19
19
0
I want everyone to stop and look at this link. Not only look at it, but read what I am about to write.
Even with a popular vote, Hillary Clinton would not have won the election.
Before you explode, think about this for a minute. In our government, for anything to pass there must be a 50+% majority, or even larger margins for certain processes. This is why the election requires that a candidate receive at least 270 of the 538 electoral votes.
As it stands right now, Hillary Clinton won 47.9% of our nation's popular vote compared to 47.1% for Donald Trump. Neither of those candidates won more than 50%.
If it were not for the electoral college, our President would have been picked by the House of Representatives. Which party has a majority in the House you ask? Republicans.
It is not a rigged election, or a rigged system. It is a system that makes it much more likely that a candidate can actually win the margins necessary to ascend to the office of the President.
Otherwise, as with this election, it makes it much more likely that a candidate does not receive the necessary votes to win.
Even with a popular vote, Hillary Clinton would not have won the election.
Before you explode, think about this for a minute. In our government, for anything to pass there must be a 50+% majority, or even larger margins for certain processes. This is why the election requires that a candidate receive at least 270 of the 538 electoral votes.
As it stands right now, Hillary Clinton won 47.9% of our nation's popular vote compared to 47.1% for Donald Trump. Neither of those candidates won more than 50%.
If it were not for the electoral college, our President would have been picked by the House of Representatives. Which party has a majority in the House you ask? Republicans.
It is not a rigged election, or a rigged system. It is a system that makes it much more likely that a candidate can actually win the margins necessary to ascend to the office of the President.
Otherwise, as with this election, it makes it much more likely that a candidate does not receive the necessary votes to win.
2016 election results: State maps, live updates
Posted from cnn.comPosted in these groups: 
Donald Trump
Election 2016
Hillary Clinton
Office of the President (POTUS)
Constitution
Donald Trump Election 2016 Hillary Clinton Office of the President (POTUS) Constitution
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 13
5
5
0
Well, said and posted ... it is what most folks are not looking at... The Big Picture...
Those folks designing our nation were not creating a straight Democracy ... But a "Constitutional Republic"... and there is one very Big difference....
folks fail to see that only 17% of the nation voted for the Career Criminal Politician... and 83% of the nation voted for the other Guy...
I think this is the second time that George Soros has been Beaten by our founding Fathers and their Infinite wisdom...
Those folks designing our nation were not creating a straight Democracy ... But a "Constitutional Republic"... and there is one very Big difference....
folks fail to see that only 17% of the nation voted for the Career Criminal Politician... and 83% of the nation voted for the other Guy...
I think this is the second time that George Soros has been Beaten by our founding Fathers and their Infinite wisdom...
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
That's not how popular votes work with more than two people in a race. A pluarlity is what is needed, not a majority. You are miixing aspects of the electoral college with aspects of a popular vote. Obviously, since we don't have a popular vote system, it is make believe to say that if one candidate didn't get a majority that Congress would select the winner. That's a EC procedure, not a popular vote procedure.
In some states that have multiple candidate primaries, if no candidate gets 50%, then there is a runoff election between the top two, so that one has to end up with 50%. Others it's just who gets the most votes. As for other things in government, that 50% mark is because you have a binary choice on a single bill, yes or no. It's not like you have three or four different healthcare bills all being voted on at once, and see which one wins.
As for the majority concept for the EC, while you need a majority of the votes, you don't need a majority of the states. You can get a majority of the EC votes winning just 11 states, and losing 39. So saying that winning the EC gives a candidate any sort of additional credibility towards having the approval of the majority of the people or the states is just false mathematically.
In some states that have multiple candidate primaries, if no candidate gets 50%, then there is a runoff election between the top two, so that one has to end up with 50%. Others it's just who gets the most votes. As for other things in government, that 50% mark is because you have a binary choice on a single bill, yes or no. It's not like you have three or four different healthcare bills all being voted on at once, and see which one wins.
As for the majority concept for the EC, while you need a majority of the votes, you don't need a majority of the states. You can get a majority of the EC votes winning just 11 states, and losing 39. So saying that winning the EC gives a candidate any sort of additional credibility towards having the approval of the majority of the people or the states is just false mathematically.
(4)
(0)
CDR Jon Corrigan
Not true in my state - last election neither candidate for governor received over 50% and the legislature had to choose.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CDR Jon Corrigan - there are a very few states that do it the way you describe, but not many. Here is a list of governor elections where the winner had less than a majority and it did not go to a legislature. The ones with asteriks are states that went to the legislature--georgia, Mississippi and Vermont. But as you can see from the list, a plurality winning is the norm, and going to the legislature is the exception.
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality-in-gubernatorial-elections
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality-in-gubernatorial-elections
(0)
(0)
PFC Jim Wheeler
I'll take this point by point.
You are saying that is not how it SHOULD work with more than 2 candidates, in your opinion. What we have is a majority voting system with the electoral college casting the final vote. You do not have to use an electoral college to use a majority voting system.
That is certainly what some states do, some states send it to their legislature like our Founding Fathers believed to be the correct thing to do with any election that does not have a majority winner.
As I mentioned earlier, is there any time you could point me to where a candidate won only 11 states but received above 50% in the electoral vote? That argument is even less relevant to this election since Trump won a huge majority of our 50 states. It's also worth noting that those 11 states have huge populations (which is why the electoral vote would add up that way), which also means a candidate could win a majority in a direct popular election while only taking a majority of votes from those states. Even worse, they wouldn't even need to take the states. They could receive those votes (like Hillary did in this election) by only winning the metroplexes.
Even more, smaller states like Wyoming/Alaska/Hawaii/etc. would have absolutely no say in our government under a direct popular vote. Those citizens would have no reason to vote in the election because they could never oppose the bigger states mathematically. The only reason those states have any relevance now is because our system apportions electors based upon total representation in Congress and each state has equal representation in the Senate.
You are saying that is not how it SHOULD work with more than 2 candidates, in your opinion. What we have is a majority voting system with the electoral college casting the final vote. You do not have to use an electoral college to use a majority voting system.
That is certainly what some states do, some states send it to their legislature like our Founding Fathers believed to be the correct thing to do with any election that does not have a majority winner.
As I mentioned earlier, is there any time you could point me to where a candidate won only 11 states but received above 50% in the electoral vote? That argument is even less relevant to this election since Trump won a huge majority of our 50 states. It's also worth noting that those 11 states have huge populations (which is why the electoral vote would add up that way), which also means a candidate could win a majority in a direct popular election while only taking a majority of votes from those states. Even worse, they wouldn't even need to take the states. They could receive those votes (like Hillary did in this election) by only winning the metroplexes.
Even more, smaller states like Wyoming/Alaska/Hawaii/etc. would have absolutely no say in our government under a direct popular vote. Those citizens would have no reason to vote in the election because they could never oppose the bigger states mathematically. The only reason those states have any relevance now is because our system apportions electors based upon total representation in Congress and each state has equal representation in the Senate.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google