What are the comebacks to the following arguments?
>Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Democrats have won the popular vote in 4/5 last elections
>The last two republican presidents have been extremely unpopular and the last two democrat presidents have been very popular
popular =/= good
The popular vote simply doesn't matter. It is a meaningless number. Trivia. There was a time in this country when we did not even tally the popular vote.
>The last two republican presidents have been extremely unpopular if you watch the news and the last two democrat presidents have been very popular if you watch the news
Nice try CIA. If you're not autistic enough to think up comebacks on your own, your own logic needs some reassessment.
Illegal voting is a huge factor in Democrat states:
> Dead people somehow voting.
> People bussed around different polling stations.
> Every time voter ID laws are considered the Dems screech because apparently voter ID would stop minorities from voting.
There was a place in California (LA maybe) that had votes well over the actual registered amount of voters.
>What are the comebacks to the following arguments?
>
>>Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Democrats have won the popular vote in 4/5 last elections
That's because electoral votes are determined by state population. States with larger populations have major cities. Therefore states with major cities have more electoral votes. However the electoral system was originally conceived as a compromise between the original thirteen States which would otherwise have preferred to remain individually sovereign. The states elect the president, not the people. The people within a state are taking part in a poll to determine the individual electors within a state, district by district.
>>The last two republican presidents have been extremely unpopular and the last two democrat presidents have been very popular
Unpopular with who? Popular with who?
/thread
the popular vote wins are illegitimate due to Mexican influence on the election :^)
Look at the vote map and you'll see that just a few big cities can sway the total vote count.
The electoral college is designed to even out urban/rural/big-states/small-states so that ALL of the country has a say and stake in the election.
Otherwise, a political party can promise the moon to the the big cities and screw the rural areas.
Imagine a slime ball politician promising to strip the resources of small-town America and give most of it to Chicago, LA and New York...there would be a second civil war or the nation would quickly fragment into pieces!
>Democrats have won the popular vote in 4/5 last elections
Don't take the popular vote meme US, half of Mexico will always resent the other half cause we aways get a shit ton of commies in the senate and fucking PRI presidents all because our capital and their surrounding overpopulated shitholes like their gibs too much.
Learn how elections work and your first two will be answered. The 3rd is an opinion, no point in even bothering
This is not a popularity contest. Sure that works in the states, but the federal government is to oversee the union. Read the federalist papers
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
Neither one of those statements are or require an argument.
Those are literally leftist delusions.
most people are fucking stupid so being popular doesn't mean anything lol
>but srsly guize
FIRST we don't actually know if Hillary won the popular vote because you don't have to show ID to vote in American elections. Everywhere else in the civilised world they make at least SOME effort to make sure you only vote once and you only vote if you're a citizen.
SECOND if you want to run an election on popular vote terms you have to tell the voters beforehand. Lots of people in Texas didn't bother voting because they knew damn well it was going to be Trump. Lots of people in California didn't bother voting because they knew it was going to be Clinton. If you changed the rules and the next Presidential election was on the popular vote, more people would get off their asses and vote. But again, you'd have to tell them first.
Oh look CIA homosexuals putting in some OT. Go lick Barry’s halfrican asshole you degenerate Jew faggott.
popular with people who aren't from America :^)
chinks voted them in? or at least helped?
>Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Democrats have won the popular vote in 4/5 last elections
Bring up the fact that the DNC operates on a delegate system just like the Electoral College and that Hillary won the popular vote in the 08 primaries but still lost to Obama since he got the superdelegate vote.
>The last two republican presidents have been extremely unpopular and the last two democrat presidents have been very popular
Clinton fucked America over by implementing NAFTA, repealing Glass Steagal and creating the prison industrial complex. The tech boom was why the 90s were prosperous. Bush was a shit president but Obama's approval ratings were below 50% for the majority of his second term.
The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.
All Presidents since JFK and prior to Trump have been hand-picked by the derp-state/MIC/CIA, popularity is irrelevant.
>>Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Democrats have won the popular vote in 4/5 last elections
Popular votes dont pick the president. The electoral college does
>>The last two republican presidents have been extremely unpopular and the last two democrat presidents have been very popular
Popular =/= good
1) The reason we do not use the popular vote is to prevent one group of people from voting themselves gifts from the public treasury at the expense of another group.
2) Pollsters over sample democrats and the media shills for democrats.
how about, she is a dried up stinky dick licker?
Show me where the "popular vote" is mentioned in scotus election law.
To add to these points, the reason we have an electoral college is to prevent a regional candidate with no national appeal from becoming President. Hillary's victory in the popular votes, assuming its even legitimate, comes ENTIRELY from California. Without California she LOSES the popular vote by a significant margin. She didn't win the support of most of the country, she lost the support of most of the country and simply won Cali by a wide margin.
The reason this matters is because this means Hillary was a regional candidate. Her appeal was local, and therefore she was not fit to be President. The will of the entire country is not going to be nulled for the sake of the city of Los Angeles
Justin Bieber is also popular, doesn't mean he is good.
>dick
I believe it's spelled pussy.
she received less than the majority, and popular vote is irrelevant to the election for president.. before obama, no democrat running for president received a majority of the votes since 1976.
that is completely fabricated. clinton could not even get half the country to vote for him.
1. America is a democratic REPUBLIC not a direct democracy. Founders didnt want a state with a huge population to decide everything
2. Talk about results. Doesnt matter if they're popular or not
Easy
I don't see how skewing the weight of an individual's vote depending on where they live makes sense as a solution to this.
>the founding fathers created the electoral college
>somehow, Hillary knows more than they do
eat shit.
The U.S. is collection of 50 states, not N.Y. and California.
you don't say
This
Because the President isn't chosen by the people, they're chosen by the fifty States. By law the States can decide how they choose their Electors for the President however they like, its only by choice that they let the people vote at all.
The system isn't democratic and shouldn't be catering to the population, it should cater to the States. Which it does, by making smaller states votes more proportionally then their population would suggest. This way they have more say in the system then just a clique of the states with the largest cities.
Its not supposed to be fair in terms of balancing individual votes as equal, its supposed to be fair in balancing the States so they still feel represented by the President. Once you start viewing it through a federal logic instead of a democratic logic the system makes sense.
>Implying that Clinton was fucking Ike to anyone but the MSM
If Romney had beaten Obama in 2012 - which many if not most people expected to happen down to the wire - then Democrats would have failed to win the Presidency with the popular vote in 6 of 7 straight elections. 7 of 8 if you assume Romney would have gotten reelected last year.
If you're drawing your sample edges to maxmize your point, you're just MSM memeing, not using math.
>then Democrats would have failed to win the Presidency with the popular vote in 6 of 7 straight elections.
Plurality is still winning the popular vote.
Adolf Hitler won the popular vote as well.
isnt true
just winning the 11 biggest states wins you the presidency. Your point?
Ok, you got me there faggot.
>then Democrats would have failed to win the Presidency with the popular vote
Point is that cable news will find memes to fill up 168 hours per week. These memes don't amount to anything but "yep, we've succeeded in making people hate the Republicans they elect to office."
>it should cater to the States
Fuck the states. A hand full of rednecks in the middle of butt-fuck nowhere ride their cows to the election barn and decide the fate of the entire country because MUH STATES
Godwin's law. Your point is invalid
>Republicans have won the last 3/5 last elections, because the popular vote is a meme
>The current president has been extremely unpopular with the Jewish media and the three neocons before him have been very popular with said Jewish media
Obongo was the first president since Eisenhower to win with the popular vote.
In short, the popular vote doesn't mean jack shit.
Its just a system you can find flaws un other schemes, some countries have guaranteed congress seats for ethnic minorities. In the uk ukip won a significant share of the vote and only got like 2 parlament members.
Those 11 states have 54% the population.
You can also win with the smallest 40 states which have 46% of the population.
SHUT UP BITCH
The electoral college was designed to protect us from having someone like Hillary Clinton being elected to President of the United States. It protects us from race baiting demagogues.
Cool story bro.
I laugh Hysterically at the the 32 year old hipster still in school trying to get his masters in basket weaving that makes such an argument bc he thinks he's people.
Kill yourself. I'll comp the rope.
>>Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Democrats have won the popular vote in 4/5 last elections
she won it by like .7% of us population not significant in any way shape or form
I voted for Trump but clinton won more than 57 counties you double nigger. spend 2 seconds researching insane claims like that.
You do realise that you don't really need to argue? Just ask them who is in the White House... or tell them to read hillarys book what happene?
If the argument doesn't make you change your position than the "comeback" to any argument is "I don't give a shit".
Due to the nature of the electoral college many people don't vote because they aren't a swing state.
Many republican Californians don't bother voting because there isn't really a point, same for new york and other states. Due to the size of large states that are guaranteed blue voter suppression has a much greater effect on Republican votes than democratic votes.
It's not to say she still wouldn't have won the popular vote but if you change the game you change voter turnout, maybe if republicans who felt it was pointless knew each vote counted they would turn out enough to sway the vote.
And yet those 57 counties have over half the country in them you imbicile.
Country hicks and redneck inbred faggots live in the other sparsely populated counties and yet they have more political power than the majority of the country.
Pure democracy is mob rule.
>mom! the united states won’t let me rule with the tyranny of the majority! reeeeeeee
>confirmed rapist and token black man being popular equals good
Okay
the system doesnt care about popular vote
so the Dem strategy seems flawed
popularity isn't everything that's the first thing we teach kids
Oh and conversely yeah democrats might be swayed not to vote in deep red states but those states tend to have a low population that you get a tiny fraction of voter dissuasion whereas California leads to Millions.
I would assume with this election and people saying "texas will be blue!" I'm sure that democrats were more motivated to vote in this election in Texas than normal.
The fucking Kardashians are popular. Doesn't mean we should elect them to write legislation for us.
It makes more sense when viewed within the context of the entire government instead of just focusing on the Presidency for no reason. Electing the President via the electoral college is no more "arbitrary" than assigning caps to the number of representatives and senators each state gets - that is, not arbitrary at all. People vastly overhype the office of the Presidency. The only reason people peg all their hopes and get so upset about individual Presidents is because of the stripping away of individual state's powers. The answer isn't to strip away the Electoral College, it's to take power away from the federal government and give it back to the states. Keeping their power stripped AND taking away the College would be asking for even bigger problems.
...
1. Popular vote doesn't and shouldn't matter.
2. 24/7 Media propaganda.
3. Sage.
The presidency isn't a popularity contest.
...
The only necessary reply is
>so what, fag
That's it. Argument over.
1. We do nit live in a direct democracy, a direct democracy would end up with 51% oppressing the 49%
2. The last two presidents have been extremely unpopular with the marxist press, and who gives a shit what the helicopter passengers think.
the left has imported 30 million votes via immigration
>When your base is from Mogadishu