This map shows Trump won a majority vote in 3,084 of the 3,141 counties!!!!

[AlbqOwl]

That's not really true. Let's say that the popular vote elected the president and not the electoral college. Hillary would be president with a Republican House and Senate. But since Trump won he has the House and Senate. So, there is a difference in mandate. All one can do is argue the degree.

Trump however actually has a house and senate almost as opposed to him as Hillary would have had. No way in hell those in the permanent political class wanted a non-professional politician like Trump as their standard bearer. They wanted to maintain the status quo that keeps them on the gravy train as much as the Democrats do. But they are at least trying to make the best of it. And Trump has a better shot of accomplishing some good with them than he would have had with a Democrat controlled congress.

 

[Tangmo]

Okay in 1996 it wasn't well under 50% but it still was not a majority though is it? No way Trump or Hillary could say they got a majority vote in this election either because neither of them did.

Consider 1960: Kennedy won over Nixon with 49.72% of the popular vote over Nixon's 49.55% of the popular vote--a mere .17% separated the two - a mere 112,027 votes across the entire country decided that election. A recount in a whole bunch of states could have overturned the results, but Nixon and his supporters graciously accepted the loss and Nixon refused to call for a recount anywhere because the electoral college vote wasn't even close--Kennedy got 303 EC votes. The people had spoken.

And there was no angry national backlash against Kennedy. He went on to win the hearts and minds of a lot of the half of the people who didn't vote for him. He would have won a second term by a large margin if he had lived to run again. Unfortunately he did not but on his short legacy alone, Johnson was elected in 1964. His legacy, however, was such that he knew he would be devastated if he ran again and he chose not to.

Nixon won in 1968 with just under 49% of the popular vote but won 301 of the EC vote. Again no angry backlash against him and he enjoyed a pretty good approval rating until the Watergate event and he came crashing down.

The people have also spoken in 2016. The honorable and fair thing to do now is for everybody to give Donald Trump an honest and fair chance to prove what he can do. If he is terrible he will not win re-election. If he is as bad as his opponents say, he will be impeached.

Sir, I remember Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a U.S. Senator from my state while I wuz growing up. I saw him, I heard him.

And Donald Trump is no Jack Kennedy.

Nor with all due respect of each wife, Mrs. Trump is no Jacquelyn Kennedy.

:clap: :clap:

 

[azgreg]

Just wondering as you seem to blame all your woes on Putin in a very illogical manner.

Not one time have I blamed any of my woes on Putin. Did you not pass reading class in school.

 

[haymarket]

The map is accurate whatever it screams to you. It is an excellent illustration, however, of the wisdom of the electoral college. The hypocrisy is that if the situation was reversed, and Hillary had won all those counties but lost the popular vote in those very few densely populated counties, I think it would be people like you who would be waving the map as proof of the validity of the election.

Bill Clinton never won close to 50% of the vote in either 1992 or 1996--he got a mere 43% in 1992--but nobody questioned the validity of either election. I wish the losers could be as gracious now.

We simply disagree, The map is simply a tool designed to create a false impression that 80 to 90% of the nation voted for Trump.

 

[azgreg]

We simply disagree, The map is simply a tool designed to create a false impression that 80 to 90% of the nation voted for Trump.

Looks like a lot of dirt voted for Trump.

 

[AlbqOwl]

We simply disagree, The map is simply a tool designed to create a false impression that 80 to 90% of the nation voted for Trump.

Only to the very few people who are foolish enough to read it that way. And so far none of those seem to be pro-Trump people.

 

[haymarket]

Only to the very few people who are foolish enough to read it that way. And so far none of those seem to be pro-Trump people.

Why do you think they will not admit that the impression of all that red with very little blue is that 80 to 90% of Americans voted for Trump?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Why do you think they will not admit that the impression of all that red with very little blue is that 80 to 90% of Americans voted for Trump?

Because most of us who voted for Trump just aren't that dumb.

 

[devildavid]

This "debate" about counties is foolish. States determine the results of electoral college. The number of voters in those states who vote for the candidate is the only number that matters. Counties do not control the electoral college. While we don't use total popular votes for the country, we do use total popular vote by state, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska. It would seem that Republicans might have an advantage if the states changed to a new method in which county victories are used rather than state-wide voting totals.

www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about

fairvote.org/maine_nebraska

 

[haymarket]

Because most of us who voted for Trump just aren't that dumb.

I did not say MOST.

 

[Moderate Right]

This "debate" about counties is foolish. States determine the results of electoral college. The number of voters in those states who vote for the candidate is the only number that matters. Counties do not control the electoral college. While we don't use total popular votes for the country, we do use total popular vote by state, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska. It would seem that Republicans might have an advantage if the states changed to a new method in which county victories are used rather than state-wide voting totals.

www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about

fairvote.org/maine_nebraska

Have it your way. Trump won the popular vote in 30/50 states or 60%.

2016 Electoral Map - Election Results

 

[Tangmo]

Have it your way. Trump won the popular vote in 30/50 states or 60%.

2016 Electoral Map - Election Results

Yes, Trump won the Electoral College Votes, however, if we're counting states as any kind of value factor per se, let's look at the numbers.

Trump won five states with the minimum 3 ECVs: MT, ND, SD, WY, AK.
Trump won one state with 4 ECVs: ID.
He won three states with 5 ECVs: UT, NE, WV.

The 9 states total 1 million square miles of land area but have a grand total of 10 million of population. A population occupancy rate of ten people per square mile derives from statistical data, but it reveals that red on the standard linear red-blue Electoral College map indicates a lot of land yet few people populating it.

Speaking of people, here are the typical red state Trump voters who in this election made the difference...


Ma and Pa Kettle express their great pleasure and enthusiasm their guy Donald Trump won the November 8th election of Potus.

It might also provide some perspective to know there are an ever increasing 78 million pet dogs in USA. And, that a common question in many red states is: Which weighs more, the refrigerator or your wife?

 

[Port & Starboard]

Yes, Trump won the Electoral College Votes, however, if we're counting states as any kind of value factor per se, let's look at the numbers.

Trump won five states with the minimum 3 ECVs: MT, ND, SD, WY, AK.
Trump won one state with 4 ECVs: ID.
He won three states with 5 ECVs: UT, NE, WV.

The 9 states total 1 million square miles of land area but have a grand total of 10 million of population. A population occupancy rate of ten people per square mile derives from statistical data, but it reveals that red on the standard linear red-blue Electoral College map indicates a lot of land yet few people populating it.

Speaking of people, here are the typical red state Trump voters who in this election made the difference...

View attachment 67211463
Ma and Pa Kettle express their great pleasure and enthusiasm their guy Donald Trump won the November 8th election of Potus.

It might also provide some perspective to know there are an ever increasing 78 million pet dogs in USA. And, that a common question in many red states is: Which weighs more, the refrigerator or your wife?

Yep............2 cities should decide the election every 4 years with a popular vote.

I guess the rest of us shouldn't bother to get up on election day.

Let NYC and Los Angeles county decide.

What could possibly go wrong?

Spaghetti logic at best.

 

[Excon]

Until and unless you say why, the post has only pronouncements that are arbitrary, unsupported opinion, summary dismissals, empty nothings.

:lamo
Anther lame reply.

That you do not understand that what you presented is irrelevant to how the president is elected just says you do not know of what you speak and should not even be attempting to debate this.
As already pointed out.
The numbers of counties won is irrelevant to the election of the President.
Just as the national popular vote is irrelevant to the election of the President
Just as what you provided is irrelevant to the election of the President.

That you need to be told that these things have no influence on how the president is elected is very telling.

Remember, if Donald Trump had a brain he'd be dangerous. He's a menace as it is.

There you go showing you do not know what you are talking about again.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Trump won 58 out of 67 counties in Florida. Each county in Florida has a Supervisor of Elections responsible for tallying the votes in their county. Some Republicans, from my perspective, like to brag about how their party nationwide dominates local and state politics. If subtle cheating took place, particularly in Florida, which party would appear to have an edge to cheat without detection? For those of you who don't know, Florida has two term Republican Governor Rick Scott, an ardent Trump supporter. Governor Scott donated roughly $100,000.000 (yes... one hundred million dollars) of his own money to win his first term. Please Google Rick Scott to learn a bit about his background. Now, I do not deny my own partisanship (left of center politically). In spite of this, can those of you right of center politically, acknowledge, just a little bit, a smidgen of truth that Team Trump and the Republican party held an edge by virtue of their control over counting the votes?

 

[Tangmo]

Yep............2 cities should decide the election every 4 years with a popular vote.

I guess the rest of us shouldn't bother to get up on election day.

Let NYC and Los Angeles county decide.

What could possibly go wrong?

Spaghetti logic at best.

Strawman stuff at best, nonsense more typically.

 

[Tangmo]

:lamo
Anther lame reply.

That you do not understand that what you presented is irrelevant to how the president is elected just says you do not know of what you speak and should not even be attempting to debate this.
As already pointed out.
The numbers of counties won is irrelevant to the election of the President.
Just as the national popular vote is irrelevant to the election of the President
Just as what you provided is irrelevant to the election of the President.

That you need to be told that these things have no influence on how the president is elected is very telling.



There you go showing you do not know what you are talking about again.

The standard Right Sector reply post is that the poster being quoted does not understand. And the poster being quoted does not know. That not only is the poster wrong, the poster has no clue of anything. This is the standard rightwing reply to many posts by many posters and it is done across the threads.

It reveals a lack of argument over there on the right. Worse, it reveals the vacuousness of the right. The Right Sector denies, then attacks, accuses...rinse and repeat.

Boring, boring, boring.

And invalid as an approach to discourse. Declaring arbitrarily and summarily the other guy does not understand terminates discourse. Terminating discourse is not the purpose, design, end goal of a website discussion board.

So let's just say that over on that side over there improvement is needed.

 

[Moderate Right]

Yes, Trump won the Electoral College Votes, however, if we're counting states as any kind of value factor per se, let's look at the numbers.

Trump won five states with the minimum 3 ECVs: MT, ND, SD, WY, AK.
Trump won one state with 4 ECVs: ID.
He won three states with 5 ECVs: UT, NE, WV.

The 9 states total 1 million square miles of land area but have a grand total of 10 million of population. A population occupancy rate of ten people per square mile derives from statistical data, but it reveals that red on the standard linear red-blue Electoral College map indicates a lot of land yet few people populating it.

Speaking of people, here are the typical red state Trump voters who in this election made the difference...

View attachment 67211463
Ma and Pa Kettle express their great pleasure and enthusiasm their guy Donald Trump won the November 8th election of Potus.

It might also provide some perspective to know there are an ever increasing 78 million pet dogs in USA. And, that a common question in many red states is: Which weighs more, the refrigerator or your wife?

This argument is a waste of time. Trump won the election and he won it decisively with 304 electoral votes to Hillary's 232. The electoral system isn't going away. I do realize though that you have nothing else you can do but blame the college, blame Comey, blame the Russians, and to blame the main stream media who treated Hillary so unfairly because they are far right racist bigots who wanted to elect Trump (sarcasm, by the way).

 

[Tangmo]

This argument is a waste of time. Trump won the election and he won it decisively with 304 electoral votes to Hillary's 232. The electoral system isn't going away. I do realize though that you have nothing else you can do but blame the college, blame Comey, blame the Russians, and to blame the main stream media who treated Hillary so unfairly because they are far right racist bigots who wanted to elect Trump (sarcasm, by the way).

If you might be addressing me individually, I have not participated in those threads, at least to date.

You could expect me to appear there, yes, coming soon.

 

[Excon]

The standard Right Sector reply post is that the poster being quoted does not understand. And the poster being quoted does not know. That not only is the poster wrong, the poster has no clue of anything. This is the standard rightwing reply to many posts by many posters and it is done across the threads.

Whether or not it is standard, you have shown it is true in this instance.

It reveals a lack of argument over there on the right. Worse, it reveals the vacuousness of the right. The Right Sector denies, then attacks, accuses...rinse and repeat.

Boring, boring, boring.

And invalid as an approach to discourse. Declaring arbitrarily and summarily the other guy does not understand terminates discourse. Terminating discourse is not the purpose, design, end goal of a website discussion board.

So let's just say that over on that side over there improvement is needed.

You are still providing lame reply.

No one need explain that what you provided is irrelevant to how the President is elected just as all the other things were as well.


How about you admit it wasn't relevant so we can move on?

 

[Port & Starboard]

Strawman stuff at best, nonsense more typically.

It is a fact.

You cannot deny the numbers that are out there.

 

[devildavid]

Have it your way. Trump won the popular vote in 30/50 states or 60%.

2016 Electoral Map - Election Results

You have to look at the percentage of electoral votes he won, not the percentage of states. That is the true measure of his victory. Trump won 306 out a total of 538 for 57%. Close to 60%, but not quite. A solid margin of victory. But remember, closely contested states can swing an election to either candidate. Bush won in 2000 vs. Gore because he won Florida. But this didn't happen until the Supreme Court decided on the Florida election results. The electoral college is not a measure of popular support. It is a device to give states the power to choose the president as opposed to individual voters. It is in no way a measure of popular support for the winner.

 

[Tangmo]

Whether or not it is standard, you have shown it is true in this instance.


You are still providing lame reply.

No one need explain that what you provided is irrelevant to how the President is elected just as all the other things were as well.


How about you admit it wasn't relevant so we can move on?

Thanks for further proving the point I and others make. Which means we could indeed move on.

However, the Right Sector hasn't any issues so it in its crank views simply says everything is wrong. Absent issues, the standard method is to personalize those who do discuss issues.

This poster has provided electoral maps that present various valid views of Potus elections nationally, to include from the standpoint of counties and on to GDP. The Electoral College of the States is determinative. However, elections are about voters period.

To emphasize the point, elections are about voters period.

The Popular Vote is determinative in the Electoral College Vote of each state and it positively speaks a national voter voice when viewed in the aggregate. Aggregation is a valid point in numbers, i.e., quantitatively. Even though a discrepancy in the ECV and the PV always gets a great attention, we are here because the Right Sector in this election denies completely anything outside the ECV. That is, you deny the voter as a voter outside of the Electoral College.

It is in each election cycle a national election by each state = ECVs. Then there is the national aggregate of the votes of each voter in all 50 states. To deny one is to deny the other. So the arguments of the Right Sector in this particular election cycle are self-defeating, contradictory, absurd.

We are talking about voters and votes in two concomitant contexts: state by state, and in the national aggregate. Face it. Recognize it. Accept it. Because to deny one is to deny the other.

 

[Mr Person]

Another great reason why our founders chose the Electoral College !!!

It's so totally awesome that a rural minority can dictate to the rest of the country. That must be it.

/facepalm



At the time, there were quite a lot of concerns about the effect the rise of a demagogue might have on a newly founded nation, as well as the likelihood that various foreign powers (cough cough ENGLAND cough cough) might attempt in order to throw us off track. The college was created partially to deal with that, but in fact, mainly as a necessary bargain with the slave-holding south.

See, you might not know this, but the slaveholding states were actually rather concerned that because they deemed the vast majority of their state populations property without voting rights, the North would always be able to dictate to them through the new and stronger federal government. THAT is why the EC exists, just like the 3/5th's compromise.




These days, it's clear that the anti-demogoguery purpose is null, the foreign interference less potentially dangerous, and we don't need to account for slaves without voting rights. Maybe it isn't such a good idea for some miners in bum**** to have their votes weigh far more than mine.







But then, a Republican won. So OF COURSE the EC is awesome. But we both know perfectly damned well that the shoe would be on the other foot if the election was as well.

 

[Moderate Right]

It's so totally awesome that a rural minority can dictate to the rest of the country. That must be it.

/facepalm



At the time, there were quite a lot of concerns about the effect the rise of a demagogue might have on a newly founded nation, as well as the likelihood that various foreign powers (cough cough ENGLAND cough cough) might attempt in order to throw us off track. The college was created partially to deal with that, but in fact, mainly as a necessary bargain with the slave-holding south.

See, you might not know this, but the slaveholding states were actually rather concerned that because they deemed the vast majority of their state populations property without voting rights, the North would always be able to dictate to them through the new and stronger federal government. THAT is why the EC exists, just like the 3/5th's compromise.




These days, it's clear that the anti-demogoguery purpose is null, the foreign interference less potentially dangerous, and we don't need to account for slaves without voting rights. Maybe it isn't such a good idea for some miners in bum**** to have their votes weigh far more than mine.







But then, a Republican won. So OF COURSE the EC is awesome. But we both know perfectly damned well that the shoe would be on the other foot if the election was as well.

But a rural minority can't dictate anything. In fact, it is the exact opposite. It's a voting process by the popular vote of each state. There are several blue states where the rural minority didn't dictate anything at all, the city majority did. Remember, the election is based on popular votes and whoever gets the most popular votes in each state wins that state's electoral votes. California, New York, and several other blue states didn't have the rural Republican minority dictate anything so your claim is baseless. Every state has larger cities in it.