Clinton winning popular vote

While Donald will be president thanks to the electoral system, as the final votes are tallied we are finding out that more Americans voted for Clinton to be their president than Donald.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...clinton-surpasses-trump-in-popular-vote-tally

It's only the fifth time this has happened in US history, but the second time in the last two decades (Bush lost the popular vote in 2000).

Maybe it is time to ask ourselves if our democratic aspirations are best served by an anachronistic system that does not reflect the majority will of the American voters.

 

Wow. Suddenly you don't like the system. Get over it. As a matter of fact, an easy victory for Trump. He's going to end up with 300+electorate votes.

What's more deduct all those illegal and invalid votes which are added to Hillary (people who are actually not qualified to vote in the American election) and the defeat would've been even more embarrassing. You lost fair and square. Get used to POTUS Trump.

 

Making (*)(*)(*)(*) up so early in the day, are we? Please link and quote my post where I ever defended the electoral system.

The will of the American people has been denied once again by an anachronistic system. If the roles were flipped Donald would be screaming "rigged"!

We can only pray that we will see an improvement compared to the last president you all put in the WH.

 

I usually respect your position on many things ,on this I disagree. Without an electoral college States like mine would have little voice in our government. All presidential campaigns would be concentrated in big cities and population centers. They would also get all the benefits of the system. Rural America would have no voice.

 

I've always said the EC is a sham and a joke. I was mocked by the conservatives on this forum for wanting democracy. I didn't expect the ghost of Al Gore to rear its ugly head.

Well, it seems I was wrong.

 

Why is it democratically superior for some people to have a more weighty vote than others, other than it benefits you personally?

 

Because we do not have mob rule, it is a Republican form of government, not mob rule, and we do not have States just to pick State flowers.

 

Correct. We do not have mob rule. We have a democratic rule by vote of the people.

The majority of whom voted for Clinton, not Donald, to be our president.

 

California has 55 EV, PA has 20(big reason Trump won is his upset here, but typically a Democrat stronghold.) NY has 29. If not for Texas, No Republican would be relevant. The Electoral College is far more of a Democratic advantage than a Republican one.

Except this year, where Hillary fell flat on her face. And the difference is just 130 K votes. It's not like it's some big steal happening here. So if Trump got those 130 K votes, it'd be more legit? I think the numbers are fitting, half of the country wants Trump and the other half wants Hillary.

Trump just managed to steal the Belt way like he said he would. That's the difference.

 

Why should an election that only benefits population centers be good for the whole country? Just look at all the red on the map. A popular vote only would disenfranchise most of the country. The election would be concentrated in a few States only. The rest of the country would be ignored. I tend to think the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

 

And hell, that's what the College usually allows. It only worked against them because Trump stole some of the Noreastern States. At any rate, our current political system is not tenable. That much is a fact. You can't have a system where one side or the other is utterly unhappy with the result.

 

Ah the predictable "the system is broken because my candidate didn't win! " whining.

US is a republic not a mobocracy.

Enjoy your loss. Get over it

 

I'm not sure how you figure it is a Democratic advantage when it has result in a Republican win against the will of a majority of American voters for the second time in the last 5 presidential elections.

 

It's broken because it allows either candidate to game the system. I'm happy Trump won, and he ended up winning more States as well. But because those States have lower population numbers, that's why it looks as close as it does. It's an oxymoron. If EVERY Nation had an equal number of EV's, then everyone's vote would truly count.

And then we'd have a fairer system. Maybe now, Dems will want to work towards that.

 

Because it is the will of the majority of the American people who voted.

 

It's a freaking SPLIT. Where do you see this majority? 130 K? So 130,000 people should have a mandate over our presidential elections? 130,000 out of 327 million? No, the EC is flawed for all intents and purposes. We need to fix it so that everyone gets an equal vote. And that this kind of disproportional system doesn't happen.

 

"Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated."

 

Your logic is less than compelling that you think a minority of the American votes should have a mandate over our presidential elections.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, what is "uncoordinated" about "my" facts?

 

As an independent, I've been saying the EC was a joke ever since I first learned about it in Middle school.

However, party loyalist seem to love it when it goes the way of their candidate.

All I ask for is that people be consistant.

 

It's a MARGIN of 130 K people. Let's put it this way: The margin can be made up with any one of the Hillary States.. Take NY, it voted for Hillary 4 million to 2 million. If that lead were just even a little less, there goes your majority argument. We can say the same, for any one Hillary victorious State.

 

In a nation of 350 million people The popular vote is with in 150,000 votes. I don't think we need to revamp the entire system just because you're not happy with the outcome

And you would not be holding this position if Trump won the popular vote and Hillary Clinton won the electoral college

 

“We do not have mob rule. We have a democratic rule by vote of the people.” (Iriemon)

In the first sentence, Trump is president elect, but in the second sentence, Hillary is president elect.

It is not that hard.

 

This is the United States of America. Not the United States of the northeast and California. Do I detect sour grapes?

 

You're correct. If a majority of American voters voted for Donald, Clinton would not have won a majority of the American voters votes.

But she did. The will of the majority of the American people has been denied again.

You can just imagine what Donald would be saying if the tables were turned.

 

Seriously. If California were a more competitive(IE: Nationally reasonable state), then none of this would happen. I hoped for a clean election, but it looks like we're going to get contentious after all.