Here we go.....

[The emperor has no clothes]

... Hillary is ahead in the popular vote yet concedes pretty early. I know she lost the big states but still the vote difference nationally is only 200,000. Surely there must have been some precincts or states close enough to legally challenge. 
...

Actually it's not the popular vote, that does appear very close, but the electoral votes that matter.  There were only four states that were close enough that a recount could have possibly reversed their direction.  The electoral vote was widely spread enough that it would have taken two or more of those states to change the electoral balance.  Chances for that would be very, very slim.  It's not at all like it was in 2000 when reversing the very close state of Florida would change the outcome of the election.

Understand the Electoral College system. The point which I am trying to make, (apparently with limited success) is the difference in the popular vote is only 200000 votes and in Clinton's favor. I know that this is irrelevant in and of itself.  But the mere 200k vote difference surely means in some key states that the margins within those states (and this is relevant) were really thin and could have been challenged.

So the point I'm making is that Clinton didn't even question any of the results because it would expose the corruption and fraud that the Trump camp legitimately over came.

No, she didn't challenge it because she knows how the electoral process works.

[Jess from VA]

I'll wager that the lion's share the 200,000 votes in question were cast by free crap army members in city/urban areas, who were paid handsomely for their votes for years and years.  They got paid right and regular, they voted as expected, so it's a square deal.  If they wanted their votes to count for more, they should get off the dole, get out of the city, and get a job and pay taxes like the rest of us.  

Perhaps that's harsh.  But it's the truth.

The percentage of Americans now receiving a federally-funded welfare now stands at 35.4%. (that's just a bit more than 200K)

I'm sold on the Electoral College from here on out.

Here is exhibit A for the prosecution.
 

[Rams]

While I do support the Electoral College, I don't think the states are respecting their citizens when they award all the Electoral Votes to the winner of that states voting process.   Personally, I think they should split the vote according to the popular vote cast in each state.   That would be more reflective of the state voter's wishes.  

In this election, that may have allowed the Witch to win, I don't know but, I still think that would be a more reflective system.   If Clinton got 48% of the popular vote, she should be that amount of electoral votes.   But, that's just my opinion.   As I understand it, Clinton won the popular vote nation wide.   I'd hate to see her in the White House (unless it was her to receive a pardon) but, I still think that's a fairer way for the election to be decided.

[cookiedough]

back to original post:  I do not think Trump was the 'right' pick to be Prez, but considering the alternative,  what other choice did we have?  Lesser of the 2 evils so to speak in my eyes..

sure hope I am not wrong on my feelings will see in next 1-2 years what Trump does.

Pisses me off though people on TV like today the show called the VIEW with whoopi goldberg and others shoot him down not giving him a chance calling him a fool, etc.   Nice way to start things off - NOT!

The celebs and others who fictitiously stated they would move out of the USA if Trump wins,  good riddens,  do not let the door hit you in the butt. 

[Jess from VA]

Oh there's no question popular vote is more purely democratic.  

However, since the popular vote (vrs Electoral College) will always favor the socialists/cities/urban areas from here on out, I'm against it.

I believe there is no set of facts where conservatives get screwed using the electoral college.  

Officially, Gore (D) got a higher count than Bush (R) in 2000.  I was good with that too.  

Before that, the last guy to win the Electoral College but not the popular vote was Benjamin Harrison (R) (over Grover Cleveland - D) in 1888.  Interestingly, due to their political platforms, the power of the Tammany Hall political machine in New York City (all D) helped deny Cleveland (D) the electoral votes of his home state.  That's a little before my time.

[MP]

Oh there's no question popular vote is more purely democratic.  

However, since the popular vote (vrs Electoral College) will always favor the socialists/cities/urban areas from here on out, I'm against it.

I believe there is no set of facts where conservatives get screwed using the electoral college.  

Officially, Gore (D) got a higher count than Bush (R) in 2000.  I was good with that too.  

Before that, the last guy to win the Electoral College but not the popular vote was Benjamin Harrison (R) (over Grover Cleveland - D) in 1888.  Interestingly, due to their political platforms, the power of the Tammany Hall political machine in New York City (all D) helped deny Cleveland (D) the electoral votes of his home state.  That's a little before my time.

If you go back to the writings during the time the Constitution was written, the Electoral College was SPECIFICALLY to limit somewhat the population centers. The more rural areas knew they would be overrun by the big cities otherwise. The Electoral College was put in place for the same reasons each state has two Senators, to protect the little areas from the big ones. It works as intended.

[..]

baldo employs the same strategy as others have on this forum.

Swoop down and leave a pile of poop.

This from the person who stated he'd keep from political posts.

Dog to vomit one more time.

[baldo]

baldo employs the same strategy as others have on this forum.

Swoop down and leave a pile of poop .

Them may be sitting back watching the turmoil he has caused.

This from the person who stated he'd keep from political posts.

Dog to vomit one more time.

Britbaby, it would appear that you're the one leaving little piles around. I'm willing to give the man a chance. All you want to do is stir the pot. Don't you have something else to do?

Oh, and before I forget...bless your little heart...

[Skinhead]

... but I don't foresee the same level of decisiveness we saw with obummer.

The difference between a c and a v is significant.

Thanks for the catch Carl, you are correct as usual.  And Happy Birthday to your beloved Corps.

[Skinhead]

While I do support the Electoral College, I don't think the states are respecting their citizens when they award all the Electoral Votes to the winner of that states voting process.   Personally, I think they should split the vote according to the popular vote cast in each state.   That would be more reflective of the state voter's wishes.   

In this election, that may have allowed the Witch to win, I don't know but, I still think that would be a more reflective system.   If Clinton got 48% of the popular vote, she should be that amount of electoral votes.   But, that's just my opinion.   As I understand it, Clinton won the popular vote nation wide.   I'd hate to see her in the White House (unless it was her to receive a pardon) but, I still think that's a fairer way for the election to be decided.

Wouldn't that just be a re-enforced popular vote?

[The emperor has no clothes]

While I do support the Electoral College, I don't think the states are respecting their citizens when they award all the Electoral Votes to the winner of that states voting process.   Personally, I think they should split the vote according to the popular vote cast in each state.   That would be more reflective of the state voter's wishes.  

In this election, that may have allowed the Witch to win, I don't know but, I still think that would be a more reflective system.   If Clinton got 48% of the popular vote, she should be that amount of electoral votes.   But, that's just my opinion.   As I understand it, Clinton won the popular vote nation wide.   I'd hate to see her in the White House (unless it was her to receive a pardon) but, I still think that's a fairer way for the election to be decided.

Each state gets to decide how they apportion their electoral votes. You are not advocating giving up States rights ?

[..]

baldo employs the same strategy as others have on this forum.

Swoop down and leave a pile of poop .

Them may be sitting back watching the turmoil he has caused.

This from the person who stated he'd keep from political posts.

Dog to vomit one more time.

Britbaby, it would appear that you're the one leaving little piles around. I'm willing to give the man a chance. All you want to do is stir the pot. Don't you have something else to do?

Oh, and before I forget...bless your little heart...

How many sides of your mouth do you talk from? You think that others will read your words and interpret them as one willing to "give a man a chance"?

Say goodbye to any protections from Wall Street predators. You guys that have complaints about the ACA, some of which have merit. Say goodbye to protection from insurance companies and their denials from pre-existing conditions, payout limits, your kids not having coverage, etc. Are we going to have a return to home foreclosures and bank 'misdeeds'.


will he revert to his usual pomposity?

[Varmintmist]

While I do support the Electoral College, I don't think the states are respecting their citizens when they award all the Electoral Votes to the winner of that states voting process.   Personally, I think they should split the vote according to the popular vote cast in each state.   That would be more reflective of the state voter's wishes.  

That would defeat the purpose of the electorial college, that being that states with greater population dont get to rule over all of the states for ever. There has to be serious turnout for the lightly populated states to make a change, but without the EC, there is no chance that say WV matters at all, ever.

IMHO, where the count should reflect the voting population is in the primaries. Votes to electors

[The emperor has no clothes]

While I do support the Electoral College, I don't think the states are respecting their citizens when they award all the Electoral Votes to the winner of that states voting process.   Personally, I think they should split the vote according to the popular vote cast in each state.   That would be more reflective of the state voter's wishes.  

That would defeat the purpose of the electorial college, that being that states with greater population dont get to rule over all of the states for ever. There has to be serious turnout for the lightly populated states to make a change, but without the EC, there is no chance that say WV matters at all, ever.

IMHO, where the count should reflect the voting population is in the primaries. Votes to electors

The primary voting rules are set up by each party. The government has little to do with it.

[Willow]

... Hillary is ahead in the popular vote yet concedes pretty early. I know she lost the big states but still the vote difference nationally is only 200,000. Surely there must have been some precincts or states close enough to legally challenge.  
...

Actually it's not the popular vote, that does appear very close, but the electoral votes that matter.  There were only four states that were close enough that a recount could have possibly reversed their direction.  The electoral vote was widely spread enough that it would have taken two or more of those states to change the electoral balance.  Chances for that would be very, very slim.  It's not at all like it was in 2000 when reversing the very close state of Florida would change the outcome of the election.

Understand the Electoral College system. The point which I am trying to make, (apparently with limited success) is the difference in the popular vote is only 200000 votes and in Clinton's favor. I know that this is irrelevant in and of itself.  But the mere 200k vote difference surely means in some key states that the margins within those states (and this is relevant) were really thin and could have been challenged.

So the point I'm making is that Clinton didn't even question any of the results because it would expose the corruption and fraud that the Trump camp legitimately over came.

Actually, no, Mike.

The mismatch of popular vote to electoral vote is easily explained.  All states get two electoral votes corresponding to their two senators.  Additionally they get the number of electoral votes that correspond to their number of Representatives.  Representatives are determined by population numbers.  What that implies is that although the number of electoral votes for the heavily populated states is more than those of the sparsely populated states, the guarantee of at least three electoral votes causes the weight of electoral votes to number of voters actually higher in the sparsely populated states.  Donald trump carried virtually all of the states with a small number of electoral votes.  Donald Trump carried some of the big population states, but Hillary Clinton carried California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York.

If one wants to win the presidential election he must carry his share of the big number of electoral states but carrying most of the small number electoral states is the tie breaker.   

[Moonshot_1]

... Hillary is ahead in the popular vote yet concedes pretty early. I know she lost the big states but still the vote difference nationally is only 200,000. Surely there must have been some precincts or states close enough to legally challenge.  
...

Actually it's not the popular vote, that does appear very close, but the electoral votes that matter.  There were only four states that were close enough that a recount could have possibly reversed their direction.  The electoral vote was widely spread enough that it would have taken two or more of those states to change the electoral balance.  Chances for that would be very, very slim.  It's not at all like it was in 2000 when reversing the very close state of Florida would change the outcome of the election.

Understand the Electoral College system. The point which I am trying to make, (apparently with limited success) is the difference in the popular vote is only 200000 votes and in Clinton's favor. I know that this is irrelevant in and of itself.  But the mere 200k vote difference surely means in some key states that the margins within those states (and this is relevant) were really thin and could have been challenged.

So the point I'm making is that Clinton didn't even question any of the results because it would expose the corruption and fraud that the Trump camp legitimately over came.

Actually, no, Mike.

The mismatch of popular vote to electoral vote is easily explained.  All states get two electoral votes corresponding to their two senators.  Additionally they get the number of electoral votes that correspond to their number of Representatives.  Representatives are determined by population numbers.  What that implies is that although the number of electoral votes for the heavily populated states is more than those of the sparsely populated states, the guarantee of at least three electoral votes causes the weight of electoral votes to number of voters actually higher in the sparsely populated states.  Donald trump carried virtually all of the states with a small number of electoral votes.  Donald Trump carried some of the big population states, but Hillary Clinton carried California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York.

If one wants to win the presidential election he must carry his share of the big number of electoral states but carrying most of the small number electoral states is the tie breaker.   

Understand all that and also understand the point I am trying to make I am making poorly.
The point is that I believe that Trump actually has more votes relative to the popular vote and that his campaign overcame the fraud and corruption in the key Big Electoral states to win. That if Hillary and the DNC went back to challenge any of this, the fraud and corruption would come out under the scrutiny of such a challenge. And since Trump won, he has no standing to or reason to challenge the outcome.

So we'll never know.

[Skinhead]

I agree Mike, They cheated, just not hard enough and calling for a recount/investigation would just expose it.  They underestimated just how fed up people in this country had become, the lame stream media had a lot to do with that.  They believed their own BS.

[Varmintmist]

The primary voting rules are set up by each party. The government has little to do with it.

Wrong, the govt has nothing to do with it. That doesnt mean that IMHO the states shouldnt divvy up delegates per the population during a primary. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

The primary voting rules are set up by each party. The government has little to do with it.

Wrong, the govt has nothing to do with it. That doesnt mean that IMHO the states shouldnt divvy up delegates per the population during a primary. 

Nothing ? I think states set the dates for primaries. States can also set the rules for open or closed primaries. In California they even set it to where it is the top 2 vote getters who move to the general election. Regardless of party affiliation. So yes I would say the States have some input.