What is this meme that Trump lost the popular vote? Why isn't anyone correcting this?

What is this meme that Trump lost the popular vote? Why isn't anyone correcting this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Winning an American election as a republican is like winning at the special Olympics.

What the fuck? Why is nobody talking about this?

>trump lost two votes
>hillary lost 5 votes
>three other hillary electors were going to vote for someone else but we're legally forced to vote for her
HAHAHA
I can't take all this winning!

This is a really bad analogy.

Do you know the EC is slanted towards dems? Republicans win every swing state amd they still lose.

1980: republicans get 50% of the vote, 99% of the electoral college
1984: republicans get 50% of the vote, 99% of the electoral college
1988: republicans get 50% of the vote, 80% of the electoral college
2000: republicans get fewer votes, win anyway
2012: republicans don't bother voting because they know they'll win next election and get a majority in congress anyway
2016: republicans get fewer votes, win anyway

Can someone explain to me why the electoral college is a good idea? Legitimately don't see how the minority vote should win against the majority

...

...

What does surface area have to do with elections?

Look at that area vs the electoral map. Those blue parts are the counties that voted hillary, the rest voted trump.

Why does landmass matter, a bunch of fucking nothing with a few people sprinkled in doesn't make your vote matter more.
>higher density areas have more crime
Who would've guessed

>people who call 75% of the country "fly over country" (in order words, question their very existence) should be allowed to make decisions for those people
Kill yourself

that's the 2012 election county map, user

Because CA and NY are dildos and nobody wants to be in a country run by those cunts.

1 person.

1 vote.

Trump won the popular vote in more states. Just because more people people voted for her in California doesn't mean anything.

Because you're retarded and have never studied history. No, I won't do the learning and research for you.

>1 Paul

good

north and south dakota, montana and wyoming should all be one state, it's not fair that they have populations of like 100,000 and get 2 senators apiece

1 person.

1 vote.

Not an argument
>being annoying negates votes
Tell me why landmass matters more than the popular vote
Not an argument faggot

1 person.

1 vote.

1 person

1 vote

1 person

1 vote

ARE U NOT TIRED OF WINNING YET?

FAKE NEWS
A
K
E

J
E
W
S

1 person

1 vote

>what is plurality?

im fine with that
because spics and niggers aren't people

>Spotted Eagle

north dakota, south dakota, wyoming, and montana are too small to be separate states, they should be combined

the 20 people living in wyoming don't deserve 2 senators, that is overrepresentation

1 faggot.
Many shitposts.

>why isn't anyone correcting this?
>posts link to reputable source showing it's true
what?

Yeah, honestly I don't think the founders ever expected that we'd go from 50% of the workforce in agriculture to 2%. I understand wanting to make sure the hinterlands aren't oppressed, but we're in opposite territory now.

It is an argument you fuckwit
Democracy leads to mob rule, you twat.
What's to stop a president from promising to be Robin hood?
What's to stop someone from promising the 90% that they will steal the 10 percent's wealth?
Then the 10 percent just leave the country and the country goes to shit.
I can't believe I actually wrote that because you obviously don't care, considering your responses.

>plurality is democracy

wew

Dumb fuck burger senators represent the states interest and have nothing to do with population

The united states would not exist if not for compromise that weighs lower populated states higher in terms of representation. In addition, the united states would not exist if the proposition was for a direct democracy. It's simple if you understand the foundation of the US government and it's easy to agree with if you have any loyalty or respect to the foundation of your country.

>faith spotted eagle

wut

exactly, it shouldn't even be a state

i think we should have a minimum state population to get 2 senators

Fine now eliminate the Senate.

its real

how crazy can 2016 get theres only 12 days left

also

>john kasich?

>white as fuck main has all that crime
>niggered filled florida has low crime

yeah no

Kek, you just don't get it user, some how that sparsely populated tract of land gained self governance. As a person who lives in such a state in my own country I would be pissed if my state got a smaller say in the states house of review because less people. That's why you have two houses. You really have no idea why your system is set up the way it is.

Wyoming contributes more per person to your country then either NY or CA dose.

I wish they would

He literally doesn't understand why they have a senate otherwise he wouldn't be sprouting such crap.

Trump won the popular vote. Clinton won the illegal Mexican vote.
If she doesn't like how things turned out she should go complain that she's not president of Mexico.

It goes back to the idea of federalism and having separate states under one federal gov and that the pres needs to win the majority of people in each state, not just fucking pander to the largest states, it's part of being a representative republic you fucking mong, not a democracy.

i do know the point of the senate, but i'm saying they should have a population minimum for statehood requirements

no it doesn't california has the biggest economy

Crime in maine is actually kinda hilarious at times.
It's shit like them having to tell people not to leave their houses and cars unlocked and even a gang of women that were stealing by just asking for people's wallets and then walking off with them.

All the fucking niggers live in Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Orange, and Pinellas County. Are you fucking stupid?

Single house systems are far more radical, unstable and corruptable. Eliminating the senate would essentially give the party that holds the majority in the lower house and the presidency a blank check, you would fucking hate that if it wasn't your party.

He won the popular vote by 7.5 million according to University of Michigan

The head of government is often chosen by a vote of representatives rather than through direct democracy.

>implying crime rate isn't per capita

Kys or gtfo out of my country

Population is irrelevant in being a state, if that tract of land didn't get equal representation in the senate they wouldn't have joined the union, simple as that. The senate is there solely for the purpose to stop the states with larger populations from exploiting those with smaller populations. If this upsets you it means it's doing its job.

If Texas decided to split into five seperate states as granted by the provision when they joined the union in 1845, they would go from 2 senators to 10, is that also over representation?

Maybe democrats would be better off courting people who are not already their voter base?

You know, like politicians should do if they intend to run a country?

>the biggest economy
>the entertainment capital of the world
>silicon valley
>agricultural capital of the us
>some of the best public and private colleges on the world
How exactly does Wyoming contribute more?

...

The US was designed to be a collection of affiliated nation-states. Starting with Marshall v. Madison, SCOTUS gave itself lots of power. Then SCOTUS decided that the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment could be interpreted so broadly as to give the federal government almost unlimited power. This has undermined states' rights and our original purpose of being affiliated nation-states, but we have kept the original federal voting rules for the presidency and the Senate.

yeah, so you basically want land to have a bigger say than people

why even have elections if we're just going to give more power to people who live in the middle of nowhere

It has bison.

Why not get your preferred candidate to not only preach to the choir? This is not a complex concept. Even Australia has a system like that.

*Marbury v. Madison

So then why do conservatives always bitch and moan about the liberal college?

>46%

we did attract a lot of people, i just don't know why living on a certain tract of land makes your vote worth more

Fak

No, you attracted one voter demographic that lives in urban areas alone. Also you got the illegal immigrant vote.

Rules like that are made so that cities don't assfuck rural areas out of existence. Your candidate agreed to it, now stop with the butthurt.

Maybe we can really restore states' rights and make the president whoever wins the most states, regardless of population. 1 state= 1 vote.

Neither candidate has even a "majority", ie they are both

so it is ok for rural areas to ass fuck cities though? cities are the social and economic centers of the nation, they should get as much of a say

i would agree to that only if we made a minimum state hood population of 2,000,000 - all smaller states would have to conglomerate so that north dakota couldn't beat out california

Per person you dumb fuck.
God damn.

> so you basically want land to have a bigger say than people

Makes more sense then letting welfare recipients vote.

Or maybe people can stop putting forth candidates who think nothing of alienating half the population by throwing out shit like "basket of deplorables".

That's what lost her the election, she completely alienated fence sitters and moderates.

>so it is ok for rural areas to ass fuck cities though?
Getting a small bonus is not the same as an assfucking. For the record, cities are "social and economic" centers of the nations due to manipulating money, not creating wealth.

A bit misleading.

1980 had three big vote getters, so 50% popular is exceptionally impressive.

1984 saw Reagan get almost 60%, so your number is either a typo or an outright lie.

Ditto for 1988 and Bush get 53%.

Now proceeds the years of 92, where Bill Clinton literally only got 43% of the popular but 370 electorals- which absolutely is more extreme than the 1980 case. 1996 was almost exactly the same as 1980, but with less votes for Clinton comparatively.

We at last arrive at 2000, which would be the counter to Bill's nonsense wins. Then you have to go all the to 2016 before getting anything else like it.

Your pic shows that Clinton won the popular vote. What are you talking about?

"majority" is ambiguous, often used to technically substitute for "greater than half"

You have a room filled with 5 guys and 4 girls.
The 5 guys vote to have sex with the women. The 4 women vote not too..
However, they lost the vote, so the guys sleep with the women.

If we had no electoral college your voice would not count... The electoral college tries is best to give a voice to everyone even though they are out numbered

That's why we need the electoral college

>faith

...

that's a stupid strawman

it would be like 100 people voting on an issue, 55% pick option A, 45% pick option B, but the 45% who voted B live in rural areas so their votes count more

>Winning an American election as a republican is like winning at the special Olympics.

Losing the election to one must REEAALLY suck then, eh?

Why did he run? did he get votes in states that mattered?

Why would anyone vote fucking 3rd party.

>that's the 2012 election county map, user

How the fuck did you know that off the top of your head
Are you a pollster

No surprise a Canadian has no idea what he's talking about.

How about we think of it like a homeowner's association where we have a total of 5 houses. 4 houses that have 2 people in each house, and the 5th house has nine residents. Should we let the house with 9 people in it make every decision?

Not an accurate comparison at all.

Why don't you secede?

Dumb. 3 million votes are not being counted because of the electoral college. It's not some noble institution. There's a handful of other countries that use it and everyone of them is a shit hole.

If we had an instant runoff system, would Bush have won?

>leaf

Ignored

So it's so the majority of the counties decide the vote rather than the numbers of people voting? I can see why it is the way it is then, though I still find it confusing.

Holy fuck the dumb assery in this thread.

Fuck off and die holy shit.

Stupid ass motherfucking volleyball looking lard ass who'd have better luck without a parachute than with it, neck yourself but don't do it on a tree cause you'll deforest the world trying to find one strong enough

My oh my, how the tables have turned.

Seeing as Perot is a republican from Texas. Probably.

What about the millions of republican voters in rural NY, CA and IL?