If you wanted to rig your enemies election...

Donald Trump received 62,985,134 votes. Hillary Clinton received 65,853,652 votes. The other 3 candidates won 8,286,698 votes.

65,853,652 people voted for Hillary Clinton. 71,271,832 people voted for anyone but Mrs. Clinton. The majority of the country did not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She did not win a majority of the vote.

Why did Hillary Clinton deserve to win when she did not win a majority of the popular vote, did not win a majority of the states, and did not win a majority of the electorate? By what standard did she deserve to win? More people voted against her than for her, by any metric you care to use. At least Donald Trump won a majority of the states and a majority of the electorate.

That's great and all, but doesn't change the fact that a rigger would want the winner to not win the popular vote.
 
State delegates are not bound by the constitution to vote for a candidate just because he/she won the most votes in a state. Most will do it, but the constitution does not call for it.

Again, none of this does anything but prove my initial point. The presidency is not decided by the popular vote. By design.

well, it is. it is out of tradition, though not by law.

originally, there was no direct vote on the president at all, or senate. i kinda think we should go back to something similar, or a parliamentary system.
 
Do people there really think the popular vote is a good idea, or are they just pissy that trump won?

You'd think people worried about minority rights could see their way to recognising the problems with pure rule by majority.
 
I left out our political establishment. So yeah McCain and Bush.

I see

th
 
Run on sentences!!!

{<jordan}{<jordan}

Hey pimp juice, if they wanted to vote for Slobby Don, they would have voted for Slobby Don. Since they didn't, they're in the total.

People who didn't vote didn't vote. They didn't vote for anyone. How can someone who didn't vote have their vote counted? It is literally impossible.

This is your logic after all

No, it isn't. It is the dumbest thing I've heard today, and that's saying something considering the people populating this thread.

since we're just adding categories and shit that have nothing to do with each other until we Texas Sharpshooter our way around them.

The majority of who people voted have everything to do with determining who the majority of voters voted for. The people who didn't vote literally have nothing to do with determining who the majority of people voted for.

I don't understand what's so difficult about determining who the majority of people who voted cast their votes for.

Also, learn to parse numbers, it's an essential skill.

Parsing numbers is easy. And here they are. 65,853,652 people voted for Hillary Clinton. 71,271,832 people voted for anyone but Mrs. Clinton. The majority of the country did not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She did not win a majority of the vote.
 
People who didn't vote didn't vote. They didn't vote for anyone. How can someone who didn't vote have their vote counted? It is literally impossible.



No, it isn't. It is the dumbest thing I've heard today, and that's saying something considering the people populating this thread.



The majority of who people voted have everything to do with determining who the majority of voters voted for. The people who didn't vote literally have nothing to do with determining who the majority of people voted for.

I don't understand what's so difficult about determining who the majority of people who voted cast their votes for.



Parsing numbers is easy. And here they are. 65,853,652 people voted for Hillary Clinton. 71,271,832 people voted for anyone but Mrs. Clinton. The majority of the country did not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She did not win a majority of the vote.

98iV7ZM.jpg
 
That's great and all, but doesn't change the fact that a rigger would want the winner to not win the popular vote.

You are creating an imaginary situation and ascribing motive to it. A "rigger" could want whatever you imagine they want.

The fact is that the U.S. is not and was never designed to be a democracy, and the "popular vote" was never how we were going to decide an election. What your imaginary "riggers" want is irrelevant.
 
well, it is. it is out of tradition, though not by law.

You are proving my point.

originally, there was no direct vote on the president at all, or senate. i kinda think we should go back to something similar, or a parliamentary system.

Again, continuing to prove my point. The popular vote has zero to do with electing the American president. I'm not sure what at all you think you are doing to further your initial claim.
 
More of the popular vote than Trump. She didn't get the majority of the vote.



The math works out just as I said it did. More people voted against Hillary Clinton than for her. She won more of the popular vote than Trump did, but she did not win the majority.

That's why the popular vote is a joke, and why our founding fathers were too smart to create a system based on mob rule.



I'm not twisting it in any way, that's just the way it is.


If we had a pizza with 9 slices

I have 4 slices
Trump has 3 slices
Everyone else has 2 slices

Does trump have the most slices
 

You've had less success than the guy who whined for your help. Maybe you two should have thought this through a little better. It's embarrassing to see you guys resort to stupid GIFs and other nonsense when you have nothing left of substance to say.
 
If we had a pizza with 9 slices

I have 4 slices
Trump has 3 slices
Everyone else has 2 slices

Does trump have the most slices

No. He doesn't. But you don't have a majority of the slices either. A majority of the slices would be 6. You have 4. The other 6 belong to someone else. This is why the U.S. is not and was never designed to be a democracy, because democracy is nothing but a glorified mob that can give power even if the majority of voters don't choose that person.

This is a democracy in action -- imagine this:

We need to decide as a group who will be promoted as the new president of the company. We are going to decide who wins based on who gets the most votes (the democratic process.) 10 employees will vote.

Donald: votes for himself
Hillary: votes for herself
Ted: votes for himself
Bernie: votes for himself
Marco: votes for himself
Chris: votes for himself
John: voted for himself
Jeb: votes for himself
Carlie: votes for herself
Ben: votes for Donald

Under the democratic process, Donald becomes the new president, because he got the most votes. Is that fair? I don't know, what do you think? Donald got the most votes, on one hand. But on the other, he didn't get the majority of the votes. So is it fair? Ultimately, when you run democracy to its ultimate logical end, you always run the risk of this kind of result. You run the result of having someone win even though most people preferred someone else. You can't escape a result like this. You may not always get this result, but this result is always possible. That's the weakness of a pure democracy.

Do you understand now?
 
No. He doesn't. But you don't have a majority of the slices either. A majority of the slices would be 6. You have 4. The other 6 belong to someone else. This is why the U.S. is not and was never designed to be a democracy, because democracy is nothing but a glorified mob that can give power even if the majority of voters don't choose that person.

This is a democracy in action -- imagine this:

We need to decide as a group who will be promoted as the new president of the company. We are going to decide who wins based on who gets the most votes (the democratic process.) 10 employees will vote.

Donald: votes for himself
Hillary: votes for herself
Ted: votes for himself
Bernie: votes for himself
Marco: votes for himself
Chris: votes for himself
John: voted for himself
Jeb: votes for himself
Carlie: votes for herself
Ben: votes for Donald

Under the democratic process, Donald becomes the new president, because he got the most votes. Is that fair? I don't know, what do you think? Donald got the most votes, on one hand. But on the other, he didn't get the majority of the votes. So is it fair? Ultimately, when you run democracy to its ultimate logical end, you always run the risk of this kind of result. You run the result of having someone win even though most people preferred someone else. You can't escape a result like this. You may not always get this result, but this result is always possible. That's the weakness of a pure democracy.

Do you understand now?


Dude, in a competition the person with the most or the highest number is the winner. Regardless if they are competing against 1 person or many. That’s literally how you pick a winner

I really have no idea what you’re saying here.
 
Dude, in a competition the person with the most or the highest number is the winner.

Shit, you might be right for once:

Donald Trump - 304

Hillary Clinton - 227


Or do those numbers not count?
 
Dude, in a competition the person with the most or the highest number is the winner.

Wrong. In some sports the person with the highest score wins. In others, like golf, the person with the lowest score wins.

Your arbitrary and completely illogical reference to sporting events isn't even dumb enough to be amusing. It is just pathetic.

Regardless if they are competing against 1 person or many. That’s literally how you pick a winner.

No, it isn't. A winner is determined based on which competitor performs the best under the rules that were established for that competition.

Kind of like Mr. Trump did when he ran his campaign according to the rules of the electoral college.

You complaining about his win in the election is like a kid complaining that the Patriots lost the Superbowl because the Eagles didn't follow the rules of a wiffle ball tournament.

I really have no idea what you’re saying here.

We'll try again.

Donald Trump received 62,985,134 votes. Hillary Clinton received 65,853,652 votes. The other 3 candidates won 8,286,698 votes.

65,853,652 people voted for Hillary Clinton. 71,271,832 people voted for anyone but Mrs. Clinton. The majority of the country did not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She did not win a majority of the vote.

Mrs. Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote, did not win a majority of the states, and did not win a majority of the electorate. More people voted against her than for her, by any metric you care to use. At least Donald Trump won a majority of the states and a majority of the electorate.
 
You are proving my point.



Again, continuing to prove my point. The popular vote has zero to do with electing the American president. I'm not sure what at all you think you are doing to further your initial claim.

you are arguing that legally, it shouldnt have anything to do with electing the pres. im pointing out, that due to contemporary custom, delegates vote according to the popular vote of their constituents. you agreed that this is a current practice lol. so....the electoral vote is quite intertwined with the pop vote at the moment. say that it legally shouldnt be that way all you want, but it is that way.

and you never really answered another one of my questions. you call the popular vote a joke. how is what most americans want, a joke?

and im not saying that we should choose the pres by pop vote, as ive already mentioned that i dont believe this to be the case. but ill not be saying stupid shit like, the popular vote is a joke.
 
Dude, in a competition the person with the most or the highest number is the winner. Regardless if they are competing against 1 person or many. That’s literally how you pick a winner

I really have no idea what you’re saying here.

Why is it so hard to understand what a majority means? Christ. Hillary did not get the majority of votes. That would require more than 50%. She got a plurality.
 
Back
Top