Pelosi rips up Trump's speech

[Black Orchid]

And more people voted against Hillary than for her. So?

Errr, she won the popular vote, Black Orchid by nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That indicates she was the most popular candidate.

That's NOT how it works, Brian. *sigh*

Her popular votes were concentrated in a couple of cities in 2 BLUE states which makes all the difference in the American political system.

I can't remember which ones but let's say they were San Francisco and New York. Those 2 blue cities are extremely densely populated but are hardly representative of the whole of the US. How would you like the residents of Sydney and Melbourne to decide who is PM each election?

Sheesh get over it you are

[brian ross]

And more people voted against Hillary than for her. So?

Errr, she won the popular vote, Black Orchid by nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That indicates she was the most popular candidate.

That's NOT how it works, Brian. *sigh*

Her popular votes were concentrated in a couple of cities in 2 BLUE states which makes all the difference in the American political system.

I can't remember which ones but let's say they were San Francisco and New York. Those 2 blue cities are extremely densely populated but are hardly representative of the whole of the US. How would you like the residents of Sydney and Melbourne to decide who is PM each election?

Generally they do, Black Orchid. Something you'd appreciate if you were a true Psephologist.

The point is that the voting for el Presidente' is over the whole nation. Hilary gained nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That meant she was the more popular of the candidates. He gained his votes though, in more strategic states which gave him the Electoral College election, which actually determines who is the el Presidente. The popular vote is a sham and always has been in the USA.

[Black Orchid]

No Brian the point is that the 'popular vote' does not decide the Presidency period.

[Redneck]

I think we could have a whole topic on the pros and cons of the US electoral college system of voting!

Does it achieve its aims etc?

[Texan]

And more people voted against Hillary than for her. So?

Errr, she won the popular vote, Black Orchid by nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That indicates she was the most popular candidate.

That's NOT how it works, Brian. *sigh*

Her popular votes were concentrated in a couple of cities in 2 BLUE states which makes all the difference in the American political system.

I can't remember which ones but let's say they were San Francisco and New York. Those 2 blue cities are extremely densely populated but are hardly representative of the whole of the US. How would you like the residents of Sydney and Melbourne to decide who is PM each election?

Generally they do, Black Orchid. Something you'd appreciate if you were a true Psephologist.

The point is that the voting for el Presidente' is over the whole nation. Hilary gained nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That meant she was the more popular of the candidates. He gained his votes though, in more strategic states which gave him the Electoral College election, which actually determines who is the el Presidente. The popular vote is a sham and always has been in the USA.

Of course the popular vote is a sham. It means absolutely nothing. The states were negotiating the formation of the federal government and the smaller states were worried that the larger states would have too much control over selecting the president. They created the electoral college to ensure that the smaller states had a voice and were not ignored. If we elected our president by national popular vote, politicians would only bother campaigning in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, and Miami. The rest of the country would be ignored because it's more difficult to reach the masses because of geography. Changing to popular vote would take a Constitutional Amendment and would cause a major objection by most of the states, maybe even another Civil War. It's not going to happen, so opining over it is useless,

[Redneck]

Do a google search on the PROS and CONS of the US electoral college system!

Very interesting !

And does it achieve its aims?

[cods]

And more people voted against Hillary than for her. So?

Errr, she won the popular vote, Black Orchid by nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That indicates she was the most popular candidate.

That's NOT how it works, Brian. *sigh*

Her popular votes were concentrated in a couple of cities in 2 BLUE states which makes all the difference in the American political system.

I can't remember which ones but let's say they were San Francisco and New York. Those 2 blue cities are extremely densely populated but are hardly representative of the whole of the US. How would you like the residents of Sydney and Melbourne to decide who is PM each election?

Generally they do, Black Orchid. Something you'd appreciate if you were a true Psephologist.

The point is that the voting for el Presidente' is over the whole nation. Hilary gained nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That meant she was the more popular of the candidates. He gained his votes though, in more strategic states which gave him the Electoral College election, which actually determines who is the el Presidente. The popular vote is a sham and always has been in the USA.

Of course the popular vote is a sham. It means absolutely nothing. The states were negotiating the formation of the federal government and the smaller states were worried that the larger states would have too much control over selecting the president. They created the electoral college to ensure that the smaller states had a voice and were not ignored. If we elected our president by national popular vote, politicians would only bother campaigning in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, and Miami. The rest of the country would be ignored because it's more difficult to reach the masses because of geography. Changing to popular vote would take a Constitutional Amendment and would cause a major objection by most of the states, maybe even another Civil War. It's not going to happen, so opining over it is useless,

so why bother having personal voting ?????..,. if it basically means nothing?...

just seems a waste of money and time..

[Redneck]

Errr, she won the popular vote, Black Orchid by nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That indicates she was the most popular candidate.

That's NOT how it works, Brian. *sigh*

Her popular votes were concentrated in a couple of cities in 2 BLUE states which makes all the difference in the American political system.

I can't remember which ones but let's say they were San Francisco and New York. Those 2 blue cities are extremely densely populated but are hardly representative of the whole of the US. How would you like the residents of Sydney and Melbourne to decide who is PM each election?

Generally they do, Black Orchid. Something you'd appreciate if you were a true Psephologist.

The point is that the voting for el Presidente' is over the whole nation. Hilary gained nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That meant she was the more popular of the candidates. He gained his votes though, in more strategic states which gave him the Electoral College election, which actually determines who is the el Presidente. The popular vote is a sham and always has been in the USA.

Of course the popular vote is a sham. It means absolutely nothing. The states were negotiating the formation of the federal government and the smaller states were worried that the larger states would have too much control over selecting the president. They created the electoral college to ensure that the smaller states had a voice and were not ignored. If we elected our president by national popular vote, politicians would only bother campaigning in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, and Miami. The rest of the country would be ignored because it's more difficult to reach the masses because of geography. Changing to popular vote would take a Constitutional Amendment and would cause a major objection by most of the states, maybe even another Civil War. It's not going to happen, so opining over it is useless,

so why bother having personal voting ?????..,. if it basically means nothing?...

just seems a waste of money and time..

Well I think it was meant to prevent the smaller sates being outvoted by the larger as someone mentioned, so was to protect their interests!

I think personally it hasnt turned our that way in real life as it ends up being decided by the votes of which party wins each state and allocates all their college votes to their party

[Black Orchid]

If Aus had 330 million people divided up into 50 states it might make more sense. Nominees campaign in the states they want to win over with promises etc and if those promises are not kept they get voted out.

Here we just get all lumped together and none of the promises are kept anyway from either side. We also have a preferential system where most people have no clue where their actual vote goes anyway.

I don't think our system is any better. It's just different.

[Texan]

Errr, she won the popular vote, Black Orchid by nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That indicates she was the most popular candidate.

That's NOT how it works, Brian. *sigh*

Her popular votes were concentrated in a couple of cities in 2 BLUE states which makes all the difference in the American political system.

I can't remember which ones but let's say they were San Francisco and New York. Those 2 blue cities are extremely densely populated but are hardly representative of the whole of the US. How would you like the residents of Sydney and Melbourne to decide who is PM each election?

Generally they do, Black Orchid. Something you'd appreciate if you were a true Psephologist.

The point is that the voting for el Presidente' is over the whole nation. Hilary gained nearly 3 million more votes than el Presidente' Trump. That meant she was the more popular of the candidates. He gained his votes though, in more strategic states which gave him the Electoral College election, which actually determines who is the el Presidente. The popular vote is a sham and always has been in the USA.

Of course the popular vote is a sham. It means absolutely nothing. The states were negotiating the formation of the federal government and the smaller states were worried that the larger states would have too much control over selecting the president. They created the electoral college to ensure that the smaller states had a voice and were not ignored. If we elected our president by national popular vote, politicians would only bother campaigning in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, and Miami. The rest of the country would be ignored because it's more difficult to reach the masses because of geography. Changing to popular vote would take a Constitutional Amendment and would cause a major objection by most of the states, maybe even another Civil War. It's not going to happen, so opining over it is useless,

so why bother having personal voting ?????..,. if it basically means nothing?...

just seems a waste of money and time..

Your vote still counts, but it counts at the state level so that your state isn't ignored. If politicians have no need to campaign in your state, you don't get represented. Presidents will also always come from the biggest states.