SURVEY: Did the US elect the right person as President?

[Shawn0000]

37 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

Why Mr tTrump has been elected end of question regarding who had most personal votes it does not matter. The US have there system all US citizens know how it works. They voted knowing how it works. So why have a vote to ask if vote was correct very silly.

 

The only silly thing is your interpretation of the question, which is not if the vote was correct, it is if the people voted correctly, as in did they choose the best person to be the president or not.

[tropo]

1 minute ago, dcutman said:

You can beat this drum until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains, your argument and your facts are totally irrelevant as the constitution is written in its present form.

I agree the popular vote would ideal to a true democracy, however, I also believe the people (city dwellers) that make up a huge portion of the electorate, represent a minuscule part of the country and have little to no care/understanding of those in of the rest of the rural country, AKA, SHITKICKERS as you so insultingly describe them.

I can only recommend you, and those that believe the electoral college is unfair, write your representatives to amend the constitution and hope for a better outcome in the next election.

 

 

If only the popular vote counted, isn't it possible that more people would have voted, knowing that every vote contributes to the final outcome?

 

Also, campaigning strategies would be different with no electoral college. For example, Trump would have spent a lot more time campaigning in California and New York. I believe he would have won the popular vote if that was necessary.

 

Smart strategists work with the system they have got. He worked the electoral college skillfully and won.

 

 

[JDGRUEN]

The United States of America is a REPUBLIC ... not a Democracy... We have democratic principles ... but the Republic concept protects a minority -- even a large minority from the excesses of a majority ... thus the Electoral College was invented... It gives a balance between small population  areas and large population centers... 

 

The Heart of America gave a landslide Electoral Vote to Trump. The Electoral College System was designed for this very purpose to keep large populated states and large urban centers from dominating the political scene. If is the same reason that the Senate is TWO Senators per state - regardless of size geographically or by population to prevent domination of accidents of state boundaries creating huge states like Texas or small one like Rhode Island. And the House is apportioned by population - some House districts are very small and some are very large to get a close approximation of population representation ...

Hillary getting a few more votes especially at this point is meaningless - if in fact the final tally turns out to favor Hillary... We still have overseas ballots and Military overseas ballots  still to count - almost finished I hope. Too bad the rigged votes by Illegal Aliens and Refugees and Dead People cannot be found and retracted from the total ... Hillary would be tens of thousands of votes behind... LANDSLIDE IT IS....

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by JDGRUEN

[Shawn0000]

9 minutes ago, dcutman said:

You can beat this drum until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains, your argument and your facts are totally irrelevant as the constitution is written in its present form.

I agree the popular vote would ideal to a true democracy, however, I also believe the people (city dwellers) that make up a huge portion of the electorate, represent a minuscule part of the country and have little to no care/understanding of those in of the rest of the rural country, AKA, SHITKICKERS as you so insultingly describe them.

I can only recommend you, and those that believe the electoral college is unfair, write your representatives to amend the constitution and hope for a better outcome in the next election.

 

 

 

 

If you are lucky enough to live in one of the 21 states that allow faithless voting you could just write to them asking for them to be a faithless elector. 

[connda]

46 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Get back to me after the final real count of the real Popular Votes cast.

 

Former SecState Clinton has had a consistent lead in the count and continues to increase the lead. Unless Putin and Wikileaks finally do send some cyber votes over from Russia.

 

46 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Get back to me after the final real count of the real Popular Votes cast.

 

Former SecState Clinton has had a consistent lead in the count and continues to increase the lead. Unless Putin and Wikileaks finally do send some cyber votes over from Russia.

As a US Army officer you took an oath to protect the US Constitution which I assume that at some point in your military life you must have read?  An being one of the US Army's elite officer corps I can only assume that you understand how the US president is elected?  So why the cognitive dissonance now?  As a former US Army officer, you should know exactly how the system works.  I'm sorry for your confusion.

Edited November 13, 2016 by connda

[JDGRUEN]

US election results before and after riots.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by JDGRUEN

[elgordo38]

Hot off the presses. The Donald "Could you post pone my fraud trial till after the the coronation"

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/donald-trump-asks-to-postpone-fraud-trial-until-after-his-inauguration/ar-AAkeXEu?li=AAggNb9 Yeah folks you picked a real winner!!

Edited November 13, 2016 by elgordo38

[caughtintheact]

Bad question. Judgements should be made based on outputs (performance), not based on inputs (who played). 

[metisdead]

Posts with content using oversize fonts have been removed and will continue to be removed.  Please edit the content to the standard forum font size when posting. 

[Ulysses G.]

59 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Remember, unlike Obama who faced a hostile house and senate, Trump has both House and Senate, but will also have a majority on the Supreme Court.

 

 

Wrong. Obama had control of both the House and Senate for his first two years.

[Dumbastheycome]

A true  democracy is one in which unaligned individuals in a simple majority  elect a  governing  body.

I have yet  to be informed of  any such system that remains after  political/influentual interferences have  been introduced to  "enhance"  fair  representation.

A recent contradiction has been the  Brexit mandate  but even that was contrived .

The  USA system gave a  predetermined  choice of two faces to  be the puppet in the  White House  window.

Whichever  face is  not so important because  it  only  determines  the  colour and design  of the  new  wallpaper. The  cost will be equally as  disasterous.

" UnReality TV"  has now become  politics.

But  congratulations   to the USA. You  have now  confirmed  your  naiveity.

 

 

[Johnniey]

4 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

I avoid watching political propaganda thinly disguised as documentaries as even if I keep in mind that the makers are clearly biased I could still subconsciously take in their propaganda and find myself blindly repeating what they said as if it were fact, I would rather get information on Hillary from outside of the Trump campaign.

Do you watch CNN?

[Publicus]

42 minutes ago, SimpleChap said:

 

 

Should read like this "I acknowledged the Trump win AFTER election night".

 

I have seen your posts before the election, and untill the last minute you simply ridiculed everyone who disagreed with you about Hilary's victory.

 

I could dig them up, but would be seen as stalking I'm afraid.

 

Goodbye, my discussion with you has ended here.

 

The campaign is over, ended, done.

 

You seem not to know however. 

 

Hey, Donald Trump is President-Elect. It happened ON election night.

 

Be happy. It's always good to see a happy winner almost anywhere. In this election however I'm still looking for more than a couple of happy winners over there. A couple of 'em at the most.

 

Please all youse guyz try harder. It would do some good for you and everybody. 

Edited November 13, 2016 by Publicus
Add a zinger.

[JDGRUEN]

Obama never carried over 28 states in either 2008 or 2012 Elections

..... Trump carried 31

[pgrahmm]

http://conservativevideos.com/donald-trumps-victory-delivers-lessons-parties-video/

 

An interesting discussion on who, how, what happened & who voted....Trump won the college educated crowd......

Pretty much every man's (woman's) candidate...  

[Shawn0000]

22 minutes ago, Johnniey said:

Do you watch CNN?

 

Never!

[dcutman]

21 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

If you are lucky enough to live in one of the 21 states that allow faithless voting you could just write to them asking for them to be a faithless elector. 

Of course this is an option and a right of the electors.

Fortunately there are only a very few people, such as yourself, that would even consider this  ridiculous idea. 

Fortunately all these electors will respect the constitution and will also accept the outcome of this election whether they agree with the outcome or not, just as most Americans will, yourself excluded of course.

 

[Grubster]

 Why do the yes and no answers ad up to 40%, is this some kind of joke. Did we miss a couple math classes or what?

[Thakkar]

8 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

The starting point is to know the state is the basic unit of government in the United States. People loosely call it America but there isn't any such place or thing. It is 50 sovereign states in an agreement of a common national unity.

 

Your state as the basic unit of government issues your marriage license, certificate of birth/death, driving license and vehicle registration/license, business license or license to incorporate as any entity, construction license, certificates of formal education and a license to found and operate an institution of education and to qualify as an educator, license to practice medicine, license to practice law, license be a police officer or firefighter, and so on.

 

The feds do not do these things. Washington can influence these ordinary matters by law or funding or both, but Washington is not the issuing authority. Washington's ability in these matters is truly limited and watched closely by everyone across the country.

 

Hence the Electoral College. It is by state. Again, the state is the basic unit of government in the United States. The states in a convention 1788-89 created the federal government and system to include the Electoral College.

 

We'd need to amend the Constitution to alter or to abolish the Electoral College. That is two-thirds of each the House and the Senate, voting separately. And three-quarters of the states.

 

EC will not be abolished. Perhaps it could be altered, but that is not likely either, at least not in the current millennium. 

 

My own notion is to at least consider balancing what cannot be abolished and which is virtually impossible to change. That is, to amend the Constitution. Assign the EC a percentage value towards the result, and assign the Popular Vote a percentage towards the result.

 

It almost surely would have to be something like the EC having a weight of 70% or 75%, and the Popular Vote having the much lesser weight of 30% or 35%. Then in the fourth millennium close it up as much as possible. Eventually -- China pace -- realise the fundamental change of giving the PV the much greater weight, if not the whole determination of the voting result.

 

In the meantime, discussion is good. Just know that it goes nowhere for at least the next several hundred years and beyond. Well beyond.

 

Agreed, but perhaps a proportional system where say, in CA, where Trump gets,say, 10%of the popular vote, so gets 5 of CA's electoral votes and Clinton, 50. Similarly in Texas, where Clinton gets 30% of the popular vote, so gets 11 electoral votes and Trump the rest.

 

That would be more democratic in the sense that it would be more reflective of people's actual preferences by state. But of course, as you say, none of it is going to happen anytime soon.

[Shawn0000]

11 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Of course this is an option and a right of the electors.

Fortunately there are only a very few people, such as yourself, that would even consider this  ridiculous idea. 

Fortunately all these electors will respect the constitution and will also accept the outcome of this election whether they agree with the outcome or not, just as most Americans will, yourself excluded of course.

 

 

There was an election once where 27 electors voted against the president elect.  And what ever gave you the idea that I do not accept the outcome?  I was merely making a slightly less ridiculous suggestion in response to the suggestion of requesting a change to the constitution, interesting that you see the legal right of the electors as being "ridiculous" though.  I guess you neglect the fact that Hillary won by a landslide and the president elect has been so divisive throughout the campaign that for the first time in history he has created widespread rioting, for once it might not actually be that ridiculous to at least consider not electing the president elect.

[Johnniey]

1 minute ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

There was an election once where 27 electors voted against the president elect.  And what ever gave you the idea that I do not accept the outcome?  I was merely making a slightly less ridiculous suggestion in response to the suggestion of requesting a change to the constitution, interesting that you see the legal right of the electors as being "ridiculous" though.  I guess you neglect the fact that Hillary won by a landslide and the president elect has been so divisive throughout the campaign that for the first time in history he has created widespread rioting, for once it might not actually be that ridiculous to at least consider not electing the president elect.

Nobody likes a bad loser. Get on with your life. Democracy has spoken.

[Dumbastheycome]

The System  has  provided  a result.  Debate on the  form and/or democracy involved will  last  longer than the  elcted term .lmao

 

[pgrahmm]

8 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

There was an election once where 27 electors voted against the president elect.  And what ever gave you the idea that I do not accept the outcome?  I was merely making a slightly less ridiculous suggestion in response to the suggestion of requesting a change to the constitution, interesting that you see the legal right of the electors as being "ridiculous" though.  I guess you neglect the fact that Hillary won by a landslide and the president elect has been so divisive throughout the campaign that for the first time in history he has created widespread rioting, for once it might not actually be that ridiculous to at least consider not electing the president elect.

C'mon , that rioting is organized pay for play....Just like Ferguson  & the rest.....

[Shawn0000]

7 minutes ago, Johnniey said:

Nobody likes a bad loser. Get on with your life. Democracy has spoken.

 

I didn't lose, I am just a casual observer interested in the repercussions of this election.

[Shawn0000]

1 minute ago, pgrahmm said:

C'mon , that rioting is organized pay for play....Just like Ferguson  & the rest.....

 

Have you ever been to a protest that has descended into a riot?  It happened once on my street in the UK, it started off with middle class protesters peacefully protesting, the police got a bit heavy, people got upset, many people went home but the police stayed into the night, that is when kids from the estate nearby started coming down and it got really messy, fires were started, cars were burnt and shops were looted.  Some people in other cities claimed it to be a false flag created by the police in order to warrant them having more weapons and different riot control tactics available to them.  I was there, I recognized the gangs who were causing the trouble, they were not payed by the police, they were attacking the police and seriously injured one.  And for this reason I always take this "pay for play" thing with a pinch of salt.

[SimpleChap]

24 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

I guess you neglect the fact that Hillary won by a landslide

 

I definitely must have missed that landslide win.

[Dtrump]

3 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You assume that I am a Clinton supporter, I am not, I was just countering their claim that Trump trumped Clinton in every way, which he did in every way except in numbers of people voting for him.

You wrote, " Trump supporters would vote for him if he was convicted and jailed for rape, they actually believe the hype about the emails concocted by the Repulicans, they will believe anything that Trump says and disbelieve anything that Clinton says, and try pointing this hypocrisy out to them and it might not be vitriol that comes."

 

That sounds like a Clinton supporter to me eh?

[duanebigsby]

22 minutes ago, pgrahmm said:

C'mon , that rioting is organized pay for play....Just like Ferguson  & the rest.....

Right, who is paying all these protesters? Who paid the Fergesen protesters? Conspiracy theorist bs!

[Shawn0000]

8 minutes ago, SimpleChap said:

 

I definitely must have missed that landslide win.

 

You missed Clinton getting 630,877 more votes than Trump?

[Shawn0000]

8 minutes ago, Dtrump said:

You wrote, " Trump supporters would vote for him if he was convicted and jailed for rape, they actually believe the hype about the emails concocted by the Repulicans, they will believe anything that Trump says and disbelieve anything that Clinton says, and try pointing this hypocrisy out to them and it might not be vitriol that comes."

 

That sounds like a Clinton supporter to me eh?

 

Yup, anyone who points out the blatant hypocrisy of the supporters of the candidate you support sounds to you like a supporter of the other candidate, I am sure it does, but I am not, I dislike her about as much as I dislike Trump.