Hillary Clinton did NOT win the popular vote

Spin it whatever way pleasures you.

The empirical reality doesn't change:

65,844,954 Americans voted for Clinton.

62,979,879 Americans voted for Trump.

Trump received 306 electoral votes.

Clinton received 232 electoral votes.


.

 

And of course the facts do not change either that it is irrelevant.

 

But they provide good reason to end the electoral process or modify it to follow the popular vote.

 

Indeed.

Facts:

65,844,954 Americans voted for Clinton.

62,979,879 Americans voted for Trump.

Trump received 306 electoral votes.

Clinton received 232 electoral votes.

 

....AND, still irrelevant.

 

In chess, the goal is to capture the opponents king. After your king is captured and you lose, you cannot change the rules and say you really won because you had more pieces on the board.

Hilary receiving more votes (ignoring whether they were all valid or fraudulent) is irrelevant, that's not how the game was played.

 

No, the reasons for the EC still exists. It is to protect minority states but it is interesting to see the left abandon their stand for minorities. It only explains how when the left loses they want to change the rules. No complaints when Obama won twice.

 

There have been initiatives to end what some view as an anachronistic vestige of a time when technology demanded such as accommodation, but making presidential elections more democratic is progress that some will resist mightily if they view it as granting them a partisan advantage.

(In the 91st Congress (1969–1971) H.J. Res. 681 proposed the direct election of a President and Vice President, requiring a run off when no candidate received more than 40 percent of the vote. The resolution passed the House in 1969, but failed to pass the Senate.)

.

 

Yeah, this is very true
Although, while accepting the results, it seems to me it would be good to know if there is any basis for claims of fraud on BOTH sides

Also, imo both the popular and the electoral vote fail to support any claim that trump won an enormous mandate.... which is not to say that he has any less authority to implement his policies... which policies may refreshingly prove to be both popular and sucessful....who knows

 

No, you may not like it, but it's eminently relevant in that the electoral college determines the presidency, and the popular vote reflects the democratic preference of Americans.


.

 

Exactly what I thought.

So anyway...Merry Christmas.

 

We need not ignore how many fraudulent votes either candidate received. There are safeguards and there is legal recourse in every state if credible evidence exists.

You are correct that the national democratic will is not the determinant according to the current rules of presidential elections, of course.

 

You mean the Democratic preference of California. Still irrelevant.

 

Hillary's America:

 

Even Mike Pence admitted that Trump pulled that "millions of illegal; voters" thing out of his butt.
Not one shred of evidence to support that claim.

 

Trump had to fight both parties and MSM, and some nefarious actions by these corrupt institutions. So the rigging was against trump, not in his favor.

OTOH, Sanders saw a rigged democratic primary system, rigged to keep non establishment candidates out of the oval office. Then add to that the antidemocratic behavior of the DNC, their collusions with MSM, and you get the illustration of rigging going on. Yet, you bring up trump and a rigged system? But it is good comedy what you are doing, and it got a laugh out of me. Sometimes when absurdity reaches a certain level, it is comedy .

 

So what was your point. I am well aware of Chamberlains actions. Where he fits in I have no idea. Chamberlains actions were indirectly the result of the Allies actions at the end of WWI. Does that help?

 

What's with you and California?
Why the popular vote is important and why I say you're wrong on why you say is irrelevant.

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/new-york/

If you look at the map you would think that Trump won the state. He didn't 59.5% to 35.2% yet the whole state seems red but Clinton won the popular vote and therefore the electoral votes.
If they counted counties (like states) Trump would have won the state but......he didn't. If you know NY you would see that the population centers (like the U.S.) voted Clinton.

In California

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/california/

Clinton won the popular vote and more counties therefore the state's electoral votes

The point is Clinton won the popular vote in both states and won both states.

 

Had the Republicans not been so successful in gerry mandering districts, they would have lost the election.

 

Another excuse for failure. Now explain how Obama won the last election with the same districting.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, she won the state. Without that one state, California, Hillary loses the national popular vote. That outlines why the EC protects the rest of the country.

 

Who said gerrymandering would work every time?

Without Texas, Trump would have lost. That outlines why the EC is important to you.

 

And if I had 2 wheels I'd be a bicycle.....what's your point? If Hilary won Texas she would have won the election....but she didn't so......we could do this 51 times. How do you explain NY? Most of the counties voted Trump yet Clinton won the state and the votes. No protection there, just the popular vote.
Interesting fun fact....in Texas, Clinton won most of the counties along the border......hmmmm, interesting.

 

It either works or it doesn't. Trump didn't lose Texas but lost California, what's your point?

- - - Updated - - -

Still, the national popular vote is irrelevant.

 

Won the popular COUNTED vote. Some states don't even count their absentee ballots if the margin of difference in the other votes is greater than the # of absentee votes. And then there is the issue of how many counted votes were from illegal aliens.

 

Right, you're definitely a Trump guy. Don't answer a question and keep saying things that are wrong enough times making you believe it's true.