Sorry liberal dems, but, the conservative, middle class hear you loud and clear

[Howard]

Sorry liberals, the  working class in middle America have heard you quite clear.
The problem is they don't like or agree with the message.

[Las Vegas]

a sizable number do agree with Trump but an even larger number do not  agree with him

we know this for a fact because 3 million more people voted for Hillary

I'm not saying Trump didn't win the election due to the rules of  the electoral college but you can't ignore the fact that more people voted for his opponent

you also can't ignore the fact the more people disapprove of his job performance than approve of it (and he achieved this distinction in record time)

So what does it say that Hillary couldn't defeat him, then

[polychronopolous]

[TuHolmes]

So what does it say that Hillary couldn't defeat him, then

It shows that the electoral college worked as designed.

[Las Vegas]

It shows that the electoral college worked as designed.

It shows their candidate sucked.

[Straw Man]

It shows that the electoral college worked as designed.

eh, or not

I think if you lose the popular vote by ~ 3 million and still win the elecgtion then we've got a problem with the electoral college system

you basically have a minority of the voters imposing their will over the majority of the voters

but, those are the rules and Trump won the election

It doesn't  change the fact that the majority of voters were against him

I think he honestly missed a huge chance to bring this country together.

He could have realized that the country was deeply divided and tried to work to bring both parties together.

He could have gone to Congress and said that both parties are going to start working together again and that both parties will have to learn to compromise ....you know..make  some deals.

He's supposed to be this great negotiator and that's how negotiations work.  Both sides give a little and get a little

Instead, he seems to think he's been elected king and no one should ever disagree with him or even doubt him and that's not going to fly in this country.  Neither side is going to put up with that shit

[polychronopolous]

eh, or not

I think if you lose the popular vote by ~ 3 million and still win the elecgtion then we've got a problem with the electoral college system

you basically have a minority of the voters imposing their will over the majority of the voters

but, those are the rules and Trump won the election

It doesn't  change the fact that the majority of voters were against him

I think he honestly missed a huge chance to bring this country together.

He could have realized that the country was deeply divided and tried to work to bring both parties together.

He could have gone to Congress and said that both parties are going to start working together again and that both parties will have to learn to compromise ....you know..make  some deals.

He's supposed to be this great negotiator and that's how negotiations work.  Both sides give a little and get a little

Instead, he seems to think he's been elected king and no one should ever disagree with him or even doubt him and that's not going to fly in this country.  Neither side is going to put up with that shit

Holy fuck, are these crybabies still carrying on?? ^^^

[Straw Man]

Holy fuck, are these crybabies still carrying on?? ^^^

rather than whining like a bitch with sand in your vagina why don't you tell me what part of that post you disagree with

[mazrim]

I think he honestly missed a huge chance to bring this country together.

He could have realized that the country was deeply divided and tried to work to bring both parties together.

He could have gone to Congress and said that both parties are going to start working together again and that both parties will have to learn to compromise ....you know..make  some deals.

Ah, you mean cave like the republicans have been doing for years? Gotcha. You would love that with your mindset/idealogies.
Its simple democrats/liberals do not want compromise as shown by their reaction to this election, etc. and anything that doesn't go their way. They show no compromise. About time that people who actually give a crap about America don't either and now have the power to undo some of the damage done.

I'm sure Trump would love for everyone to get along, but when one side specializes in attacks and lies and destruction then.....

[illuminati]

Holy fuck, are these crybabies still carrying on?? ^^^

Yes -
let's club together & buy them all a New set of Dummies & Rattles so they can throw them out of their Prams.

I am so Happy they are Hurting & upset so much.... ha ha ha.

[Soul Crusher]

Did you miss basically every class in grammar and HS about civics?

eh, or not

I think if you lose the popular vote by ~ 3 million and still win the elecgtion then we've got a problem with the electoral college system

you basically have a minority of the voters imposing their will over the majority of the voters

but, those are the rules and Trump won the election

It doesn't  change the fact that the majority of voters were against him

I think he honestly missed a huge chance to bring this country together.

He could have realized that the country was deeply divided and tried to work to bring both parties together.

He could have gone to Congress and said that both parties are going to start working together again and that both parties will have to learn to compromise ....you know..make  some deals.

He's supposed to be this great negotiator and that's how negotiations work.  Both sides give a little and get a little

Instead, he seems to think he's been elected king and no one should ever disagree with him or even doubt him and that's not going to fly in this country.  Neither side is going to put up with that shit

[Yamcha]

eh, or not

I think if you lose the popular vote by ~ 3 million and still win the elecgtion then we've got a problem with the electoral college system

you basically have a minority of the voters imposing their will over the majority of the voters

but, those are the rules and Trump won the election

It doesn't  change the fact that the majority of voters were against him

I think he honestly missed a huge chance to bring this country together.

He could have realized that the country was deeply divided and tried to work to bring both parties together.

He could have gone to Congress and said that both parties are going to start working together again and that both parties will have to learn to compromise ....you know..make  some deals.

He's supposed to be this great negotiator and that's how negotiations work.  Both sides give a little and get a little

Instead, he seems to think he's been elected king and no one should ever disagree with him or even doubt him and that's not going to fly in this country.  Neither side is going to put up with that shit

[TuHolmes]

eh, or not

I think if you lose the popular vote by ~ 3 million and still win the elecgtion then we've got a problem with the electoral college system

you basically have a minority of the voters imposing their will over the majority of the voters

but, those are the rules and Trump won the election

It doesn't  change the fact that the majority of voters were against him

I think he honestly missed a huge chance to bring this country together.

He could have realized that the country was deeply divided and tried to work to bring both parties together.

He could have gone to Congress and said that both parties are going to start working together again and that both parties will have to learn to compromise ....you know..make  some deals.

He's supposed to be this great negotiator and that's how negotiations work.  Both sides give a little and get a little

Instead, he seems to think he's been elected king and no one should ever disagree with him or even doubt him and that's not going to fly in this country.  Neither side is going to put up with that shit

Actually, this is exactly how the Electoral College was designed. It was designed so that a minority of voters (At the time of its creation you had to be a land owner to vote) could determine the direction of the country.

That's how it was built.

It worked EXACTLY as designed. Like it or not, it's what it is. If someone really gave a shit, then when they had enough of the power (Executive and Legislative branches) they would have changed it. There have been numerous opportunities to do so, yet everyone just lets it keep on going until it doesn't work out in their favor, then they bitch.

[Yamcha]

Need we remind you,

[TuHolmes]

Need we remind you,

In reality, counties do not vote.

People do.

Now, that isn't to say I have a problem with the election. I do not. It is just simply that the process of voting is exactly as it was designed. Nothing bad about it. It worked as intended.

[gothorium]

Part 1

Most here know, the far left liberals refuse to accept Trump as the legit , elected POTUS.
That's obvious, while the root of those beliefs is rarely discussed by the media.

The liberal left simply refuses to believe a sizeable number of Americans REALLY agree with Trump.
The liberals honestly believe that working class white's would join them if they had a clearer message.

Sorry liberals, the white working class in middle America have heard you quite clear.
The problem is they don't like or agree with the message.

It's not how you said it, it's what you say and do that's rejected.

For starters, I'm a proud down the middle independent.
BUT, when I saw Obama send his atty gen to 2nd guess the cops, it bothered me.
Then, I heard dem after dem in office, rise their voice of support for street thugs over police.

THIS act alone moved me away from voting many dems.

Right on!!
More people are finding out that capitalism is best! Socialism caused 2008 and great depression and all problems.  Lower gov spending and controls.  Fire most judges and lawyers.  Replace with software.   Allow mass housing without building codes and allow safe thorium atomic power.

[Straw Man]

Actually, this is exactly how the Electoral College was designed. It was designed so that a minority of voters (At the time of its creation you had to be a land owner to vote) could determine the direction of the country.

That's how it was built.

It worked EXACTLY as designed. Like it or not, it's what it is. If someone really gave a shit, then when they had enough of the power (Executive and Legislative branches) they would have changed it. There have been numerous opportunities to do so, yet everyone just lets it keep on going until it doesn't work out in their favor, then they bitch.

was it?

can you show me proof that it was designed so that "a minority of voters could determine the direction of the country"

I assume of course that you're merely referring to the electors as "the minority of voters"

BTW - you seem to have missed the point of my original post

Even though Trump won the election he does not have a popular mandate. 

Howard's premise is that "The liberal left simply refuses to believe a sizeable number of Americans REALLY agree with Trump."

And my statement is the the right refuses to believe that an even larger number of American REALLY DISAGREE with Trump

This is an undeniable fact.   

The electoral college only determines the outcome of the election.  It doesn't negate the fact that more people in this country are against Trump than are for Trump

The one thing I found on the purpose of the electoral college seems to indicate that one of it's main purposes was to prevent foreign powers from corrupting our election

Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Alexander Hamilton's analysis of the presidency, in this case being concerned with the method of electing the President. Hamilton argues the advantages of the indirect electoral process described in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution although, in the case of a tied vote in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives was to make the choice.

Hamilton viewed the system as superior to direct popular election. First, he recognized, the "sense of the people should operate in the choice", and would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College.

Second, the electors would be:
men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.  Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice, and avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications".

Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils". To minimize risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college would have only a "transient existence" and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".

Also, a successful candidate for the office of president would have to have the distinguished qualities to appeal to electors from many states, not just one or a few states:  Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States
Hamilton expressed confidence that:

It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Hamilton.27s_understanding_of_the_Electoral_College

[Irongrip400]

eh, or not

I think if you lose the popular vote by ~ 3 million and still win the elecgtion then we've got a problem with the electoral college system

you basically have a minority of the voters imposing their will over the majority of the voters

but, those are the rules and Trump won the election

It doesn't  change the fact that the majority of voters were against him

I think he honestly missed a huge chance to bring this country together.

He could have realized that the country was deeply divided and tried to work to bring both parties together.

He could have gone to Congress and said that both parties are going to start working together again and that both parties will have to learn to compromise ....you know..make  some deals.

He's supposed to be this great negotiator and that's how negotiations work.  Both sides give a little and get a little

Instead, he seems to think he's been elected king and no one should ever disagree with him or even doubt him and that's not going to fly in this country.  Neither side is going to put up with that shit

Agreed. I really think Romney could've been that guy four years ago.

[Dos Equis]

Actually, this is exactly how the Electoral College was designed. It was designed so that a minority of voters (At the time of its creation you had to be a land owner to vote) could determine the direction of the country.

That's how it was built.

It worked EXACTLY as designed. Like it or not, it's what it is. If someone really gave a shit, then when they had enough of the power (Executive and Legislative branches) they would have changed it. There have been numerous opportunities to do so, yet everyone just lets it keep on going until it doesn't work out in their favor, then they bitch.

Correct.  

Also, Clinton's entire popular vote spread is accounted for in California.  I don't want California (or a handful of states) dictating what happens to the entire country.  

And there was no popular vote contest, so in reality neither candidate "win" or "loses" the popular vote.  If there was a true popular vote contest, the parties would spent all of their time campaigning in a handful of states (California, New York, Texas, and Florida).  

[bike nut]

It is laughable that Democrats now want the voting in the cities of New York, LA, and Chicago to determine the presidential election

[TuHolmes]

was it?

can you show me proof that it was designed so that "a minority of voters could determine the direction of the country"

I assume of course that you're merely referring to the electors as "the minority of voters"

BTW - you seem to have missed the point of my original post

Even though Trump won the election he does not have a popular mandate. 

Howard's premise is that "The liberal left simply refuses to believe a sizeable number of Americans REALLY agree with Trump."

And my statement is the the right refuses to believe that an even larger number of American REALLY DISAGREE with Trump

This is an undeniable fact.   

The electoral college only determines the outcome of the election.  It doesn't negate the fact that more people in this country are against Trump than are for Trump

The one thing I found on the purpose of the electoral college seems to indicate that one of it's main purposes was to prevent foreign powers from corrupting our election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Hamilton.27s_understanding_of_the_Electoral_College

It was.

Historically, in 1776, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote.

That is simply the reality of it.

I don't think it's complicated. It's just factual.

Correct. 

Also, Clinton's entire popular vote spread is accounted for in California.  I don't want California (or a handful of states) dictating what happens to the entire country. 

And there was no popular vote contest, so in reality neither candidate "win" or "loses" the popular vote.  If there was a true popular vote contest, the parties would spent all of their time campaigning in a handful of states (California, New York, Texas, and Florida).   

It is a double edged sword... While I agree that no state should have such power as to dictate the entire direction of the country, at times, some states seem to be under represented and others over represented. That said, it's probably good for the country as a whole.

If you believe in Freedom, which I think most of us do, then you must realize that it's not only bad for one group of people to dictate the direction as a whole, but it's irresponsible. That is akin to a plutocracy and just isn't what this nation is founded on.

Ultimately, everyone knew the rules and by the rules, Trump won the election.

Now. Should someone want to talk about the "population" disagreeing with Trump, well that's something entirely different than whether or not the electoral college worked as designed.

It did.

Straw said something about a "problem with the electoral college system" and my stance is that there is no problem with it... It worked exactly as designed. That was my only point really.

If we want to talk about the "popular mandate" of Trump, that's fine, but I was just talking about the Electoral College and how there is absolutely no "problem" with it.

[Al Doggity]

It was.

Historically, in 1776, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote.

That is simply the reality of it.

I don't think it's complicated. It's just factual.

That's fundamentally different from what was said, though. Having a limited pool of people eligible to vote is not the same thing as having the smallest percentage of eligible voters supercede the wishes of everyone else.


The main purpose of the electoral college was to ensure a true majority vote. The major fear was that a strictly popular vote would result in every state voting strictly for local politicians and that the winner in an outcome like that would not be able to govern the whole nation effectively. The electoral college has never really worked well. In theory it's supposed to level the playing field  for less populous states, but it doesn't do anything like that. Larger states have far fewer votes than they should, small states have more votes than they should and still mostly get ignored. Because most states are safe, candidates focus disproportionately on a handful of  swing states which pretty much makes the whole thing pointless. 

[TuHolmes]

That's fundamentally different from what was said, though. Having a limited pool of people eligible to vote is not the same thing as having the smallest percentage of eligible voters supercede the wishes of everyone else.


The main purpose of the electoral college was to ensure a true majority vote. The major fear was that a strictly popular vote would result in every state voting strictly for local politicians and that the winner in an outcome like that would not be able to govern the whole nation effectively. The electoral college has never really worked well. In theory it's supposed to level the playing field  for less populous states, but it doesn't do anything like that. Larger states have far fewer votes than they should, small states have more votes than they should and still mostly get ignored. Because most states are safe, candidates focus disproportionately on a handful of  swing states which pretty much makes the whole thing pointless. 

I was not directly responding to your comment at the time, but while I see where you are going, I don't know if it would work best for the country as a whole. I think even though it is imperfect, our Constitutional Republic and the current method is probably for the best.

I just wish people would stop only voting for two parties. That's a huge issue.

[Dos Equis]

It is a double edged sword... While I agree that no state should have such power as to dictate the entire direction of the country, at times, some states seem to be under represented and others over represented. That said, it's probably good for the country as a whole.

If you believe in Freedom, which I think most of us do, then you must realize that it's not only bad for one group of people to dictate the direction as a whole, but it's irresponsible. That is akin to a plutocracy and just isn't what this nation is founded on.

Ultimately, everyone knew the rules and by the rules, Trump won the election.

Now. Should someone want to talk about the "population" disagreeing with Trump, well that's something entirely different than whether or not the electoral college worked as designed.

It did.

Straw said something about a "problem with the electoral college system" and my stance is that there is no problem with it... It worked exactly as designed. That was my only point really.

If we want to talk about the "popular mandate" of Trump, that's fine, but I was just talking about the Electoral College and how there is absolutely no "problem" with it.

I was agreeing with you.  The rest of my comments about the popular vote weren't really directed to your post.  Sorry for the confusion. 

I wasn't getting into that whole "mandate" issue.  I honestly don't care about a mandate, although there is a credible argument for it given Republicans winning the White House, Senate, House, and controlling most of the states. 

[Al Doggity]

I was not directly responding to your comment at the time, but while I see where you are going, I don't know if it would work best for the country as a whole. I think even though it is imperfect, our Constitutional Republic and the current method is probably for the best.

I just wish people would stop only voting for two parties. That's a huge issue.

That last post was actually my first post in this thread. Personally, the last election isn't the straw the broke the camel's back, but I don't really see how an argument can be made that the electoral college works, much less is likely the best voting system. The only reason  it seems to work is because it has historically mirrored the popular vote. Like I said in my last post, most aggressive campaigning is done in a handful of battleground states. Large safe states are mostly ignored and small states with few ec votes are mostly ignored. I tried to find this chart that was going around after the election that showed all of the campaign stops of both candidates. I couldn't find it, but from what I recall it was exactly what you'd expect:most campaign activity taking place in a handful of battleground states. The  electoral college hasn't really balanced any scales, it just made them err in another direction. The ec may have made sense (in theory) in a time before information was democratized, but that is no longer the case. Candidates could never and would never just campaign in safe states, so realistically, a popular election in which every vote counted would probably do more to create a level playing field.