Speaking of dreaming...

[Jerry Oz]

Think about it like this:
Imagine that among the 50 states, two were entirely industrial and the other 48 are agrarian. If two candidates ran for president and one was hardcore set on making the entire country a technological wasteland and eliminating the agrarian lifestyle and economy, he could win if Texas and California [[for example) turned out in sufficient numbers and the others [[for whatever reason) had low turnout, since they are the heaviest populated states. Consequently, two states would dominate the election, so the candidates would only need to cater to their needs instead of caring about the entire country. The end result would be that they would control the country instead of having candidates appeal to each state as they do now.

It's imperfect, but it has roots in fair representation. Besides, it's water under the bridge at this point. Our hawkish, pro-Russia, racist, idiot of a president-elect has already been given his assignment by the voters. Let's see if they want what they got.

[Jerry Oz]

It gets worse. Have you heard about the substitute teacher in LA who was fired for telling hispanic elementary school kids that Trump was going to send their parents home? Here's a teacher who told Black schoolkids that he was going to call der Fuhrer and have him send them back to Africa:
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/teacher...s-808536643699

[arr&bee]

Oh they feel entitled now,and some of em are gonna get more than their feelings hurt.

[ms_m]

Think about it like this:
Imagine that among the 50 states, two were entirely industrial and the other 48 are agrarian. If two candidates ran for president and one was hardcore set on making the entire country a technological wasteland and eliminating the agrarian lifestyle and economy, he could win if Texas and California [[for example) turned out in sufficient numbers and the others [[for whatever reason) had low turnout, since they are the heaviest populated states. Consequently, two states would dominate the election, so the candidates would only need to cater to their needs instead of caring about the entire country. The end result would be that they would control the country instead of having candidates appeal to each state as they do now.

It's imperfect, but it has roots in fair representation. Besides, it's water under the bridge at this point. Our hawkish, pro-Russia, racist, idiot of a president-elect has already been given his assignment by the voters. Let's see if they want what they got.

I agree with Jerry, this is water under the bridge and let's get real, if this was flipped, no one on the anti Trump side would have a problem and Trump and his supporters would be yelling bloody murder and RIGGED.

There is one thing I'd like to add to Jerry's statement. I think people need to understand that the USA is a Republic which is a form of democracy but not a pure democracy. I think Jerry pretty much explains why the Founding Father's set it up that way and I'll add in my own simplistic terms....sometimes the majority can come back and bite the minority in the arse. [[and I'm going to leave that alone)

I also agree it's not perfect and although a case could probably be made that the intent of the Founding Father's doesn't reflect modern times that could very well be said for many parts of our Constitution. It is what it is.

I will add a footnote, apparently President Obama was the first president in five decades to win 51% of the popular vote. [[and yes he won the electoral college twice.) Ironically after the second election, PG Elect was ranting and raving about the Electoral being a joke and should be abolished. [[I took the liberty of paraphrasing here). Now he's loving it although, his feelings are hurt because he didn't win the popular vote. Damn, this man is such a friggin baby!

[ms_m]

Yes. Why should the swing states have all the power when votes for Hillary are piling up uselessly in California?

Because their electoral votes were important for a win. As a general rule it's why candidates spend more time stumping in swing states and very little time in states that are pretty much guranteed to them [[when things were considered normal) For example, HRC may have stumped in Cali once or twice and it didn't harm her vote count in the least.

If you go back and look at election maps from the past, many states were pretty consistent in the way they voted be it red or blue....swings state tended to go either way hence the term swing.

This gives a history of the electoral college. Hope it helps to make some sense out of things.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...ge_history.php

[ms_m]

Because their electoral votes were important for a win. As a general rule it's why candidates spend more time stumping in swing states and very little time in states that are pretty much guranteed to them [[when things were considered normal) For example, HRC may have stumped in Cali once or twice and it didn't harm her vote count in the least.

If you go back and look at election maps from the past, many states were pretty consistent in the way they voted be it red or blue....swings state tended to go either way hence the term swing.

This gives a history of the electoral college. Hope it helps to make some sense out of things.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...ge_history.php

Another way to look at this 144man.....a candidate wins electoral votes from a state AFTER the voters in said state gives him or her a majority. So winner takes all in each state. What you are disputing is what they win [[votes in the electoral college) but it doesn't change the fact, winner takes all.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/how-ma...tate-by-state/

Based on the chart in the link above, I'm not in the mood to look up and post the number of proportional populations in one state vs another and/or eligible voters in each state but if you or someone chooses, then you'll probably get a better handle on this. Maybe.

[ms_m]

One more thing and I promise you I'm done. Another interesting aspect of the Electoral College...in many states EC members are bound by law to vote the way their state voted.

I remember reading that many EC members were threatening to vote against HRC even if their state had given her a win. Now THAT would have been wrong on many levels. They would have totally ignored what the majority of voters in their state wanted.

[Jerry Oz]

Imagine that the Republican state legislature of Ohio was so booty hurt by the state's role in electing President Obama, they considered changing from winner-take-all to apportioning the electoral college based on percentage of votes for each candidate. That would totally marginalize the state's importance to electing the boss.

[ms_m]

Imagine that the Republican state legislature of Ohio was so booty hurt by the state's role in electing President Obama, they considered changing from winner-take-all to apportioning the electoral college based on percentage of votes for each candidate. That would totally marginalize the state's importance to electing the boss.

Easy to imagine.

There's a petition being sent around by folks on the left trying to get the EC to vote based on the popular vote. I detest equivalency BS when it comes to political parties but sometimes all you can do is shake your head at both sides and say...WTF?

[144man]

Because their electoral votes were important for a win. As a general rule it's why candidates spend more time stumping in swing states and very little time in states that are pretty much guranteed to them [[when things were considered normal) For example, HRC may have stumped in Cali once or twice and it didn't harm her vote count in the least.

If you go back and look at election maps from the past, many states were pretty consistent in the way they voted be it red or blue....swings state tended to go either way hence the term swing.

This gives a history of the electoral college. Hope it helps to make some sense out of things.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...ge_history.php

Oh, I understand all right. What I'm trying to say is why bother going through the expense of having a nationwide presidential election. Just have a an election in the swing states because no one else's vote counts a f***.

[ms_m]

Oh, I understand all right. What I'm trying to say is why bother going through the expense of having a nationwide presidential election. Just have a an election in the swing states because no one else's vote counts a f***.

That wouldn't be feasible since swing states can vary from one election to the next.
Everyone's vote count 144man. It counts towards receiving a voice in the electoral college.
Another thing you may want to think about, how many votes in the electoral college a state will receive is based on that state's population and that can also change overtime.

If we go strictly by popular votes and I lived in a state with a small population and a state with a larger population voted against my wishes, would you see that as my vote not counting?

[ms_m]

144man, you do realize it's not the swings states alone that get a candidate to the magic number.
There are a total of 538 electoral votes to be had but in order to be declared a winner you have to have 270 electoral votes. It's a quirky system but it really does work for the most part.

I don't blame the Electoral College for Trumps win, I blame voters that didn't vote and those that threw their vote away on a third party candidate or write in/protest vote. AND many of the latter call themselves Liberals or progressives!!!!!

[ms_m]

To say I'm not happy with a Trump win would be the biggest understatement to ever exist BUT... I'm not ready to subvert the Constitution to change what has happened. That document and it's amendments are the ONLY thing [[legally) keeping me from being declared 2/3 of a person. I can go for improving/adding to it but compromising it simply because I'm pissed would be the same as a person who votes AGAINST their own best interest.

Once people calm down and start looking at the system in a rational manner, I'm all ears but losing ones mind over the electoral college is a total waste of time imo. Trump may not fulfill his entire term and Pence is his understudy...people need to focus!

[Jerry Oz]

It would be funny if it were not so serious. But a lot of people either didn't vote or wasted their opportunity so they could self-righteously complain after Clinton won. If I had a dollar for every time I read a progressive tweet "I am not compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils", I'd be rich. Well, true to their word they did not and they were rewarded with the greater of the two evils winning the election.

Now, Susan Sarandon, one of the most entitled and privileged voices in the movement is suggesting that liberals and progs reach out to Trump and his supporters when she clearly held no such views about bridging the divide with Democrats prior to the country electing a White nationalist as its leader.

[TomatoTom123]

Another thing that gets me [[that wasn't even mentioned in the run-up to the election because of Trump's other, worse factors) is the HUGE conflict of interests that his presidency has created. He is a really just a businessman [[with stakes in loads of businesses, in America and abroad, etc) and now that he is in charge of the country he doesn't want to separate between "Trump the brand" and "Trump the President" - isn't this just completely corrupt and unfair?

[ms_m]

Another thing that gets me [[that wasn't even mentioned in the run-up to the election because of Trump's other, worse factors) is the HUGE conflict of interests that his presidency has created. He is a really just a businessman [[with stakes in loads of businesses, in America and abroad, etc) and now that he is in charge of the country he doesn't want to separate between "Trump the brand" and "Trump the President" - isn't this just completely corrupt and unfair?

isn't this just completely corrupt and unfair?

That would be a big 10/4 good buddy.

[TomatoTom123]

That would be a big 10/4 good buddy.

Hehe, thank you

[ms_m]

Susan Sarandon

That witch and her ilk can kiss it and I have a place she can reach!

Never thought I'd see the day when I would actually prefer GW and although I had zero respect for the man I was willing to accept him as the president but TRUMP...never, ever!

[ms_m]

Hehe, thank you

You're welcome and back atcha

[arr&bee]

The scary thing is that if and when the s@@t hits the fan,will he get pissed and declare war or try to reason,if any.

[144man]

Excuse me if I'm being cynical about the workings of the electoral college because I don't like the result produced, but I still can't my head round a system that converts a candidate who gets what is predicted to be two million votes more than her opponent from a winner to a loser. Wouldn't the House of Representatives and the Senate provide adequate protection against the POTUS governing narrowly in favour of one or two states?

I notice that one of our newspapers carried an article yesterday about the beginning of a movement in California to consider leaving the USA.

[Jerry Oz]

Texas threatened to secede every year of President Obama's term. California is too broke to leave.

[arr&bee]

Folks in da hood threatened to secede too,but when they realized that[greasy grady]was their only means of food,they had a quick change of mind....they may be mad about the election but they ain't suicidal!!!

[ms_m]

Excuse me if I'm being cynical about the workings of the electoral college because I don't like the result produced, but I still can't my head round a system that converts a candidate who gets what is predicted to be two million votes more than her opponent from a winner to a loser. Wouldn't the House of Representatives and the Senate provide adequate protection against the POTUS governing narrowly in favour of one or two states?

I notice that one of our newspapers carried an article yesterday about the beginning of a movement in California to consider leaving the USA.

I tend to think you are more frustrated than cynical and I can understand that frustration. However, I also think you’re being hypocritical since I find it difficult to believe we would be having this conversation if the results had been reversed.

We live in extremely partisan times. Why would a Repub controlled Senate and House with a Repub in the executive office protect anyone other than their own?

As far as Cali...what Jerry Oz and arr& bee said...
and I will add and say to California, Bye Felicia.

[ms_m]

WORLDPOST
Two British Siblings Evaluate Trump’s Win from Opposing Ends of a Divided Culture
Kentucky is a long way from New York.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b099512f801b55

A very interesting read.

[144man]

I tend to think you are more frustrated than cynical and I can understand that frustration. However, I also think you’re being hypocritical since I find it difficult to believe we would be having this conversation if the results had been reversed.

We live in extremely partisan times. Why would a Repub controlled Senate and House with a Repub in the executive office protect anyone other than their own?

As far as Cali...what Jerry Oz and arr& bee said...
and I will add and say to California, Bye Felicia.

In the 2015 UK General Election, UKIP polled nearly thirteen per cent of the total vote, yet only succeeded in getting one Member of Parliament elected to the 650 seat House of Commons. Even though I was opposed to their views, as you can see from the Brexit thread, I still unhappy about the extent of their under-representation in Parliament. Maybe it's just the traditional British sense of "fair play".

It would be terrible if California were to secede. It would mean that with the loss of their votes in the electoral college, there might never again be a Democrat as president.

[ms_m]

LOL, I think it would be California's loss more that anything.

144man I happen to think the system is fair even though it went against my preferred candidate. There were a lot of reasons HRC wasn't able to get enough electoral votes, some were self inflicted and others should cause more concerned than the EC process itself. For example, in 2012, in Guilford County, NC [[Greensboro), there were 16 early voting locations. This year for early voting only one. Why, because the Repub controlled election board told counties and cities they were not obligated to help Dems vote for Dems. [[Guilford County has a large population of Blacks who vote Democrat)

That's just one example among many shady practices that occurred in this election so it's not all about the EC. Hate the player, not the game. shrugs

[ms_m]

BTW, 144man. The EC has been around for 139 years [[I believe it is) and there have been only a few occasions when it came back to bite a candidate in the butt. Bottom line, the percentages of it working exactly the way it should is much higher than many people want to believe.

[ms_m]

I had to look this up but are you aware California turned Red on quite a few occasions?
...and

Under the Electoral College system, it is possible that the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide does not win the election, a phenomenon that had previously occurred four times in U.S. history prior to 2016.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/11/the...-popular-vote/

I said only a few times...heck it's four times in 139 years. That doesn't cause any alarms for me over the EC. What happened sucks eggs and then some but I say again....focus!

Hold on to this as long as you must, your prerogative but although I'm still pissed, I have other fish to fry with this maniac.

[ms_m]

Oopsies, make that 5 [[forgot to count now) in 139 years. IMHO, we [[meaning folks on the left) need to pick our battles wisely. I honestly don't see how petitions, threats of succession and all that sort of thing will reverse the madness this country is currently facing.

As Rod Serling would say, "Imagine if you will," the members of the EC grow a pair and vote HRC into the WH. Do you believe the cult hive would say, oh well, we lost let's take our anger, racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic behavior and guns home. I'm sure you know that would not happen so then what?

In other news. A homophobic VP elect goes to see a play where many cast members are gay. Homie Jr. [[the other clown) gets boo'd and oh my, the outrage begins, starting with his cult leader elect, Trump. Of course the other minions chime in and have the audacity to say, what would have happened if the same had occurred to President Obama? Makes you wonder [[not really) where all these folks were when President O and his family were [[and still are) being disrespected with hateful and racist name calling but hey...

Anyhoo, now the cult members are asking for a boycott of the play Hamilton, a play that is sold out until August 2017 if I'm not mistaken. Oh and these same folks are boycotting Starbucks by buying coffee and using the name Trump which of course they insist be written on their cup.

Let's pick the right battles to fight I say. We should have SERIOUS concerns about Bannon and Sessions, the future of Medicare, AHCA and SS. The potential loss of freedom for many Americans and violence running rampant. The list grows and will only get longer.

[ms_m]

Judge At Citizenship Ceremony: Don't Like Trump? 'Go To Another Country' [[VIDEO)

Primomo later told KHOU that he meant his words to be unifying and not political.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...rump-president

Hey, I felt the unity and the love, didn't you?

[ms_m]

White supremacists confer in Washington to influence Trump
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/whit...fluence-trump/

I do not have a problem with being fair. The picture of the men in hoods and robes is inflammatory since the article states they were actually in dark suits and ties and looked more like lobbyist. However, READ the article and then place the picture in context to what you read.

[144man]

I had to look this up but are you aware California turned Red on quite a few occasions?
...and


http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/11/the...-popular-vote/

I said only a few times...heck it's four times in 139 years. That doesn't cause any alarms for me over the EC. What happened sucks eggs and then some but I say again....focus!

Hold on to this as long as you must, your prerogative but although I'm still pissed, I have other fish to fry with this maniac.

I'll let the subject drop now before I become totally obsessed with it

[ms_m]

Here are 5 deeply obnoxious things we learned about Donald Trump this week
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/here...ump-this-week/

Only five!!!!! SMH