Just a reminder, Trump won the Presidency

60% vs 40%


Arse kicking

Not that I give a shite because I believe in the EC and am glad that he won, but it's kind of hard to state he won a majority of the people when he in fact got less votes than HRC. He won a majority of the States, which is all that counts.

quote:

---

that I give a shite because I believe in the EC and am glad that he won, but it's kind of hard to state he won a majority of the people when he in fact got less votes than HRC. He won a majority of the States, which is all that counts.

---

If he wins the electoral votes in a state then why shouldn't he be able to claim the state population because that's what the electors are based on? Put it to you this way, it makes way more sense to do a majority vote that way by states won than by raw population vote which has ZERO to do with anything.

Think about it if Trump wins Louisiana then he gets all the Electors so why not all the states popular vote. Trump doesn't give Clinton 2/6 electors because she had 30% of the vote?

So if Trump wins Florida, hypothetically, 50.1% to 49.9%, he should be considered to have won 100% of that state's popular vote?

Because that's a really dumb way of looking at it.

I could see your argument if there were any consequence to the popular vote, but there is not.

quote:

---

Just a reminder, Trump won the Presidency

---

Who are you trying to convince?

quote:

---

If he wins the electoral votes in a state then why shouldn't he be able to claim the state population because that's what the electors are based on?

---

Because the entire population did not vote. The notion that every non-voter within a state would vote for the candidate that ultimately won the state is pure speculation at best. The electors are based on the people that actually vote, not the entire state population.

If you want to say that he won the majority of the people that matter (the electors) then that is absolutely fair. As I stated, ultimately this is all that matters, and I am in complete favor of the EC. But saying that he won the majority of the people, implying he won a majority of the votes is simply not true. I understand that the difference is mainly CA, which is why the EC exists, but it doesn't make the fact that the majority of votes went to HRC any less true.

quote:

---

Who are you trying to convince?



Maybe the morons marching around with the "not my president" signs?

Maybe the idiots who think that HRC should be president because of her pop vote lead, nearly all of which can be found in LA County?

---

I'm almost positive they'll take time out from their busy day of protesting to read this particular message board.

quote:

---

That's 100% wrong!!!

The number of electors is based on state population. If only 50% of state votes they still award all the electors to the winner. The electors are not "based on the people that actually vote" that's nonsense

---

I either misspoke or you misunderstood me. Looking at it I could have stated that better. I know how the amount of electors each state is given is based on population. I meant to say that who they vote for (I know they can technically vote for whoever, but the vast, vast majority vote as the state does) is dictated by those who vote, not the entire population of the state.