Hillary Clinton only needed six states to win the popular vote.

[AGA]

If the only states that voted were all the states that Trump won and the states of California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey, Clinton would still have won the popular vote. Just goes to show how concentrated her support was and how large her electoral college problem really was.

[/]

Heh.

[LLR]

And she wouldn't deserve the presidency in that situation.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

And she wouldn't deserve the presidency in that situation.

why the hell not?

[SWE]

And she wouldn't deserve the presidency in that situation.

why the hell not?

Land>people, obviously.

[elcorazon]

If the only states that voted were all the states that Trump won and the states of California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey, Clinton would still have won the popular vote. Just goes to show how concentrated her support was and how large her electoral college problem really was.

not sure why you come to that conclusion

[Classic Conservative]

If the only states that voted were all the states that Trump won and the states of California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey, Clinton would still have won the popular vote. Just goes to show how concentrated her support was and how large her electoral college problem really was.

not sure why you come to that conclusion

It's called math...., you add and subtract they teach it in like Kindegarten.

[elcorazon]

If the only states that voted were all the states that Trump won and the states of California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey, Clinton would still have won the popular vote. Just goes to show how concentrated her support was and how large her electoral college problem really was.

not sure why you come to that conclusion

It's called math...., you add and subtract they teach it in like Kindegarten.

Did they also teach you how to spell Kindergarten? My point is that the stat you point out doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion you drew.

[AGA]

If the only states that voted were all the states that Trump won and the states of California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey, Clinton would still have won the popular vote. Just goes to show how concentrated her support was and how large her electoral college problem really was.

not sure why you come to that conclusion

It's called math...., you add and subtract they teach it in like Kindegarten.

Did they also teach you how to spell Kindergarten? My point is that the stat you point out doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion you drew.

It shows that even though Hillary Clinton netted millions of votes over Trump, these extra votes were concentrated in just a few states whereas the electoral college requires candidate to win many states across the county. This is an inefficient vote distribution because she had a huge excess of votes in states such as California and New York and not enough votes in battleground states such as Pennsylvania where she needed them the most.

Trump's vote distribution was more efficient because his votes were spread more evenly between solidly Republican states and battleground states

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is why we should have proportional electoral voting system

[pikachu]

And she wouldn't deserve the presidency in that situation.

This is like saying every Democrat in a somewhat competitive race in New York shouldn't win because their vote's concentrated in NYC...

Also worth pointing out that a combined ~70K vote swing (.05% of the nation's vote) in PA and MI wins her the election.

Who cares?

State lines are arbitrary boundaries.  It could be said that Hillary won states in all regions of the country while Trump did not.

Hillary won states in the Southwest, West, Rocky Mountains, Midwest, Northeast, South.

Trump didn't carry a single state in the Northeast or West.  Unless you define Pennsylvania as being in the Northeast.

Pennsylvania's very much a Northeastern state...

[AGA]

Who cares?

State lines are arbitrary boundaries.  It could be said that Hillary won states in all regions of the country while Trump did not.

Hillary won states in the Southwest, West, Rocky Mountains, Midwest, Northeast, South.

Trump didn't carry a single state in the Northeast or West.  Unless you define Pennsylvania as being in the Northeast.

Alaska is in the West.

[Figueira]

Who cares?

State lines are arbitrary boundaries.  It could be said that Hillary won states in all regions of the country while Trump did not.

Hillary won states in the Southwest, West, Rocky Mountains, Midwest, Northeast, South.

Trump didn't carry a single state in the Northeast or West.  Unless you define Pennsylvania as being in the Northeast.

Alaska is in the West.

As are Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

NSV isn't wrong though. States are very arbitrary.

[muon2]

Who cares?

State lines are arbitrary boundaries.  It could be said that Hillary won states in all regions of the country while Trump did not.

Hillary won states in the Southwest, West, Rocky Mountains, Midwest, Northeast, South.

Trump didn't carry a single state in the Northeast or West.  Unless you define Pennsylvania as being in the Northeast.

State lines may seem arbitrary but they are as meaningful as the national borders in the EU. States in the US have a degree of sovereignty that allows their debt to be rated in the same way as France or Greece. For instance the state motto of IL is "State sovereignty, national union". Cities don't have the same sovereignty since their powers come in a grant from the state, but states don't derive their powers from the US. US states cede certain powers to the national government through the Constitution, but in principle reserve the rest.

[Badger]

Can we just please acknowledge the EC is an anti-democratic anachronism that is onyb supported by Republicans as a form of nationwide gerrymandering?

If we TRULY want to adopt what the Founders envisioned as the Elector's role to pick a president with the best qualificattions, temperament, and ability to serve in order to avoid a poor decision by uninformed voters relying on lies and demagoguery in casting their ballots, 6They'd dump Trump for Clinton in a heartbeat. THAT'S your "Originalist Intent" folks.

[JoshPA]

Can we just please acknowledge the EC is an anti-democratic anachronism that is onyb supported by Republicans as a form of nationwide gerrymandering?

If we TRULY want to adopt what the Founders envisioned as the Elector's role to pick a president with the best qualificattions, temperament, and ability to serve in order to avoid a poor decision by uninformed voters relying on lies and demagoguery in casting their ballots, 6They'd dump Trump for Clinton in a heartbeat. THAT'S your "Originalist Intent" folks.

you are a republican your self.

[Xing]

Can we just please acknowledge the EC is an anti-democratic anachronism that is onyb supported by Republicans as a form of nationwide gerrymandering?

If we TRULY want to adopt what the Founders envisioned as the Elector's role to pick a president with the best qualificattions, temperament, and ability to serve in order to avoid a poor decision by uninformed voters relying on lies and demagoguery in casting their ballots, 6They'd dump Trump for Clinton in a heartbeat. THAT'S your "Originalist Intent" folks.

Well, the thing is, people who benefit from an unfair system tend to be very reluctant to acknowledge that it's unfair.