Maybe in your mind but, since this institution has been working for well over 200 years with few instances of the vote being split between Popular & Electoral it is only the losers that are decrying the system is broke.
I'm not saying it's broken. In examining the whole thing I've just about concluded that the dangers and efforts needed to end the EC are worse than the cure, though it does seem to be happening more lately and maybe if that continues the cost/benefit will shift.
Outside of that, whoever makes the claim bears the burden. That's just an axiom of proof.
Furthermore, given there is no way to validate the popular vote without a voter identification system in place the popular vote winner cannot claim victory to that number even if it was the standard, which it is not.
That's an assertion/assumption. No serious study has ever indicated a statistically valid problem of election tipping fraud in our national history. Until that's sustained it's just political gamesmanship, whichever side is complaining. So Reagan, Bill, etc. can absolutely rest on their popular mandates and Hillary can rightly note that absent some proof to the contrary, millions more desired to see her ensconced than the fellow who won the land over hands contest.
That said, unless and until we do away with the EC, that's the way the old political cookie crumbles and people rending garments over it is just a waste of time. The election is over. It's time to move to the next thing.
All you have is sour grapes that your candidate could not sell her wares outside of liberal urban cities.
You keep doing that, rm. You need to read me more widely because this is the second time you've missed the mark widely. I actually and repeatedly called for people not to vote for either. I didn't want either of these snake oil salesmen in the White House, so I'd be sour by either margin. I called her a near perfect storm of everything I dislike in politicians. Trump? As bad if in a different approach.
But you're not being fair about the demographic. Hillary had a lot of support outside of cities. Over half the electorate went with her and a good bit of that electorate doesn't live inside a few urban centers. It's just that this was, relatively speaking, a really close election.The concentrations were enough to help Trump carry areas outside of them, many of those by not so much. Anyway, a win is a win, close or by a mile.
Sure. If you've ever flown over the country in an airplane (or, I suppose, anything else that flies) you'll notice there aren't any actual lines on the topography below.
Not so much, the electoral vote is the only vote that counts under the constitutional system that framers set up,
Completely undisputed by me.
move to a banana republic if you want mob rule.
See, that's funny. You want "mob rule" too, only you like the way we've imagined carving up that mob. There's no magic in the EC. It's only reflecting that carving.
Clinton knew the standard going into this election, everyone knew the standard, and if you cannot meet the standard you lose
I've held no other opinion. I've said as much in this very thread, I believe.
Which party controls this government?
Who seem confused on the point?
..I wouldn't call that a stunning victory by any stretch
Me either. I also wouldn't call it a mandate for the side that actually lost seats.
and given that since 2010 democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, one would have conclude that the democrat party is on a roll.
I'd conclude that when you look at the demographics of the party and the opposition you have a problem over the long haul. Obama was terrific as a rallying point for conservatives. Now the voices that made their living saying no and pointing fingers have the opportunity to put up and make their case.
Interesting times to live in.
