Honest question here

[politicallefty]

How am I supposed to love a country where this is a headline for the apparent losing candidate?

Link.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My patience and resolve is seriously being tested.

I spent election night with my mom and dad, and I hugged them both and cried when the results became apparent to me. My mom tried to look at other states, being less politically aware than I am. I know better and I know when it's over. My mom couldn't believe Pennsylvania being called for Trump.

As much as I've tried, I cannot and will not accept this result. The fact is that the American people chose one candidate, while the people of a few Midwestern states chose someone else that just so happens to carry more weight. Trump supporters would be on the street for weeks with arms if this had happened to them. I'm not saying we should be violent, but why is our side so accepting of the results?

To those on the other side, I don't care what you say. Your leaders rejected this President even before he took office, despite a significant win in the popular vote and a massive electoral vote total. I have to wonder how accepted those on the right would be if Romney had won the popular vote, yet fallen significantly short in the electoral vote.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Is this a trolling?


If not:


lol

[muon2]

The US electoral system for good or ill was known to all candidates at the outset. Trump won by that system, against the odds. Technically neither candidate had a majority, and I prefer a system with a runoff in that case. But for our current system, I think Phony Moderate had an excellent analogy.

I have a strong disliking for certain aspects of the offside rule in football/soccer but I always accept the result when a team I like loses, even if the loss may have been strongly influenced by those aspects.

[Tender Branson]

Get over it ... please.

The system is as it is. If you have a problem with the electoral college, then abolish it. And stop whining around. It seems many Hillary supporters and Democrats are so used to Obama and his policies that they have a really hard time allowing a Republican in again. And if they'd think a little bit longer, they'd know that Trump won't be the fascist President that they expected him to be. He'll likely turn out as a literal tame pu**y as President I guess.

[politicallefty]

Is this a trolling?


If not:


lol

Yes, a Hillary supporter posts a topic less than a week after the election and there's an accusation of trolling. No, I was very serious and would support Californian independence should it come to the ballot.

The only trolling I see is your own. I'm deadly serious here. This isn't some narrow margin that can be swept under the rug. Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote by at least 2%, if not even 3%. Everything I said stands.

[Torie]

Not that it would change anybody's mind, I would note that if the game were to win the popular vote, the campaigns would have operated very differently. First, Trump might have toned down the Hispanic bashing, and second, he would probably have spent a heck of a lot more time in CA, and other vote rich places. He also might have been more careful not to annoy the moderate to moderate conservative more educated voters in major metro area suburbs. So in that sense, I think it wrong to delegitimize the election result based on the popular vote totals.  Just a thought.

The real point perhaps, is that at present the electoral college affects the actual policy emphasis and campaign strategy of the candidates. One can argue that that is the major problem at present with the electoral college. It affects actual policy in a way that a majority of the country dislikes.

[politicallefty]

The US electoral system for good or ill was known to all candidates at the outset. Trump won by that system, against the odds. Technically neither candidate had a majority, and I prefer a system with a runoff in that case. But for our current system, I think Phony Moderate had an excellent analogy.

I'm trying my damnedest to accept the result, but this is the second time the result of the people will be overridden by an accidental distribution of state boundaries. I don't know how you feel about Donald Trump, but I assume you at least supported Mitt Romney. I can't imagine you would feel differently from me if Mitt Romney had won the popular vote and was actually going to expand that lead with all of the remaining late ballots.

Get over it ... please.

The system is as it is. If you have a problem with the electoral college, then abolish it. And stop whining around. It seems many Hillary supporters and Democrats are so used to Obama and his policies that they have a really hard time allowing a Republican in again. And if they'd think a little bit longer, they'd know that Trump won't be the fascist President that they expected him to be. He'll likely turn out as a literal tame pu**y as President I guess.

You're apparently on my friends list. I don't know why you are so apprehensive to me. My biggest fear over the next four years is the Supreme Court. I don't think Trump gives a damn about it, but I know Pence and how radically socially conservative he is. Democrats stand a good chance at getting the House back in two years, but the Senate is almost mathematically impossible. I know how the system works, but that changes little unless a state forces constitutional issues.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I've always opposed the electoral college and I agree with you it's wrong for a candidate to win more votes yet lose.

However, let's not cling onto this and allow ourselves to get distracted from a key point: Hillary and Democrats blew a winnable campaign. This is what must be addressed first.

Also, I understand your emotions, but I came from a country that endured far worst things than Trump Presidency, so I'm lukewarm to a notion of just saying "screw this" leaving the union because of one election. Now, I can't rule out things may led to the situation where it'll be necessary, but we're not yet there.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Then don't love it and leave. I don't love a country that invades Iraq because our President wanted to settle a personal score and our Vice President wanted to sell arms. But I think I'll begin to start with the new management.

[muon2]

The US electoral system for good or ill was known to all candidates at the outset. Trump won by that system, against the odds. Technically neither candidate had a majority, and I prefer a system with a runoff in that case. But for our current system, I think Phony Moderate had an excellent analogy.

I'm trying my damnedest to accept the result, but this is the second time the result of the people will be overridden by an accidental distribution of state boundaries. I don't know how you feel about Donald Trump, but I assume you at least supported Mitt Romney. I can't imagine you would feel differently from me if Mitt Romney had won the popular vote and was actually going to expand that lead with all of the remaining late ballots.

I wouldn't like the result if the tables were turned, but I wouldn't share the lack of acceptance. The laws for such things as dates for early voting, voting by mail, and provisional ballots also affect the result as does the EC, and sometimes are changed the same year as the election. In 2014 I watched a friend in a close race lead in the count at the end of election day, but lose two weeks after the election due to an new provisional ballot pilot program. Yet I didn't feel it was an unacceptable result, since everyone knew the law going into the fall campaign.

FWIW, here's an observation of mine in relation to your point that this is the second time in 16 years that this has happened.

What was the point of EC btw?

Madison preferred direct election but the Slave Power raised a stink because their franchise was much more restricted. Having Congress elect the President itself, like they now do in South Africa, was shot down because people were worried about 'intrigue'.

Madison also had a fear about the power of factions that might unduly impose their will on the nation as a whole without check. He perceived that these factions could be regional in nature and he didn't want a bare majority faction to defeat a substantial minority. De Toqueville described this as preventing a tyranny of the majority.

It is interesting to look at the last period in US history to see a split between the PV and EV winners, which was in the post-Reconstruction era. Both the 1876 and 1888 election saw the Dems win the PV yet lose the EV. The Dems had a huge surplus of votes in the Deep South and in 1888 a win of 49% to 48% in NY was enough to tip the EC to Harrison over the incumbent Cleveland.

Today the Dems have the same type of regional concentration of voters in the Northeast and West Coast that they had in the post-Reconstruction South. Narrow victories for the Pubs in key swing states can flip the EC as it did in both 2000 and 2016.

[Kingpoleon]

We can not as a country refuse to accept the rules of an election. This is the test of our people and our democracy. If we refuse to accept the results, if we refuse to accept the voice of the people who have won, we very well may face a revolution and understandably so. We can not and we must not let those who refuse to accept the results have their voices slowly legitimized and mainstreamed by Thom Hartmann, then MSNBC, and then CNN.

There is are voices Trump represents. Listen to them. If the Democratic Party and Americans refuse, there will be consequences of the worst kind.

[Leinad]

why is our side so accepting of the results?

For the sake of national unity. Even if it's justified, what good would it do to publicly complain? It would just encourage anger towards the President and increase divides. And if the result could be overturned (it can't), would that really be better? I think the response of Trump loyalists to the election being "stolen" would be far worse than the anti-Trump protests we've seen so far. Clinton's Presidency would be marred with violent protests--perhaps downright rebellion--and harsh calls of illegitimacy from high-ranking officials.

Also, I entirely agree that the electoral college needs to go.

[Xing]

We can be upset about this result... or we can be active, and hold the new administration and congress accountable.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Please make yourself useful and become a better poster.

[Virginiá]

For the sake of national unity. Even if it's justified, what good would it do to publicly complain? It would just encourage anger towards the President and increase divides.

You're asking a lot from quite a bit of people here. While Hillary will win in the system many wish we had, she will lose in the system we do have. However, Trump is an awful person who has spent his life hurting people in so many ways, and to ask people to come together despite that is a tall order that I don't expect to ever be filled. Given who Trump is, it's not even reasonable to expect this.

[Beet]

Some of the upset is because although everyone did know the rules going in, it was treated as merely a formality or technicality due to the expectation that the popular and electoral vote would go the same way.

I would argue that the way we talk about the election implies this, too. For example, we say the "Presidential election happened on Nov. 8", when the election doesn't happen until December. We say "I voted for Trump" when we actually voted for an elector. Your vote doesn't directly go to Trump or Hillary; it goes to an elector.

I would say an analogous situation is one candidate winning the popular vote in the primary but the other winning a delegate majority. If Bernie had won more votes in the D primary, but it was overturned by the delegates, I have no question many would not have accepted the result and the Convention would have been bedlam, despite everyone knowing the rules ahead of time.

[jamestroll]

I mean, unless I am mistaken, part of the reason the electoral college was put in place is for the "knowledgeable" people to make the best decision for the country as to who to be President.

So on December 19th, perhaps they should pick the best person to lead the country, right??

ha ha

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Is this a trolling?


If not:


lol

Yes, a Hillary supporter posts a topic less than a week after the election and there's an accusation of trolling. No, I was very serious and would support Californian independence should it come to the ballot.

The only trolling I see is your own. I'm deadly serious here. This isn't some narrow margin that can be swept under the rug. Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote by at least 2%, if not even 3%. Everything I said stands.

Candidates I vote on literally never win/are able to enter the parliament/local governing bodies and I don't have problems with accepting that.

[politicallefty]

The US electoral system for good or ill was known to all candidates at the outset. Trump won by that system, against the odds. Technically neither candidate had a majority, and I prefer a system with a runoff in that case. But for our current system, I think Phony Moderate had an excellent analogy.

I'm trying my damnedest to accept the result, but this is the second time the result of the people will be overridden by an accidental distribution of state boundaries. I don't know how you feel about Donald Trump, but I assume you at least supported Mitt Romney. I can't imagine you would feel differently from me if Mitt Romney had won the popular vote and was actually going to expand that lead with all of the remaining late ballots.

I wouldn't like the result if the tables were turned, but I wouldn't share the lack of acceptance. The laws for such things as dates for early voting, voting by mail, and provisional ballots also affect the result as does the EC, and sometimes are changed the same year as the election. In 2014 I watched a friend in a close race lead in the count at the end of election day, but lose two weeks after the election due to an new provisional ballot pilot program. Yet I didn't feel it was an unacceptable result, since everyone knew the law going into the fall campaign.

FWIW, here's an observation of mine in relation to your point that this is the second time in 16 years that this has happened.

I know you're trying, but I don't think you justified your claim at all. While I don't want to ruin your career in Republican politics in Chicagoland, that kind of argument would never have been realized with states as they currently are. The difference between the largest and smallest state is far greater than it was at the founding of our nation. It's not that I don't accept the results of the system, as you do. My point was to note how things would be if this situation were reversed. Imagine Hillary Clinton with a substantial electoral vote margin while losing the popular vote by 1-2%. Trump supporters wouldn't be anywhere near as gracious as Hillary Clinton supporters have been.

Candidates I vote on literally never win/are able to enter the parliament/local governing bodies and I don't have problems with accepting that.

The difference is that the person I voted for for President of the United States actually got the most votes of anyone and unfortunately won't take office because our system of government is based on the thoughts of long-dead white male slave owners that too many in this country view as divine word.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Democrats stand a good chance at getting the House back in two years.

They do?

[RINO Tom]

The EC was invoked to try to protect against pure democracy and the potential for tyranny it carries.  We didn't WANT a country where Clinton could run up turnout in NYC and LA and take her margins from 80% there to near 100% and eek out a popular vote victory.  Swing states are constantly changing (two totally different sides needed to appeal to California/Texas in the span of just forty years...), and we have a big, diverse country.  The Founders believed you should have to win the votes of different groups of people, not set one group against the others and run up the score.  Whether you think it's dumb or not, at least understand that we set our elections up with the very, very deliberate intent of NOT having what you want.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The EC was invoked to try to protect against pure democracy and the potential for tyranny it carries.

Even if it was (it wasn't) and even if that goal is a worthy one (it isn't), the College has done a pretty crap job of it, given 2016 and numerous other occasions. You might as well say "this seawall is designed to protect beach front from flooding, except when it rains at high tide".

I mean if you really want the election process of your country to be some sort of moral lesson about "not getting what you want" why not just put all the ballots in a hat and pick out a random one to be potus?

[RaphaelDLG]

Not that it would change anybody's mind, I would note that if the game were to win the popular vote, the campaigns would have operated very differently. First, Trump might have toned down the Hispanic bashing, and second, he would probably have spent a heck of a lot more time in CA, and other vote rich places. He also might have been more careful not to annoy the moderate to moderate conservative more educated voters in major metro area suburbs. So in that sense, I think it wrong to delegitimize the election result based on the popular vote totals.  Just a thought.

The real point perhaps, is that at present the electoral college affects the actual policy emphasis and campaign strategy of the candidates. One can argue that that is the major problem at present with the electoral college. It affects actual policy in a way that a majority of the country dislikes.

Let me go ahead and call bullcrap on this meme.

Trump's outrageous message had nothing to do with some mastermind's strategy to win WWC in MI+WI+PA, and everything to do with getting media attention and saying what R primary voters wanted to hear, so that his poll numbers would shoot up, he could get leverage over NBC to renegotiate his contract, and worst comes to worst, capitalize on a strong 2nd place showing in the R primary.

Sure, much, much later, in the ge campaign, when conway etc, was put in charge, she instructed trump and pence to go mostly to states that were logical according to EC math (despite detours into the deep south and DC for his hotel grand opening and a lack of serious belief by trump that he'd win).  But bottom line Trump didn't "tailor his message" in some sort of grand EC strategy.

Agree that EC generally speaking warps the policy emphasis stupidly toward the minority of the country that is northern white rural voters.

[RINO Tom]

The EC was invoked to try to protect against pure democracy and the potential for tyranny it carries.

Even if it was (it wasn't) and even if that goal is a worthy one (it isn't), the College has done a pretty crap job of it, given 2016 and numerous other occasions. You might as well say "this seawall is designed to protect beach front from flooding, except when it rains at high tide".

I mean if you really want the election process of your country to be some sort of moral lesson about "not getting what you want" why not just put all the ballots in a hat and pick out a random one to be potus?

Okay?  And this election is hardly the example you think it is.  In fact, it demonstrates just the opposite.  Trump COULDN'T have won just by running up the margins among these so-called deplorables.  Trump appealed to several different groups of people in states as different as Mississippi, Utah and Pennsylvania.  Everyone thinks of his supporters as monolithic, but they proved to be from several different areas of the country, city sizes, education levels and income levels.  His message didn't just resonate with White people without a college degree.  Or he would have lost.

Not sure what you're getting at with your quote or your hat analogy.  I think it's pretty clear that Hillary Clinton needed to appeal to a lot more different types of people than winning huge percents of minority groups she's been telling horror stories about the GOP to, a SJW base and a few college-educated Whites who were pissed at their party.

[RaphaelDLG]

 Trump appealed to several different groups of people in states as different as Mississippi, Utah and Pennsylvania.  Everyone thinks of his supporters as monolithic, but they proved to be from several different areas of the country, city sizes, education levels and income levels.  His message didn't just resonate with White people without a college degree.  Or he would have lost.

Clinton appealed to voters in states as diverse as Virginia, New Mexico, and Minnesota!!! See what I did there?!?

And yes, Trump's support was monolithic... monolithically white+rural.  Unfortunately the country generally is becoming increasingly monolithic/geographically+demographically stratified.