Current Events > Trump wants presidency to be decided by popular vote, which he lost.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Funbazooka posted...

Doom_Art posted...

Funbazooka posted...

This illustrates pretty well why straight popular vote is not a good idea for the US

golly that's a lot of empty land

That response helps further illustrate the importance in making sure the less densely populated states and areas receive proper representation, instead of our elected officials completely disregarding them (calling it empty land). The United States remember.

Straight popular vote is more appropriate for smaller nations that aren't already divided up into smaller states but it's different here.

Only in America do people think land should be a factor in representation. Jfc. Imagine if Canada put more weight to voters in fucking Nunavut than voters in Vancouver cuz think of the rural folks!
---

He campaigned and strategized based on the Electorial College. If popular vote was the deciding factor going in he would have campaigned differently.

The voters themselves take the electorial college into account if and when they vote which also distorts the popular vote. Democrats in crimson red states are less likely to bother as are Republicans in deep blue states.

He may have still lost the popular vote, but basing his loss on the popular vote in this election, when it didnt count, is incredibly disingenuous when drawing conclusions about what would have been.
---

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote he'd have ignored states like Wisconsin and Missouri and instead campaigned in California, Texas, New York, and Florida exclusively.

You don't win a presidency by popular vote, so he didn't do that.

You guys are whining that you lost a chess match because the rules aren't like checkers. It's embarrassing.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote he'd have ignored states like Wisconsin and Missouri and instead campaigned in California, Texas, New York, and Florida exclusively.

And would have lost
---

SomeonesAlt posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote he'd have ignored states like Wisconsin and Missouri and instead campaigned in California, Texas, New York, and Florida exclusively.

And would have lost

Nope. Campaigning has a big effect on voter turnout. If he focused on California like Hillary did he could easily have gotten 6 million extra (useless) votes.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

And in the article Trump says he would have run a different campaign if it was based on the popular vote. So what's wrong with him saying this?

This is true. There's a few different ways that they could campaign differently:
A. Hold most campaign events in large metropolitan areas.
B. Focus on driving up turnout in states your party usually wins.
C. Visit and advertise in areas where your party has not been competitive to attract new voters.
D. Spread out your advertising across all media markets in the country because every vote is equal.

I think most people seem to believe that A is what would happen. However, as I understand it, most of the experts believe that B or C are what would be most effective.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Doom_Art posted...

Funbazooka posted...

This illustrates pretty well why straight popular vote is not a good idea for the US

golly that's a lot of empty land

That response helps further illustrate the importance in making sure the less densely populated states and areas receive proper representation, instead of our elected officials completely disregarding them (calling it empty land). The United States remember.

Straight popular vote is more appropriate for smaller nations that aren't already divided up into smaller states but it's different here.

Why should empty tracts of land have a greater amount of onus than areas where people actually live?

You're misinterpreting that map if you think it was highlighting areas of empty land vs populated areas. And the purpose of the electoral college isn't meant to give them a greater amount of onus just to give them a fair shake instead of you know, disregarding those areas and the people living there as "empty tracts of land".

Stop it with the empty land meme. I mean, it helps my point but it's offensive.
---

Funbazooka posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Doom_Art posted...

Funbazooka posted...

This illustrates pretty well why straight popular vote is not a good idea for the US

golly that's a lot of empty land

That response helps further illustrate the importance in making sure the less densely populated states and areas receive proper representation, instead of our elected officials completely disregarding them (calling it empty land). The United States remember.

Straight popular vote is more appropriate for smaller nations that aren't already divided up into smaller states but it's different here.

Why should empty tracts of land have a greater amount of onus than areas where people actually live?

You're misinterpreting that map if you think it was highlighting areas of empty land vs populated areas. And the purpose of the electoral college isn't meant to give them a greater amount of onus just to give them a fair shake instead of you know, disregarding those areas and the people living there as "empty tracts of land".

Stop it with the empty land meme. I mean, it helps my point but it's offensive.

They're mad that Democrats are only liked in very specific parts of urban coastal states. They can't appeal to anybody outside those bubbles.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

He won the popular vote by 7-8 million when you don't count the votes from illegal immigrants.

I'm still waiting for your source
---

Mal_Fet posted...

They're mad that Democrats are only liked in very specific parts of urban coastal states. They can't appeal to anybody outside those bubbles.

and yet they make up over half the population
---

Mal_Fet posted...

SomeonesAlt posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote he'd have ignored states like Wisconsin and Missouri and instead campaigned in California, Texas, New York, and Florida exclusively.

And would have lost

Nope. Campaigning has a big effect on voter turnout. If he focused on California like Hillary did he could easily have gotten 6 million extra (useless) votes.

9/11 NATO mal post
---

Mal_Fet posted...

SomeonesAlt posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote he'd have ignored states like Wisconsin and Missouri and instead campaigned in California, Texas, New York, and Florida exclusively.

And would have lost

Nope. Campaigning has a big effect on voter turnout. If he focused on California like Hillary did he could easily have gotten 6 million extra (useless) votes.

Hillary didn't solely focus on those places though. If she'd purely been campaigning for the popular vote, she'd have picked up as many as Trump.
---

SomeonesAlt posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

SomeonesAlt posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote he'd have ignored states like Wisconsin and Missouri and instead campaigned in California, Texas, New York, and Florida exclusively.

And would have lost

Nope. Campaigning has a big effect on voter turnout. If he focused on California like Hillary did he could easily have gotten 6 million extra (useless) votes.

Hillary didn't solely focus on those places though. If she'd purely been campaigning for the popular vote, she'd have picked up as many as Trump.

I mean, she basically did campaign for popular votes. She campaigned in large places like LA because her rallies draw embarrassingly small crowds in smaller towns


---

A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for both senators the state has in the United States Congress.[44][45] The number of representatives is based on the respective populations, determined every 10 years by the United States Census. Each representative represents on average 711,000 persons.[46]

Look how many California gets! 2016 election's electoral college


---

Mal_Fet posted...

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote he'd have ignored states like Wisconsin and Missouri and instead campaigned in California, Texas, New York, and Florida exclusively.

You don't win a presidency by popular vote, so he didn't do that.

You guys are whining that you lost a chess match because the rules aren't like checkers. It's embarrassing.

Changing the vote changes the campaign process. Granted, it would have affected hillary's strategy as well, but we can't make assumptions as to the result (for either candidate) when we are changing how the game is played, and switching to a popular vote system most certainly does change the game, and we cannot deny that would change how it is played. This may be the only time I ever say this, but I agree 100% with you here, and it would be disingenuous to assume the votes, voter turnout and election results would have been the same or different given the change in the process. We would have to hold actual elections without the electoral college and with only popular vote before we could accurately speak to the trends and results of such a change.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote he'd have ignored states like Wisconsin and Missouri and instead campaigned in California, Texas, New York, and Florida exclusively.

You don't win a presidency by popular vote, so he didn't do that.

You guys are whining that you lost a chess match because the rules aren't like checkers. It's embarrassing.

Changing the vote changes the campaign process. Granted, it would have affected hillary's strategy as well, but we can't make assumptions as to the result (for either candidate) when we are changing how the game is played, and switching to a popular vote system most certainly does change the game, and we cannot deny that would change how it is played. This may be the only time I ever say this, but I agree 100% with you here, and it would be disingenuous to assume the votes, voter turnout and election results would have been the same or different given the change in the process. We would have to hold actual elections without the electoral college and with only popular vote before we could accurately speak to the trends and results of such a change.

Fair, but it's reasonable to doubt that Trump would all of a sudden win one of the most liberal states in the union.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Yeah, I disagree with Trump here

The US is full of many different cultures. The electoral college helps represents that.

All or nothing is shit, though.

For 29 electoral votes, a relatively even split state (Florida) throws all its support behind one party for margins smaller than 2%. Its garbage and we totally need to scale the split to better reflect the balance.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

Yeah, I disagree with Trump here

The US is full of many different cultures. The electoral college helps represents that.

All or nothing is shit, though.

For 29 electoral votes, a relatively even split state (Florida) throws all its support behind one party for margins smaller than 2%. Its garbage and we totally need to scale the split to better reflect the balance.

This has been my position for a while, too. It's a crap way to tally votes.
---

I don't like the electoral college, but at the end of the day a straight popular vote isn't the right answer anyway. I prefer as many barriers as possible between elections and interference, and a direct two number feed is the easiest thing in the world to alter when the only consideration is which #'s bigger.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Look how many California gets! 2016 election's electoral college

and it should get more if we adopted something like the wyoming rule* and got rid of the reapportionment act of 1929

note* this wouldn't change the result of the 2016 election
---

Donomark posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote he'd have ignored states like Wisconsin and Missouri and instead campaigned in California, Texas, New York, and Florida exclusively.

You don't win a presidency by popular vote, so he didn't do that.

You guys are whining that you lost a chess match because the rules aren't like checkers. It's embarrassing.

Changing the vote changes the campaign process. Granted, it would have affected hillary's strategy as well, but we can't make assumptions as to the result (for either candidate) when we are changing how the game is played, and switching to a popular vote system most certainly does change the game, and we cannot deny that would change how it is played. This may be the only time I ever say this, but I agree 100% with you here, and it would be disingenuous to assume the votes, voter turnout and election results would have been the same or different given the change in the process. We would have to hold actual elections without the electoral college and with only popular vote before we could accurately speak to the trends and results of such a change.

Fair, but it's reasonable to doubt that Trump would all of a sudden win one of the most liberal states in the union.

You'll have to remember it's not about "winning states" anymore if the vote was a popular one. I don't think Trump campaigned in California once. If he was playing by "popular vote" rules, he'd have definitely gone several times---and likely picked up more "popular" votes there. The same can theoretically be said about Hillary in Louisiana.
---

Darksaber310 posted...

I don't like the electoral college, but at the end of the day a straight popular vote isn't the right answer anyway. I prefer as many barriers as possible between elections and interference, and a direct two number feed is the easiest thing in the world to alter when the only consideration is which #'s bigger.

This is an argument for security and transparency, not disenfranchisement.
---

Donomark posted...

Fair, but it's reasonable to doubt that Trump would all of a sudden win one of the most liberal states in the union.

States don't matter with a popular vote.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Donomark posted...

Fair, but it's reasonable to doubt that Trump would all of a sudden win one of the most liberal states in the union.

States don't matter with a popular vote.

I meant the majority of voters in California.
---

Donomark posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote he'd have ignored states like Wisconsin and Missouri and instead campaigned in California, Texas, New York, and Florida exclusively.

You don't win a presidency by popular vote, so he didn't do that.

You guys are whining that you lost a chess match because the rules aren't like checkers. It's embarrassing.

Changing the vote changes the campaign process. Granted, it would have affected hillary's strategy as well, but we can't make assumptions as to the result (for either candidate) when we are changing how the game is played, and switching to a popular vote system most certainly does change the game, and we cannot deny that would change how it is played. This may be the only time I ever say this, but I agree 100% with you here, and it would be disingenuous to assume the votes, voter turnout and election results would have been the same or different given the change in the process. We would have to hold actual elections without the electoral college and with only popular vote before we could accurately speak to the trends and results of such a change.

Fair, but it's reasonable to doubt that Trump would all of a sudden win one of the most liberal states in the union.

Of course. I'm just saying we can't jump to conclusions about the end results of a game when we speak of changing the rules and we haven't tested said changes. I voted for hillary and I did so only because I watched the 3rd debate and trump talked a bunch of bullshit. Prior to that, I planned to not vote. I live in MA. We vote blue. My motivation was low and I knew we would vote democrat, therefore I was not compelled to vote. Without the electoral college, I would have seen more importance in voting because the importance of voting would be nationally stressed and would be critical. This affects both sides. As it is untested, we don't know to what degree the effect would be, so we have to give the benefit of the doubt that the results could have been the same. Mal' s argument, as I interpret it, is that trump could have won the popular vote even though in reality he lost it, because in this scenario, we change the rules of the game and therefore we change how it is played. In a popular vote scenario, trump and hillary both have a different strategy. The voters have a different perspective. We don't know the outcome and we shouldn't assume it either way.
---

I understand what you're saying.
---

Donomark posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Donomark posted...

Fair, but it's reasonable to doubt that Trump would all of a sudden win one of the most liberal states in the union.

States don't matter with a popular vote.

I meant the majority of voters in California.

Don't need a majority of voters in California. All that matters is the majority of the US. He could've found 6 million Republicans in California to vote for him.
---

The whole "If popular vote was what mattered people would only campaign in New York, etc." argument is stupid anyway. It's not as if the states that are currently focused on have the highest electoral votes/population ratio. In fact, most of the battleground states are below the average electoral vote/population ratio.

Candidates would focus on where they can get the most additional votes, based on both where they maximize turnout and where they can possibly "flip" the most votes. This doesn't always (or even usually) mean the high population places most firmly in your camp.
---

Antifar posted...

When he's right, he's right

And this is not one of those times. Figures you only agree with Trump when he's wrong.

Mal_Fet posted...

Donomark posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Donomark posted...

Fair, but it's reasonable to doubt that Trump would all of a sudden win one of the most liberal states in the union.

States don't matter with a popular vote.

I meant the majority of voters in California.

Don't need a majority of voters in California. All that matters is the majority of the US. He could've found 6 million Republicans in California to vote for him.

It certainly would affect voting strategy. With various silly things I've seen about "let's have secession in CA lol," the dynamic of the state is clearly divided. Imo both candidates would have campaigned balls to the wall in that state... and in any other populous state. It would be an interesting shift to go to this instead of the electoral college.
---

Antifar posted...

When he's right, he's right

Think about this guys next time you think it's unfair that Californians have less electoral votes per person than people in Wyoming:

Is it fair that Hillary Clinton had twice the funding Donald Trump had? Do you believe she'd have won the popular vote if her funds were slashed in half in order for the race to be more fair?

Just saying, if your aim is fairness and you wanted the race to be as fair as possible, Hillary would probably have lost by a landslide.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Donomark posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Donomark posted...

Fair, but it's reasonable to doubt that Trump would all of a sudden win one of the most liberal states in the union.

States don't matter with a popular vote.

I meant the majority of voters in California.

Don't need a majority of voters in California. All that matters is the majority of the US. He could've found 6 million Republicans in California to vote for him.

I doubt it. No recent Republican has won five million Californian votes, let alone 6.
---

The budgets should be equal for everyone at primary and national levels. Have some sort of vote requirement to qualify for the money.

I would pay more in taxes to fund this.
---

And apparently Mal has me on ignore. That's sad but I probably deserve it.
---

Donomark posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Donomark posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Donomark posted...

Fair, but it's reasonable to doubt that Trump would all of a sudden win one of the most liberal states in the union.

States don't matter with a popular vote.

I meant the majority of voters in California.

Don't need a majority of voters in California. All that matters is the majority of the US. He could've found 6 million Republicans in California to vote for him.

I doubt it. No recent Republican has won five million Californian votes, let alone 6.

Probably because campaigning in California is a lost cause for Republicans in an electoral system, which it wouldn't be in a popular vote system.

Damn_Underscore posted...

The budgets should be equal for everyone at primary and national levels. Have some sort of vote requirement to qualify for the money.

I would pay more in taxes to fund this.

Ok but just be aware that Hillary would have been doomed under such a system in 2016, and would have lost the popular vote by a lot.

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

And apparently Mal has me on ignore. That's sad but I probably deserve it.

What? I just didn't see anything to respond to.

All I'd have to say is "yes I agree". Not something I'm used to typing.
---

Mal (had to edit quotes)

All I'd have to say is "yes I agree". Not something I'm used to typing.

I'm sure there's an emoji for this. Can anyone help me out?
---

He literally won in a landslide. He would have won the pv too

Y2Jo_sHBK posted...

He literally won in a landslide

You're wrong every time you say this. Multiple people correct you each time and present evidence and you keep it up. Even the most devoted of cultists don't claim Trump won in a landslide.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Mal (had to edit quotes)

All I'd have to say is "yes I agree". Not something I'm used to typing.

I'm sure there's an emoji for this. Can anyone help me out?

---

SomeonesAlt posted...

Y2Jo_sHBK posted...

He literally won in a landslide

You're wrong every time you say this. Multiple people correct you each time and present evidence and you keep it up. Even the most devoted of cultists don't claim Trump won in a landslide.

Pretty sure winning by almost triple digits isn't something that can be considered close

Y2Jo_sHBK posted...

SomeonesAlt posted...

Y2Jo_sHBK posted...

He literally won in a landslide

You're wrong every time you say this. Multiple people correct you each time and present evidence and you keep it up. Even the most devoted of cultists don't claim Trump won in a landslide.

Pretty sure winning by almost triple digits isn't something that can be considered close

Perspective, Joshy boy. Perspective.

Also, he's near the bottom of electoral college win percents. Unless you're claiming every election has always been a landslide. In which case, you're hopeless.
---

SomeonesAlt posted...

Y2Jo_sHBK posted...

SomeonesAlt posted...

Y2Jo_sHBK posted...

He literally won in a landslide

You're wrong every time you say this. Multiple people correct you each time and present evidence and you keep it up. Even the most devoted of cultists don't claim Trump won in a landslide.

Pretty sure winning by almost triple digits isn't something that can be considered close

Perspective, Joshy boy. Perspective.

Also, he's near the bottom of electoral college win percents. Unless you're claiming every election has always been a landslide. In which case, you're hopeless.

Most times this is true though. People are almost always drawn to the more charasmatic person. This time was no different. Just because other baseball games have been won 20-0 doesn't mean 10-0 is close

Mal_Fet posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Mal (had to edit quotes)

All I'd have to say is "yes I agree". Not something I'm used to typing.

I'm sure there's an emoji for this. Can anyone help me out?

??

Shit. It doesn't show up properly on my phone :/
---

Y2Jo_sHBK posted...

SomeonesAlt posted...

Y2Jo_sHBK posted...

SomeonesAlt posted...

Y2Jo_sHBK posted...

He literally won in a landslide

You're wrong every time you say this. Multiple people correct you each time and present evidence and you keep it up. Even the most devoted of cultists don't claim Trump won in a landslide.

Pretty sure winning by almost triple digits isn't something that can be considered close

Perspective, Joshy boy. Perspective.

Also, he's near the bottom of electoral college win percents. Unless you're claiming every election has always been a landslide. In which case, you're hopeless.

Most times this is true though. People are almost always drawn to the more charasmatic person. This time was no different. Just because other baseball games have been won 20-0 doesn't mean 10-0 is close

Except it's more like a 6-4 win in baseball statistically. I know logic and reasoning is anathema to you Trump supporters, but you're literally the only cultist parroting this false narrative.
---

Im going to put more wood on my fire. I have zero time for this administration and its stupidity.
---

Deadpool_18 posted...

Im going to put more wood on my fire. I have zero time for this administration and its stupidity.

Thanks for coming into this topic to let everyone know.
---

lol Trump. Only thing he's good for is easy bimbo pussy.

Bimbo chick: I voted for Trump.
Me: Easy pickings.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Think about this guys next time you think it's unfair that Californians have less electoral votes per person than people in Wyoming:

Is it fair that Hillary Clinton had twice the funding Donald Trump had? Do you believe she'd have won the popular vote if her funds were slashed in half in order for the race to be more fair?

Just saying, if your aim is fairness and you wanted the race to be as fair as possible, Hillary would probably have lost by a landslide.

I cant believe this isnt a DE post; its amazing.

The "Libertarian " isn't even trying anymore.
---