MUH B-BUT HILURY WUN THE POPULAR VOTE

>MUH B-BUT HILURY WUN THE POPULAR VOTE
>Literally only won popular vote by 300,000 where 120 million votes where on the line

And it's going to narrow as more votes come in.

But Cali urbanites shouldn't count anyway.

There are 11 million illegal aliens in the US, wouldn't it be entirely plausible for those people voting making the difference in Hillary winning the popular vote?

Supposedly I've heard that Trump has also won popular vote but the results aren't public yet. But that's already been predicted.

That is highly probable. It's also possible that there is a margin or error that isn't counted for.

Even if she did it wouldn't matter. Gore won it too and... Well...

Yes Trump will take the popular vote when it's all counted, Alaska and the military still haven't been counted.

Popular vote doesn't matter. Many people didn't vote because they already knew that their state was going deep red or deep blue.

>mfw 6 million democrats didnt even show up to vote for hillary

Thanks, libcucks.

I know it makes no difference in the outcome I'm just saying that all of the whiners crying about the electoral college probably haven't thought about it one bit other than it wasn't the outcome they wanted

Pretty much why I didn't vote. Waste of good gas. Our state always votes republican. I was going to vote republican. Why bother getting out of bed you know?

Most likely. Ask anyone whining how the EC system works and if they can tell you and they still whine I suppose they can...but I doubt you'll find anyone whining that understands it

> Absentee votes still unaccounted for
Wait until the counting's done before you declare a popular vote winner. It's projected to Trump's favor due to military voters.

The FEC will release the totals when it's ready. Be patient.

I'm not declaring it. I know Trumps got it in the bag. It's just what all the asshurt Clinton fans are saying.

Why does it make sense in the US that minority decides for majority?
>democracy
>literally asking

Even if you abolished it, it still wouldn't be completely fair to count each vote and apply it individually. All large cities are one giant hug-box/echo chamber for the most part. Look at any state, even red ones, all the big cities are blue usually and those people could care less about what farmers and Americans who live in rural areas.

This is the 5th time out of like 60 elections that this hasn't worked out 100% perfectly. That's not that bad. And if the roles were reversed liberals would be extremely vocal in defending the electoral college.

You would have to research Electoral College system to understand it. Our system works in such a way that big states like California and New York can't just decide every election. It makes it so the other 40-ish states that have less than 10 votes still have a voice.

Basically, a state votes all their votes on the winning candidate of that state. Trump wins in Mississippi then all 6 of Mississippi's votes go to Trump. Hilary wins in California then all 55 of their votes go to Hilary. It's basically always a David vs Goliath show every election.

States like Florida are called swing states because they have enough votes to really change an election (29 this year) and are very inconsistent with who they blow their wad on.

Cont...
For example look at this shit here.
This is considered close even though the majority of the map is covered in Red.

...

Exactly. It works for us very well but no one seems to understand it.

the framers didn't have such a huge overbearing federal government in mind when they created the US, and the electoral college, to an extent, is a measure to prevent an overbearing federal government.

Our system is set up with the Electoral College in mind, so that each state is represented. If a purely popular system was in place, then entire states and 95% of the country's geography would be hostage to the whims of about a dozen cities and counties (containing half the US vote). This also is a way in which States' Rights are protected, giving each state the ability to participate in the national election through electors.

In general elections, it isn't actually reasonable to take the popular vote entirely at face value. Here is why: Trump spent effectively 0 days, 0 money, and held 0 events in the most populated state of California. Do you think that if he had, he would have gained more absolute votes than his 8th or 9th rally in swing states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania? Of course. He could have campaigned there, won the popular vote, but then lost the swings and the election.

He played for the prize, and won the prize. If popular vote was the decider, then it could have played out entirely differently, because both candidates would be throwing their staff and funds at entirely different areas, with potentially different outcomes.

Christ it is so fucking disingenuous when either side cries about the popular vote when neither candidate was campaigning for it. A good analogy: "The Cowboys won 13-10, yeah...but the Redskins got more total yards!"

>"The Cowboys won 13-10, yeah...but the Redskins got more total yards!"
I'm stealing this.

That has to be the best analogy I've seen of this whole thing.

I kind of want to be in the "minority" so I get to use all my shitlib SJW language against them. Once you claim they're just trying to oppress a minority they do some amazing things.

It doesn't matter if it's by a inch or a mile, winning is winning