OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[siablo14]

LOL. Does that video suggest Ivanka is the one who flipped or am out of the political loop?



This is why I don't understand why the electoral college is a thing. Seemingly voting is a simple process. One vote is one vote. I don't need to know what city or state it was cast in only that it was a vote cast in an area where that person's vote will be reflected on in the future because of who or what they voted for or against.

I don't give a f#ck how big in size or population California is or how small New Hampshire is. Every citizen in California & New Hampshire still have one vote. Every since this was taught to me in grade school I've been thinking wtf is this goofy bs thats not logically based & is seemingly about appearances & feelings. F#ck appearances & feelings.

Because if it was one to one some states and poorly-populated area would be completely ignored.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

LOL. Does that video suggest Ivanka is the one who flipped or am out of the political loop?



This is why I don't understand why the electoral college is a thing. Seemingly voting is a simple process. One vote is one vote. I don't need to know what city or state it was cast in only that it was a vote cast in an area where that person's vote will be reflected on in the future because of who or what they voted for or against.

I don't give a f#ck how big in size or population California is or how small New Hampshire is. Every citizen in California & New Hampshire still have one vote. Every since this was taught to me in grade school I've been thinking wtf is this goofy bs thats not logically based & is seemingly about appearances & feelings. F#ck appearances & feelings.

Because if it was one to one some states and poorly-populated area would be completely ignored.

Exactly what siablo said.

[Eff Pandas]

Because if it was one to one some states and poorly-populated area would be completely ignored.

So because of political election strategies one to one voting shouldn't matter? Thats appearance bs like I said. That shouldn't have any play in it.

Its all math sh^t anyway. You get more votes in different states & you win now in the electoral vote. You get more votes in the most heavily populated regions & you win in the popular vote. I'd argue they are gaming the system now to win you just would have to game the system differently if it was popular voting. And hell even then I'd suggest you could be a go getter type guy who played the lower population card & you might be able to grab enough votes in lesser populated areas that you could sneak up & steal the election.

Plus & most importantly logic would be on your side. Its insane this electoral college thing is a thing lol. I don't think people have actually thought about how goofy it is that the popular opinion can & actual has lost elections a few times in the past.

[siablo14]

So because of political election strategies one to one voting shouldn't matter? Thats appearance bs like I said. That shouldn't have any play in it.

Its all math sh^t anyway. You get more votes in different states & you win now in the electoral vote. You get more votes in the most heavily populated regions & you win in the popular vote. I'd argue they are gaming the system now to win you just would have to game the system differently if it was popular voting. And hell even then I'd suggest you could be a go getter type guy who played the lower population card & you might be able to grab enough votes in lesser populated areas that you could sneak up & steal the election.

Plus & most importantly logic would be on your side. Its insane this electoral college thing is a thing lol. I don't think people have actually thought about how goofy it is that the popular opinion can & actual has lost elections a few times in the past.

I believe the only other time the winner got fewr popular vote was the first time George Bush won in 2001. There may have been another time way way back but it's not a popular occurrence.

I wouldn't say it's political strategy. It's to make sure the voices of smaller states are heard. If there was no electoral college. The wishes of the people in the larger states would be all that matter. Politicians campaigning for votes and re-election would only focus on and implement policies that larger states want because that's where their best chance of winning would come from.

[Eff Pandas]

I believe the only other time the winner got fewr popular vote was the first time George Bush won in 2001. There may have been another time way way back but it's not a popular occurrence.

I thought JFK won the electoral, but not the popular vote too. And another guy or two further back.

Thats not really even the point doe it don't make no damn sense is the point.

I wouldn't say it's political strategy. It's to make sure the voices of smaller states are heard. If there was no electoral college. The wishes of the people in the larger states would be all that matter. Politicians campaigning for votes and re-election would only focus on and implement policies that larger states want because that's where their best chance of winning would come from.

But if there are less people in a area SHOULDN'T that place be given less attention?

And f#ck man what difference does it make if a guy lives in Delaware & the President doesn't come down to his town square or if a guy is in the projects of NYC & the President or a Governor/Senator doesn't come near him there either? Does that mean there should be a "electoral" college-like thing on a smaller scale in less visited regions of states for Governor or Senate elections to get politicians to pay closer attention to them too? So they can feel they matter as much as some mfers who live in Delaware or New Hampshire or Iowa?

It makes no sense to me. One vote is one vote. F#ck Iowa's feelings about it. Make that state more livable & fun & maybe more mfers will move there & have more legit power than this handicapped way to do an election.

[STEELHEAD]

Why do you think popular vote is the answer?

3rd party already gets popular vote


They aren't winning .01% of those elections..



Media needs to cover them fairly

Barriers need to be lowered

more people voted for hilary then trump this last election.
trump got more electorial votes.

[Motorcity Cobra]

This is why I don't understand why the electoral college is a thing. Seemingly voting is a simple process. One vote is one vote. I don't need to know what city or state it was cast in only that it was a vote cast in an area where that person's vote will be reflected on in the future because of who or what they voted for or against.

I don't give a f#ck how big in size or population California is or how small New Hampshire is. Every citizen in California & New Hampshire still have one vote. Every since this was taught to me in grade school I've been thinking wtf is this goofy bs thats not logically based & is seemingly about appearances & feelings. F#ck appearances & feelings.

The electoral college has roots in slavery and representation for the south which had more population when slaves were included but slaves weren't allowed to vote. But they were allowed to be counted as 3/5 of a person. That went towards the population count. If slaves at the time were allowed to vote we'd have a direct election of the president by popular vote.

[siablo14]

I thought JFK won the electoral, but not the popular vote too. And another guy or two further back.

Thats not really even the point doe it don't make no damn sense is the point.



But if there are less people in a area SHOULDN'T that place be given less attention?

And f#ck man what difference does it make if a guy lives in Delaware & the President doesn't come down to his town square or if a guy is in the projects of NYC & the President or a Governor/Senator doesn't come near him there either? Does that mean there should be a "electoral" college-like thing on a smaller scale in less visited regions of states for Governor or Senate elections to get politicians to pay closer attention to them too? So they can feel they matter as much as some mfers who live in Delaware or New Hampshire or Iowa?

It makes no sense to me. One vote is one vote. F#ck Iowa's feelings about it. Make that state more livable & fun & maybe more mfers will move there & have more legit power than this handicapped way to do an election.

The original framers of that policy wanted a president that truly represented America not just large states or one large section of America. It is not just physically visiting those areas. I think policy wise they would be ignored.

has happened four times.

The 2000 election was the most recent when the candidate who received the greatest number of electoral votes, and thus won the presidency, didn’t win the popular vote. But this scenario has played out in our nation’s history before.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.


In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bus

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...vote/93441516/

[Mooshashi]

I tried doing business in Ukraine. Met with national and local government officials in Kiev and L'vov. Every one of them....EVERY ONE OF THEM....had their hands out for $$$$. I would not play the game so I left and took my people with me.

If Paul Manafort did business in Ukraine I guarantee ...GUARANTEE...he broke US laws.

The only more corrupt country in my experience is Russia.

[siablo14]

I thought JFK won the electoral, but not the popular vote too. And another guy or two further back.

Thats not really even the point doe it don't make no damn sense is the point.



But if there are less people in a area SHOULDN'T that place be given less attention?

And f#ck man what difference does it make if a guy lives in Delaware & the President doesn't come down to his town square or if a guy is in the projects of NYC & the President or a Governor/Senator doesn't come near him there either? Does that mean there should be a "electoral" college-like thing on a smaller scale in less visited regions of states for Governor or Senate elections to get politicians to pay closer attention to them too? So they can feel they matter as much as some mfers who live in Delaware or New Hampshire or Iowa?

It makes no sense to me. One vote is one vote. F#ck Iowa's feelings about it. Make that state more livable & fun & maybe more mfers will move there & have more legit power than this handicapped way to do an election.

Those wanting to end the Electoral College might want to be careful what they wish for.

If we were to use only the popular vote to determine a presidential election winner, 10 states by themselves could determine the winner: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan. By themselves, those 10 could have amassed a majority (64 million) of the 122 million total votes cast in the 2016 election. Voters in the other 40 states (including Missouri) would not have mattered. Similarly, voters in the top 100 metro areas could have elected a president. Voters in metro areas with less than 500,000 people would not have mattered.

Those estimates are based on 2016 state and metro area population estimates, 2016 total registered voters (200 million) and 2016 voter turnout (55 percent).

The designers of our U.S. Constitution included the Electoral College specifically to protect citizens and voters in states such as Missouri, and in Missouri cities such as Springfield, Jefferson City and Columbia. That protection also extends to rural counties in all states.

Pause
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 0:00

The same principle led Constitution designers to include a U.S. Senate, with two senators per state, regardless of population, to provide a check-and-balance to the population-driven number of representatives per state in the U.S. House.

It appears that elections and our federal government actually are designed in an excellent way to protect our freedoms from the potential tyranny of a relatively small number of states and metro areas. Would Missourians really want to have their federal government, its policies and its agencies run by popular majorities mainly from the Northeast and the West Coast? Or mainly from the larger metro areas?

If not, the Electoral College seems to be doing exactly what it was intended to do: protecting all of us.

http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/mail...4eebc46a8.html