Discounting CA and NY, Clinton lost the popular vote

musterion

musterion

Well-known member
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...illion-votes-outside-California-New-York.html

[FONT=&quot]Final vote tallies from the November 8 election show that Democrat Hillary Clinton out-polled President-elect Donald Trump by 2.8 million votes while losing the contest by a wide margin in the all-important Electoral College.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Her upper hand with voters, however, came down to performances in New York and California that were far stronger than necessary.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Clinton won California by 4.2 million and took New York by more than 1.6 million. The combined 5.8 million-vote advantage in just those two states was more than twice the size of her overall edge nationwide.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When the dust settled, she lost the rest of the country by 3 million votes.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Well, just as we have to work with the EC as it is, you get to take California and New York as we are. Lucky you!

:cheers:
 
Daniel1769

Daniel1769

New member
Not sure what the point of that statistic is. "Subtracting the areas where a lot of people voted for her, she lost the popular vote." You don't say?

But that does make the California secession thing look even better. Let California secede and the left will probably never win anything again.
 
Quincy

Quincy

New member
It doesn't matter, as long those two states are part of the union. That's like stating that if Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan were subtracted, Hillary would president.

At any rate, it makes a good argument for the EC. It's genius, because it makes sure that more densely populated areas don't always rule over the nation. There has to be enough of the lesser populated areas that agree with them for the country to head in that direction. Think of it as checks and balances.

The electors need to be more vigilant against demagoguery, though.
 
rocketman

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
Quincy said:
The electors need to be more vigilant against demagoguery, though.
Click to expand...

The EC was a brilliant idea that the framers employed for the very reasons we see here in this election, where factions in densely populated areas cannot lord over those that live in less populate rural areas outside of their given states or within their state if their vote is not adequate to secure the electors. The fact of the EC is that the candidate has to be able to capture statewide support to win said state and receive the electors. What you have said above is what I take issue with, it is not the job of electors to decide or to restrain against demagogues, that is for the citizenry to do at the ballot box, the electors job is to represent the wishes of the voters in their given state regardless of who won them, personal bias aside. It is their duty to vote by result of election held within their given state, it really should be a crime not to, the decision to cast the vote for this candidate, or that is not their decision, they are a proxy vote for the citizenry.
 
R

rexlunae

New member
rocketman said:
The EC was a brilliant idea that the framers employed for the very reasons we see here in this election, where factions in densely populated areas cannot lord over those that live in less populate rural areas outside of their given states or within their state if their vote is not adequate to secure the electors. The fact of the EC is that the candidate has to be able to capture statewide support to win said state and receive the electors. What you have said above is what I take issue with, it is not the job of electors to decide or to restrain against demagogues, that is for the citizenry to do at the ballot box, the electors job is to represent the wishes of the voters in their given state regardless of who won them, personal bias aside. It is their duty to vote by result of election held within their given state, it really should be a crime not to, the decision to cast the vote for this candidate, or that is not their decision, they are a proxy vote for the citizenry.
Click to expand...

Not according to Hamilton.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Electoral%20College.jpg
 
Quincy

Quincy

New member
rocketman said:
The EC was a brilliant idea that the framers employed for the very reasons we see here in this election, where factions in densely populated areas cannot lord over those that live in less populate rural areas outside of their given states or within their state if their vote is not adequate to secure the electors. The fact of the EC is that the candidate has to be able to capture statewide support to win said state and receive the electors. What you have said above is what I take issue with, it is not the job of electors to decide or to restrain against demagogues, that is for the citizenry to do at the ballot box, the electors job is to represent the wishes of the voters in their given state regardless of who won them, personal bias aside. It is their duty to vote by result of election held within their given state, it really should be a crime not to, the decision to cast the vote for this candidate, or that is not their decision, they are a proxy vote for the citizenry.
Click to expand...

What? Really?

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by 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. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. (that is referring to the electors chosen by the people of America, not the candidate chosen) And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
Click to expand...

Reads like it was intended to be more than just an echo chamber forced to choose whichever candidate carried the most counties in a state.
 
rocketman

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
Quincy said:
Reads like it was intended to be more than just an echo chamber forced to choose whichever candidate carried the most counties in a state.
Click to expand...

I believe that is what I said Quincy, the electors are to proxy their vote as the popular vote went in the given state or the most counties won in the state if you will. I think we agree...but, I maybe misunderstood what you were attempting to display in your comment. :thumb:
 
R

rexlunae

New member
rocketman said:
I believe that is what I said Quincy, the electors are to proxy their vote as the popular vote went in the given state or the most counties won in the state if you will. I think we agree...but, I maybe misunderstood what you were attempting to display in your comment. :thumb:
Click to expand...

They aren't supposed to proxy anything. They were supposed to exercise independent judgement.
 
Quincy

Quincy

New member
rocketman said:
I believe that is what I said Quincy, the electors are to proxy their vote as the popular vote went in the given state or the most counties won in the state if you will. I think we agree...but, I maybe misunderstood what you were attempting to display in your comment. :thumb:
Click to expand...

Sure, they're proxies in the representative sense but that doesn't mean that they have to echo the general election results if they see sufficient evidence that a candidate is a pawn of foreign interests or a threat to the nation's stability. I don't believe there is sufficient evidence that Trump is a pawn of Russia, despite the media's pathetic attempts to sell it for the last month. I do however think, that just like Obama, Trump is only riding populist anger towards the outgoing administration to get elected. Obama pulled that crap and went on to shove his legislative agenda down the throats of all Americans, dividing us and causing a lot of turmoil. Trump has major potential to do the same, we'll have to see.

At any rate, Obama didn't have all Americans' interest in mind and Trump's campaign showed more then enough potential for the same. If the electors were more judicious, they'd have spared us from having to put up with these two guys.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top