.
So every *snort* you keep coming back for more licks? See post 237, where you reference a summation of 3 states' popular vote totals to make your point. Irrelevant - the electoral votes matter, not the summation of a subset of the national vote. I know you're emotional due to your new president, so I'll cut you some slack.
The system is working fine. Most of the country does not want California electing our presidents, especially considering they have no voter registration restrictions. There will be a day when you will not agree with mob rule and will appreciate how the system is setup now.
So an election determined by the popular vote = mob rule? Most of the people in this country don't want Donald Trump as their president but here we go.
U R the worst poster. Always snide. You probably don't even vote for tRUMP. You make ClutchFans= look bad. Retire.
You screwed your rebuttal to me and somehow it is my fault. Hmmm. I guess you have fully embraced the post-factual ways of your beloved Trump.
California only has 12% of the population. That's not enough for a majority. The way the system is set up now does not prevent "mob rule" either because in many states the electors are legally required to vote with their state popular vote. If the idea is the electors are the last line of defense against mob rule then those laws need to be repealed.
