Don't know where you've been but HRC had one of the best campaigns. Going through all the rallies, news, etc. She out competed Obama even with less money raised for the campaign. She had less overall coverage and she still won.
Last edited:
Don't know where you've been but HRC had one of the best campaigns. Going through all the rallies, news, etc. She out competed Obama even with less money raised for the campaign. She had less overall coverage and she still won.However, President Obama was able to campaign well enough to win the electoral votes twice however flawed the system may or may not be....
Hillary didn't. Sure the electoral system may be a dinosaur and in need of reform but don't try to use that to excuse Hillary's piss fucking poor campaigning.
Unfortunately, proportional delegates will never be adopted in a widespread manner. The states that avoid doing it will actually have increased power since you'd be able to grab more votes in one go in winner take all states.
The electoral College does affect voting patterns. Why vote Republican when you know the counties representatives will be voting for Hillary. Just like the LA county example.
That's true, we have about 220,000,000 voting eligible voters and about 136,000,000 people voted in this election. That's counting all fraudulent votes as valid.Individual citizens have little to no incentive to vote at all. No compensation and no compliments, yet they must sacrifice their time and resources to exercise this right. Nevertheless a majority of voting eligible citizens do go out and vote.
I agree with you and the fact that they couldn't be bothered to vote doesn't say very much for them does it?Individual citizens have little to no incentive to vote at all. No compensation and no compliments, yet they must sacrifice their time and resources to exercise this right. Nevertheless a majority of voting eligible citizens do go out and vote.
This depends where you live. Some states it actually matters how you vote, as its an actual tossup. Other states, like I'm in Maryland, is a lost cause. Blue to the core. Its just so overwhelmingly blue there is no reason to bother taking the time to place a trump vote.I agree with you and the fact that they couldn't be bothered to vote doesn't say very much for them does it?
Couldn't have been that great of a campain. She lost to Donald Trump. She will be forever remembered as the candidate who seized defeat from the jaws of victory and then ran two consecutive marathons with it.Don't know where you've been but HRC had one of the best campaigns. Going through all the rallies, news, etc. She out competed Obama even with less money raised for the campaign. She had less overall coverage and she still won.
This depends where you live. Some states it actually matters how you vote, as its an actual tossup. Other states, like I'm in Maryland, is a lost cause. Blue to the core. Its just so overwhelmingly blue there is no reason to bother taking the time to place a trump vote.
It isn't a matter of "if only all the Trump supporters voted" no way man... its a landslide, there is just no point. I figure every republican in a state like Maryland votes once, realizes how hopeless it is and doesn't ever bother again.
The electoral College does affect voting patterns. Why vote Republican when you know the counties representatives will be voting for Hillary. Just like the LA county example.
A lot of the republicans probably left the cities anyway.
The democrats are all living in a bubble together. This is really kind of expected. Republicans in a Democrat city just stay mum. Nobody was going to go vote for Trump in Philly/LA/NYC expecting their vote to matter. People just want their vote to matter.
Without the EC you would have all of the candidates focusing all of their energy on the most populated urban areas with the highest population count, areas which are not at all representative of the country as a whole.
Here in MA I know many Republicans who do not bother to vote for the president as we know it will be useless given the demographics of the state.
Completely agree.
It works for both sides for however you want to flip it. People in the north east and california would have voted republican, people in texas and the south east would have voted democrat, etc.. etc...
All in all, a completely useless talking point and another stupid thread to make. Complain about the election process AFTER you lose. Christ, you sound like kids complaining about rules of the sports gamenot being fair after you lose. Pathetic.
The electoral system needs no reform.
This depends where you live. Some states it actually matters how you vote, as its an actual tossup. Other states, like I'm in Maryland, is a lost cause. Blue to the core. Its just so overwhelmingly blue there is no reason to bother taking the time to place a trump vote.
It isn't a matter of "if only all the Trump supporters voted" no way man... its a landslide, there is just no point. I figure every republican in a state like Maryland votes once, realizes how hopeless it is and doesn't ever bother again.
2 million is less than the population of LA.
You forgot ir-, if popular vote were relevant we'd be talking about madam president right now. Don't fool yourself.popular vote is a relevant metric.
Where is that proof? The system is working perfectly, you just think you're smarter than the founders. You're not.It's already been proven it does. Try using the thing inside your skull for a change.
You forgot ir-, if popular vote were relevant we'd be talking about madam president right now. Don't fool yourself.
Vote differentials in 19 entire states combined was lower than vote differential in LA County.Without the EC you would have all of the candidates focusing all of their energy on the most populated urban areas with the highest population count, areas which are not at all representative of the country as a whole.
Here in MA I know many Republicans who do not bother to vote for the president as we know it will be useless given the demographics of the state.
Well, I guess we have to agree on what relevant means in this context. To me the popular vote is irrelevant because it doesn't decide anything and the candidates weren't trying to "win" the popular vote. How is it relevant?I didn't say it was the defining metric. I said it was a relevant metric. Based upon the reasoning above. Using your logic there is never anything that the founders ever did that is up for discussion, regardless of what it is.
History tells us otherwise. At some points we have to question their logic and reasoning. To get to those points we need to have data. Right now there is conflicting data. The major one being popular vote.